Talk:Unstable Terrain Artillery Transport/Legends

Template:FeaturedPast

Article milestones Date Process Result 5 October 2007 Article status not specified Success 14 October 2007 Featured article November 19, 2012 Re-Featured article candidate Failure January 9, 2015 Featured article
Current status: Featured article

Designations

Could someone be kind enough to lecture me on proper military designations? I´m a bit sceptical about naming ALL vehicles either 'Artillery' or 'Mechanized Infantry'. Is there really no other groups? VT-16 13:09, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• In the real world, there are tanks, Armored personnel carriers, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, recon/fast attack vehicles, self-propelled guns, anti-aircraft vehicles, and maybe some other specialized support vehicles. See Wikipedia:Category:Armored fighting vehicles by type. For Star Wars tanks, there are Armored Assault Tanks, T3-B Heavy Attack Tanks, XR-85 Tank Droids, Corporate Alliance Tank Droids, S-1 FireHawke Heavy Repulsortanks, and more. AT-ATs, Juggernauts, AT-TEs and many others serve as APCs, IFVs, and tanks somewhat. MTTs serve more as dedicated APCs. For artillery, there's the SPHA series, Mobile artillery, the Heavy Artillery Gun and of course the UT-AT. For light attack, support and recon, there's the AT-ST, AT-PT, and various combat landspeeders and "fighter tanks." There's also the All Terrain Anti-Aircraft, the Scout and Retrieval Vehicle, and the PX-4 Mobile Command Base.-LtNOWIS 21:48, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know all that. The problem is they don´t use those designations in the 'class' section of the stats, just 'artillery' and 'mechanized infantry' up till now. Should we write those RL military terms for the each vehicle, then, to be more precise? My only worry is what each will be defined as, since some vehicles serve more than one purpose (AT-TEs being both tanks and IFVs?) VT-16 08:55, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Unstable?

Are these really called unstable? --Jango

• Yes. MarcK 23:55, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that it's the terrain that's unstable, not the transport; it's designed to function on treacherous ground like weak bridges, thin ice, and the like. jSarek 01:40, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Artillery

The article mentions that shells and other artillery were kept outside the vehicle. Does this mean that the Cannons also served as mass drivers for the artillery and shells? I was wondering because I'm not sure if a laser cannon can double as a mass driver or not Jacenskylo 17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Considering this is Star Wars and the need for various sources not contradicting each other, I'm sure certain types of cannons can, and certain types can't.71.42.89.194 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Somebody please change the quote. It doesn't make any sense and doesn't add anything to the article. If a better quote isn't found within a week (and nobody objects to it) I'm going to remove it, unless I forget to or otherwise.71.42.89.194 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Use by Clone pilots...?

• Were these used by Clone pilots?--ARC commander4 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nooo....Instead, they were operated by mechanical Gungans. (<- Sarcasm) Of course they were used by Clone pilots, what else would drive them? 70.23.106.63 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Armaments

currently there is an "anti-infantry laser turret (1)" followed by two other armaments.... the last one being "anti-infantry laser turret (4)". so, are there actually 5 anti-infantry laser turrets? was there a typo where that first one was supposed to be anti-artillery? what's the story? i'm not going to make an edit addressing this because i don't know the answer, but it looks messed up.--204.246.205.46 02:24, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Canonicity within new continuity

Since this vehicle appeared in ROTS, shouldn't there be a tab for a Canon version of this article as well?

Smstachwick (talk) 07:17, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

• Unless it was identified in canon material as the Unstable Terrain Artillery Transport, it would have to be an "Unidentified Vehicle", which isn't enough incentive to create a page. Brules^{My Chit Chat Page} 07:23, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm kind of new to this, so I appreciate the info.

Smstachwick (talk) 00:38, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

• Glad I could help. Brules^{My Chit Chat Page} 05:07, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • • Pablo just confirmed about an hour ago that it is indeed canon on Twitter. Pablo also confirmed it here --ChristopherLeeGallant (talk) 17:51, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
      • So should we make a canon version of the article? It has been confirmed canon by Pablo Hildago as shown above.--Vitus Infinitus (talk) 23:57, April 12, 2017 (UTC)