Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gamblertuba

The K-wing AKA "The Homer"

Recommended Posts

K-Wing=A-10 Warthog, useful in the role it was designed, subjectively ugly, possibly obsolete/too specialized to be useful(even before production), a source of constant skub.

*snip*

 

All of my choices are subjective and not the point, the GCW is WW II in space.

Other than the A-10 not being a WWII aircraft, I can buy most of these comparisons ... I'd compare the K-wing more to a TBF Avenger or Sturmovik, though (or maybe the Y-wing is the Sturmovik, come to think of it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's a friggin' spaceship -- why should it look anything like a WWII bomber?  Ugh.

 

 

 

WW2 was kinda a major inspiration for Star Wars

 

I mean, have you seen the "space" physics :P?

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out the physics on the yt-2400.  

 

Maybe wave 8 will have propellers.  In space.  Awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

K-Wing=A-10 Warthog, useful in the role it was designed, subjectively ugly, possibly obsolete/too specialized to be useful(even before production), a source of constant skub.

*snip*

 

All of my choices are subjective and not the point, the GCW is WW II in space.

Other than the A-10 not being a WWII aircraft, I can buy most of these comparisons ... I'd compare the K-wing more to a TBF Avenger or Sturmovik, though (or maybe the Y-wing is the Sturmovik, come to think of it).

 

 

Yeah the A-10 isn't a WW II craft, not my point though. My comparison was more because of the large amount of skub both cause. You also have to admit it sure looks like a late war development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, guys, but space is no defense for a turret aimed at your own engine.

so the turrets on the stuka, B-25, B-17, B-29, A-20, TBF, SBD, B5N2, which all had turrets that had the tail within their firing arc, were all impractical yet they were used Responsibly and effectively.

 

 

Couple of problems with this.  Firstly, the planes which needed rear gunners had dedicated rear gunners not blocked by the tail - like the B-17, for example.  Secondly, the vertical stabilizer on an airplane is a much smaller target than the K-wing's engine.  It really blocks a huge portion of the only rear-firing arc on the ship, especially with anything dead astern.  It's a silly position for it, and a silly position for an engine.  I'll never understand why people lampoon horrible designs in real life, but defend them in science fiction and fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe wave 8 will have propellers.  In space.  Awesome.

You know, in Star Wars, a REALLY good designer could make that work.

Lucas gave us a spaceship with a sail! (I know solar sails are a thing bit they don't work like what we see at all.)

Let's be honest though the Solar Sailer was pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fighters had guns which shot right through the propeller. Battleship turrets could potentially point at their own superstructure. It's safe to say that this turret has a limiter to stop it shooting it's own engine.

 

That's totally fine, but it still is leaving a huge blindspot that isn't covered by a weapons system.  I'm not saying the gunner is going to shoot his own engine.  What I'm saying is that the enemy fighter pilot is going to line herself up on the K-wing's six o'clock low position, and there won't be a damned thing the K-wing gunner can do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fighters had guns which shot right through the propeller. Battleship turrets could potentially point at their own superstructure. It's safe to say that this turret has a limiter to stop it shooting it's own engine.

 

That's totally fine, but it still is leaving a huge blindspot that isn't covered by a weapons system.  I'm not saying the gunner is going to shoot his own engine.  What I'm saying is that the enemy fighter pilot is going to line herself up on the K-wing's six o'clock low position, and there won't be a damned thing the K-wing gunner can do about it.

The one in the front can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fighters had guns which shot right through the propeller. Battleship turrets could potentially point at their own superstructure. It's safe to say that this turret has a limiter to stop it shooting it's own engine.

 

That's totally fine, but it still is leaving a huge blindspot that isn't covered by a weapons system.  I'm not saying the gunner is going to shoot his own engine.  What I'm saying is that the enemy fighter pilot is going to line herself up on the K-wing's six o'clock low position, and there won't be a damned thing the K-wing gunner can do about it.

 

 

A medium bomber like the K-Wing cannot be expected to deal with fighters. If a fighter is firing at a bomber, that means that the escort is gone or insufficient both of which are not issues a slightly better field of fire on the tail gun will solve. Those turrets are there to keep the fighters honest and shoot them down if they get too cocky, which is why bombers phased them out. They were never very effective except for a brief period of time in between bi-planes and mono-planes when planes were slow enough to hit with a tail gun. B-17 through up a wall of lead in hopes of hitting anything. They soon realized a capable escort is far better.

 

Now as for Star Wars and X-Wing minis combat, whole 'nother story(as ones such as ficklegreendice constantly remind us...). See: Y-Wings vs TIE Fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fighters had guns which shot right through the propeller. Battleship turrets could potentially point at their own superstructure. It's safe to say that this turret has a limiter to stop it shooting it's own engine.

 

That's totally fine, but it still is leaving a huge blindspot that isn't covered by a weapons system.  I'm not saying the gunner is going to shoot his own engine.  What I'm saying is that the enemy fighter pilot is going to line herself up on the K-wing's six o'clock low position, and there won't be a damned thing the K-wing gunner can do about it.

 

 

A medium bomber like the K-Wing cannot be expected to deal with fighters. If a fighter is firing at a bomber, that means that the escort is gone or insufficient both of which are not issues a slightly better field of fire on the tail gun will solve. Those turrets are there to keep the fighters honest and shoot them down if they get too cocky, which is why bombers phased them out. They were never very effective except for a brief period of time in between bi-planes and mono-planes when planes were slow enough to hit with a tail gun. B-17 through up a wall of lead in hopes of hitting anything. They soon realized a capable escort is far better.

 

Now as for Star Wars and X-Wing minis combat, whole 'nother story(as ones such as ficklegreendice constantly remind us...). See: Y-Wings vs TIE Fighters.

 

 

Even if you expect the K-wing to have an escort, you don't give it guns that don't do a good job of protecting it, that doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have preferred if they had redesigned it based on the original Black Fleet Crisis description:

 

 

While The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels describes the K-wing as mounting laser turrets for self-defense, in The Black Fleet Crisis, it is indicated that the fighter has no built-in armament whatsoever, and instead relies entirely on its wing hardpoints to carry weaponry. The Black Fleet Crisis also lists the K-wing's third engine as being below the other two and at a slight angle to help the K-wing pull out of a dive, making its placement in The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels unlikely. Other discrepancies include the arrangement of the wings and cockpit, with most visual sources using a pair of side by side cockpits, while the Black Fleet Trilogy refers to the pilot and bombardier sitting one behind the other. Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition) addresses all of these issues, with the laser armaments and side-by-side cockpit arrangement being identified as later modifications to the vessel, and the "turbolaser" designation being a non-technical use of the term.

 

 

Or at least see someone draw that version. Sounds more akin to the LaAT or ARC-170.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have preferred if they had redesigned it based on the original Black Fleet Crisis description:

 

 

While The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels describes the K-wing as mounting laser turrets for self-defense, in The Black Fleet Crisis, it is indicated that the fighter has no built-in armament whatsoever, and instead relies entirely on its wing hardpoints to carry weaponry. The Black Fleet Crisis also lists the K-wing's third engine as being below the other two and at a slight angle to help the K-wing pull out of a dive, making its placement in The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels unlikely. Other discrepancies include the arrangement of the wings and cockpit, with most visual sources using a pair of side by side cockpits, while the Black Fleet Trilogy refers to the pilot and bombardier sitting one behind the other. Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition) addresses all of these issues, with the laser armaments and side-by-side cockpit arrangement being identified as later modifications to the vessel, and the "turbolaser" designation being a non-technical use of the term.

 

 

Or at least see someone draw that version. Sounds more akin to the LaAT or ARC-170.

 

Bummer. I would much rather see something based off of that description. Is it too late, FFG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even if you expect the K-wing to have an escort, you don't give it guns that don't do a good job of protecting it, that doesn't make sense.

 

So I guess all those planes with fixed forward cannons are just useless, then. Ok. That makes sense since, as we all know, strike missions are always flown with a single ship...

 

 

Yes. The K is ugly as butts.

 

Move on, people. How is this worth your time??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Even if you expect the K-wing to have an escort, you don't give it guns that don't do a good job of protecting it, that doesn't make sense.

 

So I guess all those planes with fixed forward cannons are just useless, then. Ok. That makes sense since, as we all know, strike missions are always flown with a single ship...

 

 

Yes. The K is ugly as butts.

 

Move on, people. How is this worth your time??

 

 

If you knew anything about strike missions, you'd know that aircraft with fixed forward-firing guns are using maneuvering to defend themselves, something the K-wing is not very good at (otherwise, why would it have turrets?).  Even planes which are attack dedicated like the A-10 are trained to use not only the gun in an air to air role, but also have sidewinder missiles as part of standard strike packages for self-defense.  You don't send planes into a fight without self-defense capabilities.  Planes like tankers and AWACS are always kept well back from the action, sometimes in the airspace of another country.  Every plane that is sent forward into "Indian country" is equipped in a way that enables it to defend itself.  It may not always be successful in defending itself, and the odds may be against it, but you don't send pilots into harm's way reliant solely on escorts.  And before somebody mentions recon planes, their speed and altitude capabilities were considered to be their defensive armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Even if you expect the K-wing to have an escort, you don't give it guns that don't do a good job of protecting it, that doesn't make sense.

 

So I guess all those planes with fixed forward cannons are just useless, then. Ok. That makes sense since, as we all know, strike missions are always flown with a single ship...

 

 

Yes. The K is ugly as butts.

 

Move on, people. How is this worth your time??

 

 

If you knew anything about strike missions,... [tl;dr]

 

 

And since that was totally, exactly my point, I guess you must be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As hideously convoluted as the K-wing is, I am beginning to want one just so I can attack it with a Dremel tool and some epoxy. I suspect there might be a good looking craft hidden under all those unnecessary parts.

That was what I was thinking. I like the hull and the wings. Not sold on the secondary wings. Turrets have to go, or be moved. And something's got to be done about the topside engine. I'm still on the fence about the ordinance, allthough that's apparently Legends Cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...