I think the E-wing had the most sensible spot for the astromech: inside the cockpit with all the stuff he needs to fix protected and not making a beautiful target for some gun-happy Imp.

Yeah, I don't understand why the N-1 doesn't just retract the R2 head, and leave it in the hull. There's no reason for the R2 unit to stick out like that.

I think the E-wing had the most sensible spot for the astromech: inside the cockpit with all the stuff he needs to fix protected and not making a beautiful target for some gun-happy Imp.

Yeah, I don't understand why the N-1 doesn't just retract the R2 head, and leave it in the hull. There's no reason for the R2 unit to stick out like that.

Well, there is ONE reason...

Toys.

The C-130 transport has several combat designator roles after retrofitting.

Can not, not cannot, as in "it is possible for it to be not". A transport can not be primarily built for combat, but combat is the only purpose of a starfighter, how do you, assuming you're not trying to sabotage your own design, not design it for combat?

Whether you do or do not get purely ceremonial tanks, quite clearly you could, w hich answerers your second question.

Ceremonial tank.

You're suggesting someone designs a tank for the purpose of driving it around at parades. The tank can't fight for ****. Is that even a tank any more, or is it a rather daring carnival float? Do you know what the German word for tank is? Panzerkampfwagen. Translates to Armoured Fighting Vehicle.

You can get ceremonial swords because a sword is an overgrown knife, stabbing people isn't inherent to its nature. Same with guns, it's an object for accelerating a projectile, that projectile injuring someone isn't inherent to its nature. But if a vehicle can't fight, can you really call it an armoured fighting vehicle? And if it can, if it is a combat vehicle, then its primary function is to use the gun on the top to blow up other vehicles. You can parade it around, but it's still built to fight.

"Heavy" and "super-heavy" tanks and Battleships, particularly around the time of WW2, were more often icons of national pride than entirely practical designs. While they are certainly combat-useful, logistical and strategic concerns make them poor choices on which to spend excessive resources. If you have some know-how, it is probably possible to point at any category of military equipment and find examples that were designed without maximum practicality in mind (excluding examples of "practical" designs simply failing to perform).

Practicality has nothing to do with it. A battleship is still built to battle other ships, even if its design is more of an ostentatious threat than a military practicality. However impractical it may be it is still a combat vessel: it's purpose is to sink other ships. And if it isn't, what is it for?

As for tanks, the idea behind a super heavy tank is that its armour is so thick that smaller tanks can't pierce it, the problem being they were too heavy to move. The reason we no longer have light, medium and heavy tanks is because

If the N-1's primary role is not combat, why is it called a starfighter, and what is its primary role? The Visual Dictionary quote is silly. It's a starfighter. It's built for combat. Maybe not heavy military combat, but it is built to ward off and shoot down threats to the Naboo system. It fights.

Practicality has everything to do with it. You are saying that things that are ceremonial are not built for combat. You are also arguing that a ceremonial/ornamental sword or gun design is not a contradiction because fighting with a sword or gun isn't a crucial definition, but that a ceremonial tank or starfighter is a contradition because no tank or starfighter would eschew combat practical capabilities for appearance and still be called a tank or starfighter. Of course you could still fight with a ceremonial sword or gun provided its sharpened or loaded, respectively, though the ornamental features could impede you.

Looking into history for precedence, the point I made about big military hardware like superheavies and battleships being national icons rather than practical military machines. Yes, big heavy tanks and ships are made for combat, but their designers/producers/operators make the conscious decision to continue spending large amounts of their scarce time and resources knowing the unsuitability of scale to military usefulness in these designs. They do it for appearance. They like looking at a big lumbering beheamoths popping out of their factories and giant ships floating outside drydock as visible proof of national military power. You see these sorts of decisions being made more often in peacetime, when a lack of urgency and feedback gives way to some real crackpot ideas of military warfare (which I'd say is a suitable fluffy explanation for why Naboo lost the war should have lost the war). Point being, ceremonial would not quite be the right word to describe the real purpose of that sort of design, but it is the first word that comes to mind.