Article NameEdit

Should this article be moved to "T-47 Airspeeder"? That's the official name for this vehicle. Snowspeeders are only one of the several variants. JimRaynor55 01:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • This article seems to be just about the Snowspeeder, which would not have been know as T-47 Snowspeeder, as all the modifications were aftermarket. Not sure what a better title would be, but certainly "T-47 Airspeeder" deserves it's own article on the standard speeder. I know both WEG and WOTC have a decent amount of info published on the stock type. --SparqMan 02:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This article really should be moved to T-47 airspeeder, because the term "snowspeeder" was a slang term for it used by the Alliance to Restore the Republic and the "airspeeder" term is the correct name. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:01, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree.-LtNOWIS 00:54, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Finally, it's been moved. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:19, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Technically this article should be called 'Modified T-47 airspeeder'. The Rebels modified the T-47 airspeeders into snowspeeders. I beleive the NEGVV says they added the blasers and other major changes. -Fnlayson 21:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Any possibility of getting an update simply on the markings for the snowspeeder? I noticed some are grey, some are red, etc. Perhaps an indication regarding their significance, if any, and which pilots had what.

  • Where do they have markings? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The grey or red stripes on the back, the grey stripe down the front, the "zz" by the copilot. I didn't know if these had significance at all, especially the color choices. I was thinking of the stripes on X-Wings that identify the pilot (Red 5, Red 2, etc), and wanted to see if anyone knew if the Speeders had similar markings.
      • I'm pretty sure they're all the same. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, just checking, since there's at least two different kinds. The grey ones and the orangish/red.
          • Pictures would be helpful. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I noticed this first with the toys, but if you look at the primary picture on the entry here, it has the grey markings. Scroll down, and there's an artist's rendering of the snowspeeder with the orange/red ones. Not adept enough to post pictures on here, or familiar enough with wookiepedia to know the rules yet.

12seraph 05:00, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

"Used to great effect by the Rebel forces"Edit

I'm thinking this line should be taken out? If anything I'd have to say that Empire Strikes Back shows the Snowspeeders getting annihilated by the AT-AT's as opposed to the other way around. I guess you could say that dozens of AT-AT's were getting destroyed off-screen, but I don't think that's quite what the movie intended - lalala_la

Article Improvements Edit

  • I can start describing the modifications made to the basic T-47 over the next few days. I have the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and it covers that. -Fnlayson 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Infobox is really describing the snowspeeder. I think 'Modified' should be added before T-47 airspeeder. Any other suggestions? -Fnlayson 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "(modified)" should be added next to features found on modified versions, not next to the name of the airspeeder. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That probably would have been messy. The Standard and Modified versions works fine. Now I need to expand on the modifications tonight and tomorrow. -Fnlayson 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that's what I meant to say. I was thinking of what you had done instead of what I was going to do. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Finished expanding and rewriting about the modifications. Not seeing anything at the moment, but tweaking will probably be needed. -Fnlayson 07:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Hoth Edit

In the ESB movie a few snowspeeders get blasted and one gets stepped on, but we don't know if all of them are damaged or destroyed. Maybe other sources provide more details. In any event, I think this sentence is worded about right. Despite this, many—if not most—of the speeders that participated in the battle were damaged or destroyed in the battle. But I don't think battle needs to be mentioned twice there. Any other opinions on that? -Fnlayson 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Guns? Edit

  • The data shows that the twin guns are part of the Rebels' modifications of the T-47. Shouldn't we then have an unmodified T-47 for the main pic?Tocneppil 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there even an unmodified T-47 image? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the article dealing with the T-47i (see: T-47I airspeeder) has an image which is similar in overall appearance, and since that article deals with a modification of the existing model, perhaps joining the two in a fashion similar to the YT-1300f and YT-1300p sections in their overall YT-1300 article might be the way to go here.Tocneppil 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I think this is a different situation than the YT-1300f and p. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Howso?Tocneppil 01:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm pretty sure the YT-1300f and p weren't considered modified. They were more of standard configurations, I believe. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Ah, I see where you're coming from. I probably should've used the numerous X-wing modifications as an example instead. Basically, my reasoning was due to the fact that while there was a modification made to the T-47, it wasn't enough of a modification to change the overall basic appearance of the craft itself, as seen with the accompanying pic, as opposed to the snowspeeder pic which has the twin cannons.Tocneppil 02:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point about the image. If the Infobox image had a caption, we could put modified with T-47. If the T-47I article was mergred with this one, the fact the image is the T-47I would need to be noted somehow/someway too. -Fnlayson 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, we could still put a caption in for the current main image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I changed the caption as suggested. Why did you go and change it back?? -Fnlayson 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Because that's not the caption. A caption would have to be created, because what you changed is the title of the article, just repeated in the infobox. I'll create a caption now, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote? Edit

Can anyone find a quote for the article? Unit 8311 11:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels lists Luke's quote from ESB about the AT-AT's armor being to strong and using the harpoon & cables. I don't think that's a good quote for the T-47. Maybe someone has a different guide or something with a better one. -Fnlayson 04:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question… Edit

  • ¿Why are there no pics of the civilian T-47? It is after all a civilian vehicle…
    • Probably because no civilian of note ever used one in any noteworthy fashion. Just use your imagination: picture it without the laser canons. That's pretty much it.Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • That really wasn't an answer.
        • Yes it was. There are no pics because no civilian of note (i.e. no character) has ever used one in a way that would make an artist need to draw a picture of it. jSarek 04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Force Commander Edit

I added that they appeared in Force Commander. They are the Rebel's primary air unit, along with the Y-Wing in that game.--Airstrike92 16:34, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Schematics Edit

Since the Essential Guide schematics don't match up with what you see in the film, could they be removed? 12seraph 00:56, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

  • No. The film does not specifically state the particulars. For that matter, would you insist that the exposed electrical wires on TIE fighter models that accidentally made it into the films need mentioning in the technical information here? They're in the films, so why ignore them? Because we accept some buffering of suspended belief during a film, for the same reason that the Millennium Falcon's interior could not possibly exist according to the size of what was shot in the films. GethralkinHyperwave 08:29, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • Do those exposed wires contradict any higher sources? No, because there ARE no higher sources. Why not? 12seraph 20:30, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
      • Bloopers aren't part of canon, though. Unless you think there was a giant potato in the Hoth asteroid field, and that camera crews with Earth-style equipment were actually present at the various times we see them in the movies. 10:50, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • On that note, who keeps putting them back after I remove them? 12seraph 00:11, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
    • Probably someone reverting what appears to be vandalism, which is what the blanket removal of info from an article is. GethralkinHyperwave 08:29, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection