Article milestones Date Process Result 15 July 2006 Good article nomination Success 19 July 2006 Good article 26 April 2009 Good article review Removed 17 May 2009 Former good article
Current status: Former good article

Contents 1 Size 2 Appearances 3 SPHA-M or SPHA-P? 4 Image 5 Clone trooper complement 6 Power Systems 7 Walker - the best means of mobility for the SPHA? 8 Republic Commando Appearance 9 Turbolaser? 10 Revenge of the Sith

SizeEdit

Unsure about the stats for this thing, is it 44 or 30 meters long? What about height or width? VT-16 12:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The official site of Wizards of the Coast, which makes the SW RPG, lists its "size" as 34 meters. Looking at all the other vehicles and ships on the site, "size" seems to mean length. JimRaynor55 16:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the length of 140.2 meters far too high a number? That makes it longer than a CR90 corvette... Trooper717 04:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It would also make the ability of an Acclamator to carry 36 of them to be questionable. And just looking at them, there's no way that the SPHA-T is 6.8 times longer than it is tall. If The New Essential Guide to Vehicles & Vessels is right about the 20.6 meter height, that fits very well with Wizards of the Coast's 34 meter length. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:44, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Appearances Edit

When was the SPHA with one (or more, perhaps) of its varaiations seen in Revenge of the Sith? I don't remember seeing it in the movie. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:50, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• It says the SPHA variations are seen during the Clone Wars, not RotS - though only the mass-driver version has actually been seen in any non-sourcebook material (Clone Wars micro-series)
  • Thanks a lot. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:06, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • The SPHA-T cannon is seen firing from inside a Venator-class destroyer. That´s it really. VT-16 11:13, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

SPHA-M or SPHA-P? Edit

I did a little research and am wondering--is the mass driver (or projectile) version of the SPHA designated SPHA-M (or MD, for mass driver) or SPHA-P (for projectile)? If there is a known answer, it would be good to include it to complete the parallelism with the other designations.

• There is no known answer as of now. It was speculated that it was "SPHA-M" in the article a while ago, but, as of now, it is unknown. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:39, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Image Edit

The current image is blurry and low-res. Does anybody else think we need a new one? RMF 20:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Which image? All of them look fine to me. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The infobox one. RMF 21:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, like I said, it looks fine to me. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I put the infobox image there because it focuses on one SPHA-T alone, and it isn't old concept art like the first image was, it's the actual CG model. VT-16 07:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It looked fine to me. This current image shouldn't be in the infobox. It should replace the third image, and have an image of a lone SPHA-T and nothing else in the infobox. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Since I think single, OOC pictures should go in profile boxes, I'm moving it back in and putting the action shot somewhere else on the page. VT-16 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Whoever has a problem with this current picture in the infobox you bring your issue(s) here. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I have no beef with the other pictures, it's just that the profile image should show something by itself and introduce readers to it. Everything else can then show it in context. VT-16 14:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't have a problem with it if it wasn't so small but, as it stands just now, I can't make out any of the details that should be easy to see when you click on an infobox picture. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I would have preferred a bigger image (it's from the Prequels:Chronicles btw.), but this was the only model version I could find. VT-16 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• The point is, Jaymach, people don't always click on an infobox picture to see it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The current infobox image is extremely blurry, hence why I changed it. Although I prefer infobox images where the article subject is the only item being displayed, there can be mitigating circumstances, such as this – when our only other available image is as poor as this one, I thing a good action shot is a better option. RMF 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I can always get a bigger one of the "sideways battery" shot. VT-16 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Are there any other images of just a SPHA-T and nothing else? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The only other was the old concept art, and that had some minor differences to the end-CG model. If anyone could get a high-quality version of the pic from SW Prequels: Chronicles, that would be great. (As well as that comparison shot I saw of the Acclamator, Venator and Imperator XP). VT-16 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Too bad... It would be nice if there was a good image of it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I have the book, unfortunaely my scanner is terrible. I can try to get a hi-rez pic if you want, but it'll proabaly be (a) not all that good and (b) huge in file size. Thanks, CommanderJB 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, don't bother. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Clone trooper complement Edit

WOTC and the NEGVV both say 20 clone troopers, while the Fact Files article says 30. We should probably state 20 in the article, but mention 30 in a BTS section. RMF 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response, RMF. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just wondering, do any other sources say 30? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Power Systems Edit

I have been wondering for quite some time; in the Inside the Worlds of AotC books, it says that the SPHA-Ts deployed on Geonosis had to be 'recharged' because their shots agfainst the Core Ship depleted them of power. This implies they use batteries to supply power. But other soureces say SPHA-Ts use reactors, which obviously cannot be 'charged'. Is ItW:AotC referring to reactor fuel levels, or what? Thanks, CommanderJB 05:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• It could be that after a while their inboard reactors needed more time to recharge before being sent into battle again. Unless they had to be recharged from the Acclamator mothership. VT-16 11:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's just referring to the interchangable artillery weapons. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Walker - the best means of mobility for the SPHA? Edit

Does anyone else find the fact that this thing is a walker ludicrous? I mean, look at it - a giant honking weapon, propelled by several tiny (in comparison) legs. This thing looks like it should have heavy tank treads to move it or something - as it is now, it just looks really unstable, like those legs could snap under the weight. - Darth Saito 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's canon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Didn't say it wasn't; I said I think it's ludicrous that it IS canon and that it's impractical. - Darth Saito 14:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, there's not exactly anything you can do about it. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Treads were the original concept but Lucas wanted a walker. Yes, it looks flimsy, but watching CW chapter 4, they appear to be gliding as they're being moved into position in front of Harnaidan. It's possible the legs are only meant to bear the full weight of the walker when moving through an energy shield or draining their generators during firing, with repulsors keeping it aloft elsewhere. VT-16 08:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• I, personally, agree with VT. As in the new Republic Artillery Guns, the SPHAT most likely uses repulsors to move and then grounds itself with the walker legs. This is however entirely speculation.--Shadowxander 09:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Republic Commando Appearance Edit

The SPHA-T appears in Republic Commando during the start of the first Geonosis level. When you are riding the gunship look closely and you can see one firing at a homing spider droid in the background.--24.148.222.64 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Turbolaser? Edit

The article says the main weapon we see in AotC is a turbolaser... yet it's a constant beam of energy, and seems far more powerful than any normal turbolaser they show in any other movie. They seem to be able to take down a Core Ship in only a few salvos, and the ones mounted on Venators can destroy a smaller CIS ship in one hit amidships, as shown in RotS. Wouldn't this be something more akin to a proton beam, or a very miniaturized superlaser?

Revenge of the Sith Edit

Are you sure that was a Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery in Revenge of the Sith?KitFisto19BBY 20:11, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

• Hey there! Yes. The Incredible Cross-Sections book revealed they were in fact SPHATs. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 21:23, March 16, 2012 (UTC)