Because you don't want to trap your enemy, you want to kill him, as fast as possible. In order to do that you want your shots to go exactly where you aim, especially in a high speed combat when the target is in position to be shot at for a fraction of a second and especially with such a low rate of fire as most SW starfighter weapons have.

Aircraft designers stopped putting mashineguns on wings as soon as the problem of the propereller blades getting in the way has been solved, and mashineguns have RoF several orders of magnitude higher than SW weapons.

Hi... been lurking here soaking up X-Wing news for a while, but as I'm a longtime WWII aviation enthusiast, I thought I'd chip in on this sub-discussion...

It's entirely untrue that aircraft designers stopped putting machineguns (or cannons) in wings after the propeller interference issue was resolved.

Want some examples? OK...

Republic P-47D thunderbolt (8x .50in machineguns, 4 per wing)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/90/0b/cb/900bcb6f4df290c41182a2db8e5ecef1.jpg

North American P-51D Mustang (6x .50in machineguns, 3 per wing)

http://m8.i.pbase.com/o4/69/661569/1/86462318.bPlPKRAC._DSC8387.jpg

Hawker Hurricane Mk. I (8x .303 machineguns, 4 per wing)

http://moore-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Airshow-ww2-33.jpg

Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIc (4x 20mm cannons, 2 per wing)

http://www.warbirddepot.com/dbimages/102/102-b-1280.jpg

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I (8x .303 machineguns, 4 per wing)

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/Photostory/RonnieMurray/1-24thSpitfire/Dcp03506.jpg

Hawker Typhoon Mk. Ib (4x 20mm cannons, 2 per wing)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Hawker_Typhoon_at_RAF_Museum.jpg/1280px-Hawker_Typhoon_at_RAF_Museum.jpg

Curtiss P-40E Warhawk (6x .50in machineguns, 3 per wing)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Curtiss_P-40E_Warhawk_2_USAF.jpg

Other variants of these aircraft carried different combinations of machineguns and/or cannons in the wings, and most versions of other famous aircraft (such as the Messerschmitt Bf109, Mitsubishi A6M series Zero Fighter, & etc. featured wing-mounted guns as well.

So the idea that aircraft designers stopped putting guns in the wings is just... wrong.

Anyhoo, back on topic: Really looking forward to Wave IX, and hoping that the ARC-170 rumor proves correct. I think it's a fantastic looking ship.

I doubt the Tie SF will be part of a combo, since I'm sure a lot of people will want to buy a number of them. Without having to buy another ship along with it every time.

While Heat Management, Shot Dispersion, and "Looking Cool" are all legit Sci-Fi reasons for Ships to have S-Foils, I also Always thought to myself that it was also related to maneuverability. Since star wars ships are in space and have no ailerons like the real world fighter planes they control like; I always imagined maneuvering was achieved through some sort of "inertial re-direction panels" or something and that spreading these out with S-Foils could provide a fighter with better maneuverability. So in Star Wars logic More control panels that are more spread out equals better maneuverability.

Sort of like an F-14 Tomcat. It can close its "S-Foils" to achieve maximum speed, while sacrificing maneuverability, and then open them again to slow down, but gain higher maneuverability for dog-fighting by exposing more of its wings control surfaces (I know dog-fighting is not something fighter jets really do anymore).

Time for some pictures:

Nieuports with top gun or cowling mounts:

RFC, can you name them all:

German's love a colorful palette, and twin guns are much more fun:

While Heat Management, Shot Dispersion, and "Looking Cool" are all legit Sci-Fi reasons for Ships to have S-Foils...

You forgot midichlorian dispersion levels. Every time a Jedi has a laser cannon by his cockpit bad things happen.

Jedi fly Eta-2 fighter: get blinded by Order 66

Darth Vader flies a TIE advanced: gets knocked out of Death Star by Han

Obi Wan flies an Aethersprite: lets Jango get away

Don't underestimate midichlorian dispersion people. It's serious business.

Because you don't want to trap your enemy, you want to kill him, as fast as possible. In order to do that you want your shots to go exactly where you aim, especially in a high speed combat when the target is in position to be shot at for a fraction of a second and especially with such a low rate of fire as most SW starfighter weapons have.

Aircraft designers stopped putting mashineguns on wings as soon as the problem of the propereller blades getting in the way has been solved, and mashineguns have RoF several orders of magnitude higher than SW weapons.

Hi... been lurking here soaking up X-Wing news for a while, but as I'm a longtime WWII aviation enthusiast, I thought I'd chip in on this sub-discussion...

It's entirely untrue that aircraft designers stopped putting machineguns (or cannons) in wings after the propeller interference issue was resolved.

Want some examples? OK...

Republic P-47D thunderbolt (8x .50in machineguns, 4 per wing)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/90/0b/cb/900bcb6f4df290c41182a2db8e5ecef1.jpg

North American P-51D Mustang (6x .50in machineguns, 3 per wing)

http://m8.i.pbase.com/o4/69/661569/1/86462318.bPlPKRAC._DSC8387.jpg

Hawker Hurricane Mk. I (8x .303 machineguns, 4 per wing)

http://moore-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Airshow-ww2-33.jpg

Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIc (4x 20mm cannons, 2 per wing)

http://www.warbirddepot.com/dbimages/102/102-b-1280.jpg

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I (8x .303 machineguns, 4 per wing)

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/Photostory/RonnieMurray/1-24thSpitfire/Dcp03506.jpg

Hawker Typhoon Mk. Ib (4x 20mm cannons, 2 per wing)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Hawker_Typhoon_at_RAF_Museum.jpg/1280px-Hawker_Typhoon_at_RAF_Museum.jpg

Curtiss P-40E Warhawk (6x .50in machineguns, 3 per wing)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Curtiss_P-40E_Warhawk_2_USAF.jpg

Other variants of these aircraft carried different combinations of machineguns and/or cannons in the wings, and most versions of other famous aircraft (such as the Messerschmitt Bf109, Mitsubishi A6M series Zero Fighter, & etc. featured wing-mounted guns as well.

So the idea that aircraft designers stopped putting guns in the wings is just... wrong.

Anyhoo, back on topic: Really looking forward to Wave IX, and hoping that the ARC-170 rumor proves correct. I think it's a fantastic looking ship.

I doubt the Tie SF will be part of a combo, since I'm sure a lot of people will want to buy a number of them. Without having to buy another ship along with it every time.

That would be top wing mounted gun. After the SE-5 the British discontinued the practice. That is why the Snipe and Dolphin did not have them.

By spreading the 4 thrusters further apart, perhaps it allows for greater variety of directional adjustment - firing just 1 thruster would give a diagonally off-centre vector, not just laterally (as when closed).

You all are way off. Next Wave will only include the Starspeeder 1000 and the Starspeeder 3000. Now we can have a true DeathStar dogfight.

Because you don't want to trap your enemy, you want to kill him, as fast as possible. In order to do that you want your shots to go exactly where you aim, especially in a high speed combat when the target is in position to be shot at for a fraction of a second and especially with such a low rate of fire as most SW starfighter weapons have.

Aircraft designers stopped putting mashineguns on wings as soon as the problem of the propereller blades getting in the way has been solved, and mashineguns have RoF several orders of magnitude higher than SW weapons.

Hi... been lurking here soaking up X-Wing news for a while, but as I'm a longtime WWII aviation enthusiast, I thought I'd chip in on this sub-discussion...

It's entirely untrue that aircraft designers stopped putting machineguns (or cannons) in wings after the propeller interference issue was resolved.

Want some examples? OK...

Republic P-47D thunderbolt (8x .50in machineguns, 4 per wing)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/90/0b/cb/900bcb6f4df290c41182a2db8e5ecef1.jpg

North American P-51D Mustang (6x .50in machineguns, 3 per wing)

http://m8.i.pbase.com/o4/69/661569/1/86462318.bPlPKRAC._DSC8387.jpg

Hawker Hurricane Mk. I (8x .303 machineguns, 4 per wing)

http://moore-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Airshow-ww2-33.jpg

Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIc (4x 20mm cannons, 2 per wing)

http://www.warbirddepot.com/dbimages/102/102-b-1280.jpg

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I (8x .303 machineguns, 4 per wing)

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/Photostory/RonnieMurray/1-24thSpitfire/Dcp03506.jpg

Hawker Typhoon Mk. Ib (4x 20mm cannons, 2 per wing)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Hawker_Typhoon_at_RAF_Museum.jpg/1280px-Hawker_Typhoon_at_RAF_Museum.jpg

Curtiss P-40E Warhawk (6x .50in machineguns, 3 per wing)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Curtiss_P-40E_Warhawk_2_USAF.jpg

Other variants of these aircraft carried different combinations of machineguns and/or cannons in the wings, and most versions of other famous aircraft (such as the Messerschmitt Bf109, Mitsubishi A6M series Zero Fighter, & etc. featured wing-mounted guns as well.

So the idea that aircraft designers stopped putting guns in the wings is just... wrong.

...

Again.

Every single of those aircrafts has a propeller. Synchronization is not a perfect sollution, it drastically reduces weight of fire, it is why designers placed MGs in the wings, spread is a negative side effect.

You know what IS a perfect solution?

Jet engine.

Go on, find me more than one example of an early jet fighter with guns in the wings.

Wings aren't so important for space flight, right?

So can we just view wings as a shelf to attach more guns to?

...

Again.

Every single of those aircrafts has a propeller. Synchronization is not a perfect sollution, it drastically reduces weight of fire, it is why designers placed MGs in the wings, spread is a negative side effect.

You know what IS a perfect solution?

Jet engine.

Go on, find me more than one example of an early jet fighter with guns in the wings.

You are indeed correct, post-WW2 jet fighters moved away from wing mounted guns, however I think you've missed the point. The space combat and ship design in Starwars was heavily influenced by WW1 & WW2, hence why the X-wing has wing mounted cannons (it's the SW equivalent of the Hurricane/etc).

Sure, post-WW2 when jet fighters became the norm, the guns were moved from the wings back to the fuselage (the better placement as you've mentioned). It's irrelavent though, Starwars ship design didn't take inspiration from that period of time.

...

Again.

Every single of those aircrafts has a propeller. Synchronization is not a perfect sollution, it drastically reduces weight of fire, it is why designers placed MGs in the wings, spread is a negative side effect.

You know what IS a perfect solution?

Jet engine.

Go on, find me more than one example of an early jet fighter with guns in the wings.

You are indeed correct, post-WW2 jet fighters moved away from wing mounted guns, however I think you've missed the point. The space combat and ship design in Starwars was heavily influenced by WW1 & WW2, hence why the X-wing has wing mounted cannons (it's the SW equivalent of the Hurricane/etc).

Sure, post-WW2 when jet fighters became the norm, the guns were moved from the wings back to the fuselage (the better placement as you've mentioned). It's irrelavent though, Starwars ship design didn't take inspiration from that period of time.

I can't agree.

The style of combat is clearly based on WW2, but the ships are not - X-wing's cannons are huge, not actually IN the wings, spread out as much as possible and slow firing, there is no real equivalent of such concept and the X-wing itself resembles (and sounds like) a jet fighter. Other original designs, TIE/ln, TIE/x1 and Y-wing don't look like anything WW2 related, and they have cannons in the fuselage.

You are all wrong, it came to me in a dream last night that Wave 9 is actually the Outlaw Star, the Cosmo Lancer, the XXXG-00W0 Wing Gundam Zero and the organic space craft, Lexx.

Alex mentioned it was a drastic move to NOT go any deeper into the now extinct EU but still affect the meta in unspeakable ways.

I can see quite the fokker menace there.

Wings aren't so important for space flight, right?

So can we just view wings as a shelf to attach more guns to?

First point: Atmospheric combat, although sufficient thrust can help there too.

Point 2: In space engineers i've been known to use wings as both weapons mounts and ablative armour, sometimes both.

You are all wrong, it came to me in a dream last night that Wave 9 is actually (...) and the organic space craft, Lexx.

Alex mentioned it was a drastic move to NOT go any deeper into the now extinct EU but still affect the meta in unspeakable ways.

Stanley Tweedle, Zev, Kai?

You are all wrong, it came to me in a dream last night that Wave 9 is actually (...) and the organic space craft, Lexx.

Alex mentioned it was a drastic move to NOT go any deeper into the now extinct EU but still affect the meta in unspeakable ways.

Were there crew upgrades revealed?

Stanley Tweedle, Zev, Kai?

Kai had Boba Fett's crew ability whilst Zev was actually a person that stood next to you and distracted your opponent, forcing missed opportunities.

You are all wrong, it came to me in a dream last night that Wave 9 is actually the Outlaw Star, the Cosmo Lancer, the XXXG-00W0 Wing Gundam Zero and the organic space craft, Lexx.

Alex mentioned it was a drastic move to NOT go any deeper into the now extinct EU but still affect the meta in unspeakable ways.

Don't forget Dr Who's phone booth and the Space Ship Endeavor.

...

Again.

Every single of those aircrafts has a propeller. Synchronization is not a perfect sollution, it drastically reduces weight of fire, it is why designers placed MGs in the wings, spread is a negative side effect.

You know what IS a perfect solution?

Jet engine.

Go on, find me more than one example of an early jet fighter with guns in the wings.

You are indeed correct, post-WW2 jet fighters moved away from wing mounted guns, however I think you've missed the point. The space combat and ship design in Starwars was heavily influenced by WW1 & WW2, hence why the X-wing has wing mounted cannons (it's the SW equivalent of the Hurricane/etc).

Sure, post-WW2 when jet fighters became the norm, the guns were moved from the wings back to the fuselage (the better placement as you've mentioned). It's irrelavent though, Starwars ship design didn't take inspiration from that period of time.

I can't agree.

The style of combat is clearly based on WW2, but the ships are not - X-wing's cannons are huge, not actually IN the wings, spread out as much as possible and slow firing, there is no real equivalent of such concept and the X-wing itself resembles (and sounds like) a jet fighter. Other original designs, TIE/ln, TIE/x1 and Y-wing don't look like anything WW2 related, and they have cannons in the fuselage.

Good gravy, have you ever seen the scene comparisons and what Lucas himself said?

It was all very WWII inspired- not so much the designs as the ways in which they fly around. Who friggin cares where the guns are on a ship in Star Wars? They can all VECTOR IN ON TARGETS AND GIMBAL as seen IN THE FILMS.

There's no denying or disproving that point..! Like, not at all! With the ability to adjust the vector your guns are firing at, who gives a **** about the placement practicality? Hell, in the game series of the same name, you can set convergence manually and automatically depending on your starship of choice.

Who cares?

Pardon? I wrote exactly that: "The style of combat is clearly based on WW2". I didn't say anything about "gimbal", I think it's a pretty obvious feature and indeed the very first movie shows it clearly.

I just said that there is no corelation between how WW2 fighters and ANH starships look, and you even agreed with that, so I don't understand the hostility.

Soooooo... back on topic about the upcoming Gunboat wave.

I feel good about a Wave 9 or Scum Epic announcement tomorrow.

Imperial Assault just had their big release.

Armada had their Wave 4 announced last week.

I don't think the card game has anything going on.

It's our turn, guys and gals.

Soooooo... back on topic about the upcoming Gunboat wave.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel good about a Wave 9 or Scum Epic announcement tomorrow.

Imperial Assault just had their big release.

Armada had their Wave 4 announced last week.

I don't think the card game has anything going on.

It's our turn, guys and gals.

But we just had HOTR....

Imperial Troop Transport

TIE Crawler

First Order Transporter

TIE Aggressor

All of these should not be made as they already exist.

Okay, I am dieing to know where these come from. You must tell me! You must!

As you demanded so nicely ( ) I will tell you:

The Imperial Troop Transport is a Micro Machine pack based on the Rebel cartoon series. The TIE Crawler also came from this series.... it is the Inquisitor's TIE with the wings pulled off and replaced with tracks. The First Order Assault Lander is a Black Series metal model. The TIE Aggressor is just a TIE Advanced that has been modified. I have included a tutorial for this here:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/178769-diy-tie-aggressor/

It is about the easiest conversion project ever as it requires mostly removing stuff and not much adding stuff.

I double dare anyone else to make one themselves....