SPHA-I? Is that supposed to be a SPHA-T? I was under the impression that SPHA-Ts didn't use ion weaponry? --Fade 21:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• I imagine that's exactly the difference; the "T" in SPHA-T stands for turbolaser, the "I" in SPHA-I stands for ion cannon.

• Hm, never heard of it- was it in the film? --Fade 21:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• No clue; I'm just making a supposition off of the obvious alphabetical implications of what was posted. I'm guessing it may have something to do with RotS, in which case I'm avoiding asking too many questions. ;-) JSarek 21:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Quote from SPHA-T: Other versions of the SPHA walker were deployed during the Clone Wars, including Ion Cannon (SPHA-I *), Anti-Vehicle Laser (SPHA-V *), Concussion Missile (SPHA-C *) and Mass-Driver (SPHA-M *) models." As you can see the SPHA-I is the Ion Cannon version of the SPHA. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Right, thanks- I think I'll add that to the T article and redirect SPHA-I there (scratch that, I should read more carefully, I'll just do the redirect, then).Oh, yeah, and and weren't the ones that took down the cores SPHA-Ts? Since they definately caused a large amount of structural damage. --Fade 07:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Can ion cannons disable ships w/ shielding? Edit

I mean, on TESB, the Rebel ground-based ion cannon on Hoth disabled that star destroyer temporarily, and several times throughout the X-Wing series, shielded X-Wings were disabled when they were hit by ion blasts (like what happened to Corran Horn in the first book, Rogue Squadron). Can an ion blast disable electronics on a shielded ship, or do they require that the shields be down first, like turbolasers?

• My guess would be that it has something to do with the power of the ion cannon. The v-150 at Hoth was a monster, so it's not surprising that a salvo from it would get through the shields well enough to temporarily disable an ISD. And X-wing shields are designed to protect against starfighter weapons; their protection against capital ship weaponry is limited at best. If ion cannons could just ignore shielding altogether, I'd expect them to be a lot more common than they are. As in, most warships would carry more ion cannons than turbolasers. After all, if ions aren't affect by shields, you could aim to disable the enemy ships at the start of any battle, then destroy or capture them at your leisure. Not to mention, planetary shields would be worthless. I know the range of the the v-150 is unusually high, but for orbital bombardment the gunners have gravity on their side; shooting from orbit to a planet's surface is inherently much easier than doing the reverse. In short, space combat and space-to-ground assaults in the GFFA would be very different if shields couldn't stop ion cannons at all. 68.47.234.131 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have seen nothing but conflicting "official" information about the topic of Ion cannons. The West End Games role playing game states that Ion cannons have a longer range than laser cannons or blaster cannons and that they can penetrate shields (shields have no resistance to these weapons). The X-wing Alliance: Prima's Official Strategy Guide says the Ion cannon has a shorter range than the laser cannon. and it also says the Ion cannon cant disable a ship with shields but the Ion cannon can damage the shield as well as a laser cannon, thus allowing the disabling effect once the shields fail. As a Game master, I find all this contrary information most troublesome. These authors need to communicate with one another or have their heads banged together in the hope of some benefit. -- Frank V Bonura STAR WARS Deckplans Alliance Founder 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kuat Drive Yards Edit

I have a feeling that Kuat Drive Yards are not the inventors or exclusive producers of Ion Cannons, so I removed the reference to them.