Actually, only 50 seconds for twin guns of comparable capability to Slave-1's. And Slave-1 mounts only a pair of guns (contrasted with, say, the X-wing's four guns) that are arguably alot smaller than some of the guns we see on OT fighters (there's a reason why I call those ships micro fighters.) an X-wing should easily be able to pump out TWICE that amount.Batman wrote: For a single MT. And I doubt Clark is going to sit still and let himself be bombarded for a minute or five.
I was talking full weight.. but I suppose a tank is a bad comparison (an AT-AT isnt strictly analogous to a tank anyhow.. since it carries troops.)Er-yes? About a factor of three on avergage I'd say, and it's always the tank that is heavier. Which is why I assumed it's the other way round.
And tanks don't carry dozens of troops. An X-wing has a single pilot (as opposed to the 40 or so troops +3 people in the command section. In fact, according to the OT:ICS, a goodly majority of the AT-AT's internals are empty space!And that's totally ignoring the enormous size difference between an X-Wing and an AT-AT. In real life it's usually the aircraft that is larger. Furthermore, a reasonable percentage of the mass of the airplane is external stores. Excepting the occasionally used external fuel tanks, X-Wings don't HAVE external stores.
See above.. most of that volume is empty space (unlike an X-wing.) And unlike an AT-AT, an X-wing isn't designed to carry large numbers of troops.See above. The AT-AT has easily 20 times the volume of an X-Wing.
