Is there any reason the image was switched? PsiSeveredHead 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibilities Edit

Was/is it not possible in-game to land a building on a siege tank and destroy it? -- ColonelChaos 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall that was a bug, but isn't that bug fixed? PsiSeveredHead 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the bug was the ability to park a siege tank and then protect it by landing a Barracks on top of it. If I recall correctly, it was then changed so as to crush a tank in siege mode. -- ColonelChaos 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

80mm, .80 cal Edit

I think that was just the author's typo. Now, I might be wrong, but I'm assuming the 80 caliber cannon refers to the dual guns and not the huge shock gun, right? 80 caliber is only 20.3 mm, so it has to be an error/typo. PsiSeveredHead 13:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, but it's stated that "its shock cannon sent blistering rounds overhead and its twin 80s raked the debris of the fountain." This is a reference to two seperate weapons. Also, 'raking' is a term that, as far as I can tell, is used for supressing fire by weapons with a high rate of fire, used to keep infantry heads down. This matches the situation.

--Hawki 21:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Splash Damage Edit

I believe its 15 aoe damage in siege mode. Maybe damage should read 30e/55e(+15 splash)

I'm fairly sure this is how the game actually calculates the damage, I don't see it being very fun to code doing damage to one unit and ignoring splash on that same unit while hitting nearby units. I think the targeted unit simply takes 55+splash for 70 total. Might be able to determine this because splash is not affected by damage types.

Secondary Tank?Edit

You know, that could just be another graphical upgrade of the Siege Tank. I've downplayed its existence at the StarCraft II and Siege Tank article pages until we know more. As always, interpreting images is a risk-filled activity. PsiSeveredHead 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Secondary Tank" Edit

The tank model was updated for BlizzCon 2007 after much negative feedback from the fans.

The so-called "secondary tank" (and the tank shown in the pics on the Siege Tank page) is the new version. It appears in all Blizzcon screenshots.

The "siege tank" is the outdated version. Stu Redman 21:41, 14 August 2007

I agree. I was thinking about it at work all day, and unless there's a text or interview source about a new tank, the "secondary tank" page will remain a redirect.

What Happened? Edit

Did the Tank change in Starcraft 2?

It looks different, and might have more hit points. Otherwise it's the same. PsiSeveredHead 13:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you forgot to put build requirements for all terran units? IG Battlecruisers requires a Deep Space Relay and a Star Base.

We'll get to that at some point. And please sign your posts.--Hawki 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I do that? Put my name?

  • Type this at the end of the sentence, start with [ [ then write User:*insert name here*, place a | then *insert name again* and end it with a ] ] after which you write the time and the data of the entry. No spaces between the [ and [. So it will look like this Sideways 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC). Hope that helps. Darth Batrus 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I got it.(Assaulthead 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Harry Potter Reference? Edit

The Crucio Siege Tank?

The Imperio Siege Tank?

What's next: the 'Avada Kedavra' Siege Tank?

- Abraxas, Lord of Zerg, Shear Monsters, and Necron 21:34, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Both the HP spells and the siege tank classes both derive their names from Latin. It's not a HP reference, just harkening back to the same source.--Hawki (talk) 22:35, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

That was partially a joke, because out of ALL the Latin words they chose, they chose the two also linked together by being related Harry Potter Spells...

- Abraxas, Lord of Zerg, Shear Monsters, and Necron 22:39, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.