Who CAN the Federation Ground Troops beat?

[Sea Skimmer]

[quote="tharkûn"]
Tear gas is pretty lethal in confined spaces. Using it on a disabled spacecraft is not the best idea when you want people taken alive and not suffering from asphyxiation. It also would screw up both optical and heat sensor systems, which screws over the Stormtroopers HUD's.
Umm I thought tear gas was IR translucent, asphyxiation only occurs if you have too much tear gas for the confined area, so much so that it begins displacing the oxygen. There are different types of cannisters for open air vs enclosed spaces. Most chemical weapons are designed for open air use because that is where they are most likely to be used. Its really just a matter of correct dosage.

You are correct that it screws over visual optics. However if your enemy only has visual optics, but you have IR (and maybe radar) its a *GOOD* trade to *blind* him and have yourself swap over to another system.[quote]

No, it blocks thermal in signifcant concentrations. Asphyxiation from air displacement is a big part of it, but the other effects on the nose and throat make it much easier for a person to asphyxiate because they are already bringing in less air.


Radar wouldn't work. The wavelengths/frequencies, which would provide resolution good enough for making out personal and the like don't work in anything but 100%, clear air and zero humidity. Basically, they work in the artic in winter when it is not snowing and everything is frozen, and nowhere else.

Just thinking, but if the Imperials torched a hole and then threw in grenades, they would be providing the Rebels with enough time to throw something back. A thermal detonator in the confines of a TIE boarding craft would likely wipe out the craft and the team.

The guard didn't appear to have anything but heavy pistols, but one would not want to take the risk, and they did only lose two troopers. The fact that a third was checking them when Vader steps though may mean one or both were not dead. I believe the armor has a medical monitoring unit that informs commanders of there status.

[Master of Ossus]

Tharkun, I have a couple of queries of you.

1. Are you saying that the US has no good soldiers?

2. Are you saying that the US assumed that Iraq did not have an ICBM launched nuclear weapon at the time of the Gulf War that was lined up on Israel?

3. Are you saying that the US assumes that its enemies have weapons that can destroy the entire world in a single shot?

4. Are you saying that the US must assume that the Taliban has a device that can create a black hole to destroy all matter in the solar system?

Also, Tharkun, you are assuming that the Imperial forces at Hoth did not have a contingency plan, in case the Rebels did have infantry weapons capable of destroying AT-AT's. Remember that walkers can move upwards of 40 km/h, and carry their own infantry forces. Had the Alliance troops demonstrated an ability to knock out AT-AT's, it is possible that the walkers could have withdrawn and then deployed their infantry forces, while asking Death Squadron for immediate reinforcements.

The Imps knew exactly what the Rebels had. They were looking at the base from SPACE, remember? They could easily surmise the nature of the defense.
Have you ever seen satellite photos? The only way you can get good data out of them is after *hours* of detail observation, preferably in a dedicated lab.

Have you ever read a book on SW? In Heir to the Empire, Thrawn said that they could detect walkers from orbit with their sensors down. Have you ever seen a sensor read-out from SW? It is probable that they could easily detect the kinds of weapons necessary to defeat walkers in the manner you describe. Your incessent use of modern examples is completely idiotic. In some cases, SW battles are quite similar to modern battles, but in many other cases they are quite different. You obviously have absolutely no idea how the weapons in SW would change the ways battles are fought, which is indicative of either a lack of common sense, or a lack of intelligence.

I also like how you assume that the Imperials had no intelligence on the Rebel base, AND that the Imperials had no way of scanning the Rebel base in spite of the fact that they were clearly able to scan the base. When Veers said to target the main generator, he was confident that the Rebels had no other generators that could be used to power the shields. You are an idiot for not recognizing either of these facts. The fact that you did not even consider either one of them indicates a complete lack of fore-thought.

Further, you disregard the possibilities that AT-AT blasts are vastly more powerful than rocket fire, you disregard the possibility that the Alliance would have been able to detect their landing artillery pieces, and you disregard the possibility that the shield would also protect the generators from artillery pieces that fired over the horizon. That is what you missed. You are clearly too stupid to be carrying this debate against people who have such vastly superior knowledge of SW warfare and technology than you do.

Incidentally, the Imperials clearly had targeting data. Their probe SHOWED THE FRICKIN' GENERATOR, DUMBASS! How can you not understand this? Your personal bet was a piece of crap.

You fall for the fallacy that because the walker's armor was thin, it must also have been extremely weak. Don't you realize that armor's strength only goes up with its thickness in comparison to other armor of the same quality? Don't you realize that modern ceramics and kevlar armored body suits are more resilient to small arms fire than the white armor manufactured during the Middle Ages while being thinner? Further, you assume that the Rebels had the ability to move in on the walkers, get underneath them, and open fire up at them. That is idiotic. You also assume (again), that other than Luke's lightsaber, the Rebels had a weapon that could penetrate a few centimeters of armor. You are an idiot.

Further, anybody with ANY real-world experience should know that tactics are not what win battles between forces with radically disparate capabilities. Was it tactics that allowed the Spaniards to conquer the Aztec? Was it tactics that made them wear bulky, heavy armor and carry useless bits and pieces of decoration while fighting against tremendous numbers disadvantages and against people who were used to the climate and used better tactics? Was it tactics that allowed the Soviets to eventually win the Winter War? Was it tactics that allowed the Soviets to beat the Nazis? Was it tactics that allowed the Americans to defeat the Nazis? Hell no. It was their superior abilities. How the hell can you say that tactics would allow a modern army to defeat Imperial forces? You are a complete and total idiot who demonstrates no knowledge of either military history or Star Wars. You hardly show any knowledge of real militaries, either.

Further, Tharkun, you assume that the goal for the Imperials was to take down their enemies while taking as few casualties as possible. You should realize that even in many modern armies, casualties come second to the mission objective. The Imperials were there for one reason only: to knock down the shield. They needed to do nothing more. With the possible exception of Veers, everyone there was expendable, and they probably all knew that. But their mission was to knock out the generator, and they did that.

You ask why Veers didn't report that. Maybe he did. If you read SW literature, you would know that he DID report the casualties to his forces, but that he also deemed them insignificant. You have absolutely no knowledge of SW and you are clearly in over your head.

Do you even know how strong materials are in SW? They are proportionately stronger when compared to weapons than they are in real life. Their materials are also "hellishly" more advanced, as well as just their weapons. Consider the force of a spear, thrown with enough momentum to throw a man across a room and nearly knock him unconscious JUST on acceleration/deceleration. Stormtrooper armor stopped one of those EASILY. Its integrity was not even compromised. Just because a weapon can go through meters of modern armor does not mean that it is a threat to an AT-AT. How can you not recognize this, if you know so much about militaries? We are not saying that Tungsten and depleted uranium do not exist in SW. You are assuming that those are the best materials possible for the job, when they are not. You are an idiot for suggesting this. You have an inane belief that SW is no better than modern technology, but you are wrong on all counts, here. SW technology is so much better than modern technology that most comparisons between the two levels are totally worthless.

Incidentally, Tharkun, it is STATED that that is the first time that AT-AT's engaged in combat against concentrated Rebel forces, and the first time that they had taken any casualties in the EU. If you read that, you would know that, but since you don't you make assumptions. Hmmm.... It appears that you are a crappy soldier. You are not only assuming that AT-AT armor is only as good as modern armor. You assume that we don't have debating techniques to kill people like you. You assume that we don't have any knowledge, when in fact it is clear that we have vastly more than you do. Go home, learn about SW, and then come back once you have something to say. Until then, don't come crawling over here spouting utterly moronic concepts about how SW technology does not work.

[Typhonis 1]

We are getting off topic here Peeps this is Who can ?Feddy troops beat not what is the material strength of Star wars aromor aloloys and Military tactics

[Vympel]

I have no idea how it got on to the topic of the Imperial attack on Echo Base but I sure as hell am going to argue it. Master of Ossus pretty much did a very good job but just to add:

""LOSAT is a dedicated antitank weapon system providing a high rate of extremely lethal fire at ranges exceeding tank main gun range, making it capable of defeating any known or projected armor system. LOSAT is a precision engagement system that enhances the Army's ability to dominate the ground maneuver battle. The key attraction of LOSAT is the tremendous overmatch lethality of the KEM that defeats all future predicted armored combat vehicles . "

Grow a brain that's the US militaries own weapon! Talk about nitpick. When Iraq gets a LOSAT equivalent, then what I said would be false. Nice quote of fas.org/man by the way, the site all amateurs go for military information (no comment on the mech infantry mistake, concession accepted btw). Also, while LOSAT might have impressive armor penetration abilities, its not a good weapons system and in its current form will not be adopted- become a member of g2mil.com if you want to know why its sub-optimal (aside from other reasons which I cannot remember- the fact that the damn thing doesnt have a turret and is unguided is a big mark against it).

"Are you French? This is the thinking behind the Magino Line. Its main guns pointed forward (incapable of reversing firing direction) and into Germany, it did not extend to the coast because it was assumed that the French Army would have time to assemble if the Germans went through Belgium again. However the tanks and the Blitz were new technology and tactics. They had *never* been witnessed before, they were, in the opinion of the French Military, nonexistant threats."

WTF? Who makes a comparison comparison between a mobile mechanized infantry force attacking a target which they already have reconaissance on (probe droid/space recon- suck it) and a fixed defense line?! Jeezus... its not as if the AT-AT force couldn't have CHANGED its tactics in the face of a DIFFERENT DEFENSE.

"On the the sides this might mean they have multiple layers, however underneath we see a frikking pathetic little strip of metal which is right next to enough ordinance, fuel or whatever to blow the whole thing."

ONE TINY HATCH ON A MASSIVELY ARMORED VEHICLE AT A AN ANGLE WHERE IT IS *EXTREMELY DIFFICULT* TO GET A SHOT. What negligence! This is like saying that tanks should have extremely heavy rear armor because they don't know if they're gonna be hit in the rear. There's your modern military knowledge again

"Further if we assume basic compotence you use combined armed ... naval support. Its pretty hard to lose if your supporting fire is coming from an ISD."

Theater Energy shields. Nuff said.

"Look I don't care if you have Yoda himself check the terrain ahead if its too soft you don't go. For instance let's say an AT-AT comes up to a bridge, if the bridge ain't strong enough not matter where you set the foot down, the bridge is going to give.

Infallible is one of those BS words that tells you the guy who is saying it is either talk about some God figure or has no frikking clue (or both) its just as lame as "100% efficiency". In combat you have to expect your sensors to fail, especially given that it's the reb's home turf (meaning they have the advantage in transmitter size, power generation potential, etc.)."

ASSUMPTION ASSUMPTION ASSUMPTION.

"The German ariel super weapons. Late in the war the Germans began chruning out all sorts of nifty air tricks (like old planes loaded with explosives as uberbombs, jets, etc.). Because the Brits (predominantly) were thinking about tactics for faster airplanes (given German tech) and bigger bombs, these had relatively little impact."

ROFL!!! Shows what you know. The reason the jets were ineffective was because miniscule numbers were built (only 1000+ Me-262s) and the fuel for them was destroyed. In addition, the quality of German pilots in 1944-45 (the period of the jets widespread introduction) was DEPLORABLE.

"Likewise on the Pacific front the Zero was brand spanking new technology. However one Pilot had already been thinking about the situation of very fast, very agile planes and ways to fight them from slow ones ... hence the highly effective Thatch Weave bears his name"

HAHAHAHA!!! I told you we're talking about THE FIRST ENCOUNTER. Zeros massacred US pilots up until the tactic was developed. The tactic was not developed immediately. Zeros were wrongly considered invincible for a while.

"We specialized top attack grenades came out as AT weapons in WWII, somebody had the brilliant idea that having some infantry behind you who can nail these suckers was a good idea."

HAHAHAH same thing! And when they first used these, where were the infantry?

"BTW I'm curios what proof do you have that this is the *first* time AT-AT's have gone down in this manner? As noted before Veers is not surprised, Vader says nothing, nobody calls up and says, "Hey boss they are using this crazy tactic and it just killed one of us."

First time. Star Wars trivia. If you're gonna debate it, know it.

"That is a reason to shoot AT-ST's, not aim at the knee joints of AT-AT's and above (over the head of any AT-ST)."

Which was done! We saw no AT-STs at the end of the battle. However, anti-tank gunners with ineffectual 37mm and 50mm guns tried to stand up to the well-armored T-34s on the Eastern Front still fired their guns, hoping to get a lucky shot (i.e. shot trap, or disabling shot on the turret right, etc). When you think about it, the AT-ATs legs are the most obvious thing to target- moving parts- most likely to fail if subjected to firepower. Of course, their weapons were not up to the job- the legs were too heavily armored.

"Think about it. Stormies enter the base before the sheild goes down, the men do not retreat out of the trenches until after Leia gives the evacuation code, and then the retreat order is give (which stops reb fire on the walkers). How did the troops get off the walker if rebel fire was supressing them, and it didn't let off before?"

Obviously the suppressive fire was not very effective at that stage of the battle- arty had been blown away, troops had been killed!

[Vympel]

Never mind:

THE LOSAT FRAUD

http://www.g2mil.com/Losat.htm

[Vympel]

Just note that the link is to show you that not everything the US military says about a weapon should be taken as gospel (thats all fas.org has most of the time), and has nothing to do with the attack on Echo Base. Check out the 1st Tactical Studies Airborne Group as well for other criticisms of US weapons programs (V-22 Osprey, Stryker IAV, etc)

[Vympel]

Thank you Curtis Saxton for Star Wars Technical Commentaries:

"AT-AT walkers are essentially invulnerable to conventional artillery fire. Their hull surfaces absorb and dissipate blaster bolts without the vehicle feeling so much as a jolt. This supports the notion that shots from energy weapons carry very little momentum (making the bolts light-like). The recoil and other kinetic effects When less armoured materials are shot, a puff of vapourised matter expands violently away from the blast point and this can account for recoil and jolting. Kinetic effects may also result from bolt-shield interactions on a shielded vehicle, as shields may carry momentum and angular momentum. AT-AT walkers are not proven to be shielded, but they could have enough of an unarmoured veneer (eg. paint?) to account for an almost imperceptible amount of jolting under fire.

Only three points of vulnerability in the AT-AT hull are known at this time. One was the hatch used by Luke Skywalker to penetrate a concussion grenade into a walker's interior. That weak spot is hidden beneath the lips of the lateral hull armour amidst the walker's drive mechanisms. The second weakness is the pair of open vents just under the armoured upper shelf of the front face of the main hull. One snowspeeder on Hoth strafed and missed these vents on an upright AT-AT, before Luke Skywalker decided his trip-cable tactic. After the first walker fell, a 'speeder made a similar frontal attack without fear of the walker's head guns. A precision blast to a (presumably unarmoured) neck section exploded the AT-AT immediately. These soft spots are probably well-known to rebel pilots, in theory if not necessarily in practice.

The AT-AT walkers are astonishingly resilient to enemy fire from the outside, but are easily demolished from within. This is an important clue about the nature of the armour. Its effectiveness may be directional. Or it may be essentially designed for energy attacks, with an enormous heat capacity and thermal conductivity, so absorbed blaster bolts heat a large patch of hull slightly rather than heating a localised area to the point of vapourisation (which is what happens with ordinary materials). It remains uncertain whether these unusual properties are innate to the armour material, or are the result of augmentation by something akin to an energy shield suffusing the hull of an active walker. If the properties are innate to the material, then the armour may incorporate forms of matter beyond those available to modern chemistry and nucleosynthesis on Earth.

The resistance to blaster fire is not just a ray shield projected out to some distance from the surface of the vehicle, as a starship would use. If it was a ray shield, we would expect to see absorbed bolts splinter into a shower of relatively harmless daughter bolts, as is the known behaviour of ray shields in space."

In one fell swoop, we have:

- the weak spot Luke exploited would be pretty damn ridiculously hard to hit with a weapon
- the reason why the snowspeeders were attacking from the front (vent and neck attacks)
- reasoned conjecture on the nature of walker armor

[Coyote]

Tharkun:
The most effective AT squads today work from HUMMVs with bigass missiles that are not man portable.

Actually, the most effective ATGMs today are mounted on either M113 chassis (the TOW 'Hammerhead' battalion we worked with at Fort Carson with the 1/12th Infantry) or the newer versions, mounted on Bradleys or the latest addition to the arsenal, the Stryker four-axle APC... you're thinking of the old TOW-mounted M-151 Jeep MUT, which was more of a Marine thing than Army. Some HMMWVs are equipped with TOWs but their poor armor (and the superior cross-country mobility of things like the Stryker and Brad) make this a poor man's choice for ATGM cover. In my experience, only the Israeli army (specifically the Golani Brigade) uses man-pack TOWs and it is not the norm.

Tharkun:
Further the M1 is not "nigh to invunerable", this is why I bring up the LOSAT KEM ... it is currently the reigning champ for armor penetration, at least as such as I am aware.

First I've heard of it, but then I'm not R&D... but so far the M1 series armor is the god of the battlefield, the Chobham and DU mesh combination shrugged off main gun rounds from Iraqi T-72s: 125mm APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot). Not a single M1 was lost to Iraqi tanks-- although a few misguided M1s took out other M1s... the caveat to this? The Iraqis were using main gun rounds home-brewed in Iraq, so the ability to withstand a properly-built Russian made factory round is still up in the air.
[/quote]

[Coyote]

In the course of the discussion-- the tactical incompetence of the Federation redshirt brigade vs. such examples as the Imperial Army, we got into just whether the Imperial Army itself is worth a fart in the breeze. I still go back to what I stated earlier which (I will hazard a guess) is the prevailing view among most of the 'discusees' here--

--The Imperial Army, while we may be able to recognize and pick at certain real-world tactical fallacies, still has its fecal matter conglomerated in a fashion that the Fed troops could only dream of.

Lets face it, a sub-thread throughout all this is the fact that scifi movies in general are usually quite deficient in showing any ground combat at all, and when they do it is usually poorly done. I'd say that thre Imperial performance is the best showing to date by any sf ground army. Why? Simply because while the Impies may not use their support elements and weapons system to their fullest potential or best advantage, they at least do have these additional systems and make an attempt to employ them. The Feds have mostly pistol-type weapons with no sights, a few rifles, and the rare appearance by mortars or rocket projectiles.

SciFi movie makers are generally not veterans, and of course they will usually opt for 'looks cool' over 'looks real' 9 times out of 10. And even the Impies suffer from the oldest and worst of movie battle scene gaffes-- the standing up, firing from the hip Rambo tactic. SF fans-- that's us, the movie going and paying audience-- need to get more vocal with our praise or criticism when applicable. Modern war movies ('Black Hawk Down', 'Saving Private Ryan') take the effort to get it right because they know that their target audience eschews brainless Rambo-isms and wants authenticity.

Just a sidebar rant.

[Vympel]

LOL! "shit conglomerated" most amusing term for getting their shit together I've ever heard, is it alright if I steal that?

Agree Coyote. I think its pretty much implied in such arguments, considering canon, that you shouldn't really move out of the sci-fi world too much- its basically like not being allowed to argue special fx gaffes- we can draw the obvious common sense advantages of a Blastech E-11 and a Federation phaser with our 'real life' knowledge.

But its an entirely different matter to infer INCOMPETENCE and NEGLIGENCE (as Tharkun is saying) because the Imperials attacked in such a manner that they'd be vulnerable to weapons that have never EVER been seen in a Star Wars film. Yes, maybe kinetic energy anti-armor weapons like APFSDS rounds etc. should exist in the SW universe, but the fact of the matter is that their is no evidence for them.

The only anti-armor weapons we know of in SW are:

Trade Federation battle-tank (from Episode 1 ICS) is armed with the following weapons for the pretty much useless six-launch tubes in the vehicles hull:

- 'armor piercing' shell: this could be KE but based on all the other evidence, and the way it looks, it is more likely a HEAT-type equivalent, or some unknown type. The other two ammunition types carried are
- 'bunker buster'
- 'high-energy': all-purpose round for use against soft vehicles and infantry

Galactic Republic AT-TE:

- turret mounted missile launcher (variable yield) utilizing mass driver. That its called a missile launcher and that it has variable yield means its *DEFINITELY NOT* a KE weapon (KE weapons do not have explosive yield and why one would want to use less speed to kill a target is beyond me)

And of course:

- energy weapons (both AOTC and ESB)
- chemical explosives- i.e. anti-tank missiles of the Hailfire droids (AOTC)

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Well, an AT-ST in ROTJ stood up to several heavy rocks, so, I think an AT-AT could take far heavier punishment.

[Guest]

Is that supposed to be a joke? I should hope that an advanced piece of armor could resist a few rocks from a primitive catapult. Anything less would have been a joke. Incidentally, how would a modern main battle tank fair against two large tree trunks being smashed against it?

[Sea Skimmer]

Is that supposed to be a joke? I should hope that an advanced piece of armor could resist a few rocks from a primitive catapult. Anything less would have been a joke. Incidentally, how would a modern main battle tank fair against two large tree trunks being smashed against it?

Not to well. The hits would smash the rollers and treads, and likely jam the turret at the least. Something lighter like an LAV-25, would be crushed much the same way as the AT-ST.

[Mr Bean]

Considering what they could do back then

This

Is a picture of a trebuchet strong enough to throw that water jug there 300 Meters or roughly 3.28 Foot-Ball Fields, OR a Rock about the same size and shape 250 Meters and still have enough Force to break Castle Walls
With a hard enough object(Such certian rock types) you could put holes through Steel under 100 Meters and thats saying somthing


And I just had a thought, Hmm I wonder, Well exuse me I have to send GAT a message

[SirNitram]

Oddly, there are a few kinetic penetrators in SW.

The top gun of the AT-TE is a railgun.

A sort of flak-cannon for Stormtroopers is described in the Essential Guide To Technology.

Zam's rifle in AOTC.

Now, if you want an example of kinetic penetrators against SW armour, I refer you to a quote Mike references regarding a spear thrown at immense speeds...

"Qorl stood inside the training chamber holding a wicked-looking spear in his black-wrapped left hand. His droid replacement gripped the gleaming shaft with enough force to dent the metal."
...
"He cocked his droid arm back - and hurled the deadly weapon ..."
"Norys slammed into the wall, his helmet ringing against the hard metal bulkhead. His vision sparkled with impending unconsciousness."
...
"He looked down at his chest in amazement and saw only a nick in the white armor where the spear had struck."

From the novel, Lightsabers.

There is no known way to make something resist a strike that throws you across the room. But it happened.

[Master of Ossus]

You will note two more things about the passage.

1. Qorl's arm is a cybernetic replacement that is stronger (by a lot) than human arms. The spear had enough momentum at the time of impact to nearly knock Zekk unconscious just with its acceleration/deceleration.

2. The armor was not compromised in any way. Despite the abundance of replacement pieces, that particular unit of armor continued to be used by that individual. In other words, the armor's ability to protect the soldier had not been diminished in any way. This indicates that SW armor is astonishingly resilient to KE weapons.

[Coyote]

Yeah, a good solid KE hit can knock the most advanced armor for a loop, even if it is just a temporary disorientation. In some of the fiction I wrote I had a ship get slammed by another ship's mass-drivers; the target ship's shields held and the structural integrity was unharmed but it still tossed things around quite dramatically and the computers all "rebooted", leaving the vessel pretty much just dead weight for awhile...

But there you have it-- I think that good scifi movies (or literature) needs to inject a healthy dose of realism from time to time otherwise we get Starhip Troopers, which could have been a good movie in the right hands (but then, wasn't the director the same guy that did "Showgirls"?). That's why I advocate things like "Hammer's Slammers" and now a new one I've found, Tanya Huff, who wrote "Valor's Choice", a cool scifi reinterpretation of the Battle of Rorke's Drift from the Zulu Wars. Her dad was a Marine in Korea and his input shows. She herself (I belive) to be a History teacher, whether she ever actually wore cammo for a living I'm unaware. But no matter-- Huff, like Tom Clancy, does enough research and interviews to cover any lack of experience. That's dedication I like to see.

I suppose the makers of scifi feel that we are more interested in the escapist fantasy elements of our chosen genre, and less interested in the gritty reality. But I think we can have more gritty action and realism-- remember, one of the things that was so cool about Star Wars when it came out was that the ships, speeders, all the technology looked 'used'-- battered, rusty, dented and dirty-- more 'real'. Same thing with 'Aliens', which a friend of mine described as a 'dirty baseball-cap' kinda universe.

War movies used to be excersizes in Rambo-esque silliness until audiences wised up and their willingness to spend money corresponded with the amount of dedication that the directors put into their product. We should be as picky. And when the directors get their "fecal matter conglomerated" (Heeheehee... that is a phrase to be shared and used, Vympel!) they'll be rewarded with more fan loyalty...

[Vympel]

Oddly, there are a few kinetic penetrators in SW.

The top gun of the AT-TE is a railgun.

A sort of flak-cannon for Stormtroopers is described in the Essential Guide To Technology.

Zam's rifle in AOTC.

All three are not 'kinetic' weapons the way we are discussing them- we are talking kinetic energy anti-armor weapons (i.e. a hunk of metal, in real life nowadays its a thin sabot, shot very fast at enemy armor- nothing more- no chemical explosive warhead at all)

I dealt with the AT-TE gun: read my above post, it's a variable yield missile launcher, not a kinetic-enery anti-armor weapon.

A flak gun *may* fall into this category either- its a shell that explodes, showering enemy with hot shards of metal, but its definitely not an anti-armor weapon. Is it the Golan Arms FC-1? In Jedi Knight II its cool

The rifle yeah but its not an anti-armor weapon.

[tharkûn]

Okay this is the last time I even *try* to reply to everything. If you guys want to continue, pick *1* representative who:
1. Swears he will type everything himself (I don't want somebody who will C&P 12 different arguements from other people.
2. Has some semblance of a life off the internet.
3. Starts a new thread for that purpose.
4. Sends me a private message that he's going to be the debater and any conditions he'd like to lay out.

My reccomendation is you go with Vympel, but whatever. Just elect one guy as your champion and we can continue if you like.

[tharkûn]

If the Empire doesn't have infantry support weapons that can penetrate the armor of AT-ATs, and there was no indication that any such weapon did or could exist, it was a perfectly logical assumption that the Rebels didn't have any.

Quoting from the TESB script:

The magnetic head and cable attach firmly to the metal hull.

Now please note the official source says *metal*. Not a ceramic, not a mixture of cermanics and metal - metal.

Which is defined as:
1. abbr. M Any of a category of electropositive elements that usually have a shiny surface, are generally good conductors of heat and electricity, and can be melted or fused, hammered into thin sheets, or drawn into wires. Typical metals form salts with nonmetals, basic oxides with oxygen, and alloys with one another. 2. An alloy of two or more metallic elements. 3. An object made of metal. 4. Basic character; mettle. 5. Broken stones used for road surfaces or railroad beds. 6. Molten glass, especially when used in glassmaking. 7. Molten cast iron. 8. Printing Type made of metal. 9. Music Heavy metal.

By the American Hertage of the English Language dictionary.

#1 fits, but all the stable ones have already been found. #2 also fits, but again that is encompassed in modern science. Even the strongest alloys have their limits (evenetually you just reach the limit of electron attraction).

not some New Fangled Particle of the Week ... Metal.

Now then what about some type of sheild? Well Luke not only cuts his way into the walker, he sticks his hand up inside. If an AT-AT had any sheilding down there ... he wouldn't have been able to do it.

So just how powerful a KEP is possible given observed rebel technology? Well let's begin with the Luke's torp in ANH. It travels down the death star shoot, let's call that 40 km. And from the point of launch to the DS1 blowing up is about 10 seconds. This suggests an *average* velocity of 4000 m/s. Let's say that torp masses 25 kg. That means the sucker has 4*10^8 joules of KE. Its momentum is up at 1*10^5 kgm/s.

But does the torp have the time to accelerate to those velecities on a near vertical shot at an AT-AT?

Well AT-AT's are 30m tall. Let's aim for 25m. Now Luke's torp executed a turn at 10,000+ g. That implies some engine providing that force. Let's strap that engine to the back of the torp. Position = 25 m = 49000t^2. So all told we have a burn time of .071 sec. That gives us an ending velocity of 7000 m/s.

So how does that measure up to modern pentrators? Well the stock KEP for the M1A2 Abrams logs in with 6*10^6 joules of KE. It's momentum is 5*10^3 kgm/s. (assuming I converted from archaic to metric correctly).

In other words take a SW engine, stick a penetrator on the front and it can kick the crap out of decimetres of any metal.

In short, dumbass, the SW has everything it frikking needs to make high energy KEP's. Unless they have no uranium or have forgetten how to shape hard metals or some other silly excuse.

Your assumptions of Imperial capabilites based on modern-day abilities (satellite photos come to mind) are laughable.
Sigh. Do you have any frikking clue how small things like infantry weapons are from orbit? Do you realize that things like truncation artifacts and the like happen regardless of what system you use. Do you realize that the rebels are located in an *enclosed* shelter cut into ice? Getting details about things stored in closed buildings (especially when the Imps can't find the MF in an asteroid feild later) is nigh to impossible.

The armor of AT-ATs is resiliant to an unknown degree, so your bitching and moaning about tungsten penetrators is utterly pointless. Said penetrators have demonstrated zero capability to penetrate AT-AT armor. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that said penetrators could achieve this.
According to George Lucas the AT-AT's are *metal*. Damn simple metal. Please tell me a metal that can take the KE's above with only a cm or three of thickness.

Further do you have any clue how asinine that statement was? Let me change a few nouns to better illustrate your 'logic'.
The armor of an AT-AT's is resiliant to an unknown degree, so any bitching about the Death Star Superlaser is utterly pointless. Said superlaser has demonstrated zero capability to penetrate AT-AT armor. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that said superlaser could acheive this.

There are this little things called the laws of physics that tell us that planet destroying superlasers can burn through any damn armor they feel like. Likewise engines with 10,000g's of thrust can accelerate DU, tugsten, whatever penetrators to velocities that will *shread* a few cm of any metal.

No, it blocks thermal in signifcant concentrations. Asphyxiation from air displacement is a big part of it, but the other effects on the nose and throat make it much easier for a person to asphyxiate because they are already bringing in less air
Could you define "significant"? It was my understanding that tear gas is used in heavy concentrations because it effuses in open air.

Some armies like to send their soldiers through tear gas chambers so again I think its just a matter of proper dosage.

Radar wouldn't work. The wavelengths/frequencies, which would provide resolution good enough for making out personal and the like don't work in anything but 100%, clear air and zero humidity. Basically, they work in the artic in winter when it is not snowing and everything is frozen, and nowhere else
Conceeded, I was just listing it as something possible for a highly advanced empire. I don't know, you claim not, I conceed.

Just thinking, but if the Imperials torched a hole and then threw in grenades, they would be providing the Rebels with enough time to throw something back. A thermal detonator in the confines of a TIE boarding craft would likely wipe out the craft and the team.
I'm thinking more of blow the door and toss them in as the stormies board. Remember the TD danger is the same if its a hole or an open door. The prioty should be on downing resistance quickly which chemical weapons have a decided advantage at.

Tharkun, I have a couple of queries of you.
Answered in order:

1.The US has plenty of good soldiers. However good != epitomy. The epitomy of soldiering would be maybe SAS or some IDF, in my biased opinion. I have said that stormies are among the best soldiers in sci-fi, I just don't deify them, they make blunders and are altogethor too damn arrogant to be the apex of soldiering.

2. Why can you not read with comprehension?

"If the enemy has the technology to do it". Saddam does not have ICBM tech. Further we had direct and specific intelligence he did not have nukes (from defectors to CIA to Mossad).

3. See above. If they enemy has the technology. Seeing as nobody has the technology to generate that much energy ...

4. See above. Why in hell do you people feel the need to attack strawmen?

Also, Tharkun, you are assuming that the Imperial forces at Hoth did not have a contingency plan, in case the Rebels did have infantry weapons capable of destroying AT-AT's. Remember that walkers can move upwards of 40 km/h, and carry their own infantry forces. Had the Alliance troops demonstrated an ability to knock out AT-AT's, it is possible that the walkers could have withdrawn and then deployed their infantry forces, while asking Death Squadron for immediate reinforcements.
Which is pathetically slow. Modern MBT's can double that speed. Modern mech infantry is faster still, and don't make me laugh when talking about planes and missiles. Even with *highly* mobile MBT's you still have to deal with the fact that tanks are ludicriously slow in comparison to other threats. Further the walker has a *crap* design for mobility. Its turning ability sucks.

"Other engineering concerns raised in the past have included the issue of efficiency (although, as previously noted, the AT-AT was obviously not designed with efficiency as a priority) and articulation. The issue of articulation is an interesting one: to put it in the simplest possible terms, there are many methods of designing a robotic limb that can provide much more freedom of movement than the simplistic pin joint used in a walker's leg. In its current design, its turning ability is based entirely on rotations of the hip joint group (a less flexible version of the AT-ST hip joint). "

By the time a walker is able to retreat from battle they are *dead* against vastly swifter mech infantry, air cover, and missiles.

Have you ever read a book on SW? In Heir to the Empire, Thrawn said that they could detect walkers from orbit with their sensors down. Have you ever seen a sensor read-out from SW? It is probable that they could easily detect the kinds of weapons necessary to defeat walkers in the manner you describe.
If the imps have this ability, then they aught to be reading every damn X-Wing in Echo base. X-wing torps, by virtue of KE alone (ignoring the damn warheads) are sufficient to punch through the weak spots in AT-AT armor if you attach a nice tugnsten or DU penetrator. Do you seriously think that X-wings, capable of breaking through *cap ship* armor wouldn't have been able to break AT-AT armor? The imps don't know if the rebs plan to send 2 X-wings with every transport or 3 X-wings with 2 transports (which frees up plenty of X-wings to fight a holding action).

Its a far cry from being able to spot an AT-AT in the open (which human eyes can't from orbit) to being able to see into enclosed spaces. Are the Imps conviently omniscient that they can see the underground portions of Echo base but not the Falcon in the Asteroid feild?

For the record I quit reading EU at Corellia and some of the Rouge Squadran stuff. I got tired of the Latest Superweapon of the Week Syndrome.

In some cases, SW battles are quite similar to modern battles, but in many other cases they are quite different. You obviously have absolutely no idea how the weapons in SW would change the ways battles are fought, which is indicative of either a lack of common sense, or a lack of intelligence.
blah blah blah. Tell me oh wise one, *how* are they different. Please name the specifics.

I also like how you assume that the Imperials had no intelligence on the Rebel base, AND that the Imperials had no way of scanning the Rebel base in spite of the fact that they were clearly able to scan the base. When Veers said to target the main generator, he was confident that the Rebels had no other generators that could be used to power the shields. You are an idiot for not recognizing either of these facts.
Hello dumbass its called *heat bleed*. Large generators give off huge amounts of heat, any moron with some good equipment can tell where the bigass generator giving off millions of watts of waste heat is. Let's say that Sheild generator operates at a terawatt and is 99.999% efficient. That's still 10^7 watts given off. All Veers has to do is follow the heat bleed. The fact that there is only 1 massive heat sourve on the planet might, just might clue Veers in that this is the only one capable of holding up the sheild.

The fact that you did not even consider either one of them indicates a complete lack of fore-thought.
Actually I did, I just thought is was so blindingly obvious that I didn't need to elucidate, sorry my mistake.

Further, you disregard the possibilities that AT-AT blasts are vastly more powerful than rocket fire
They aren't. Do we see craters metres wide forming when it strikes? No. Do speeders have malfunctions or do are they vaporized? Malfunctions. When rebel artillery is nailed next to soldiers are their bodies torched by the heat bleed and ripped to shreads by the explosion? No.

AT-AT strikes are not equivalent.

you disregard the possibility that the Alliance would have been able to detect their landing artillery pieces
So? Its called shoot and scoot for a reason.

possibility that the shield would also protect the generators from artillery pieces that fired over the horizon
hahahaha
Okay dumbass let me explain something to you. The horizon is dependant on a number of factors. The AT-AT is shooting over the horizon of a foot soldier, the horizon is *altitude* dependant. All it means to shoot over the horizon is to have a shot that follows the curvature of the planet to some degree. You can theoretically shoot over the horizon without ever going 10m off the ground. A good cruise missile could easily stay below AT-AT range.

You are clearly too stupid to be carrying this debate against people who have such vastly superior knowledge of SW warfare and technology than you do.
Technology my ass. You are getting into *vodoo*. You somehow a SW sheild knows the difference between a LoS shot and an indirect shot, even though they travel at the same frikking altitude. Further the best you are doing is NOT quoting "superior knowledge", you are pulling technobabble out your ass with no cannon support. I defy you to show me one instance of a SW sheild stopping fire over the horizon.

Incidentally, the Imperials clearly had targeting data. Their probe SHOWED THE FRICKIN' GENERATOR, DUMBASS! How can you not understand this? Your personal bet was a piece of crap.
Let's quote the script shall we?

INTERIOR: DARTH VADER'S STAR DESTROYER -- BRIDGE -- MAIN CONTROL DECK

Controllers working the vast complex of electronic controls
hear ominous approaching footsteps and look up from their
controls. The squat, evil-looking Admiral Ozzel and the young,
powerfully built General Veers, who have been conferring near
the front, also feel the approaching presence and turn toward
it. Darth Vader, Lord of the Sith, enters like a chill wind.
As Vader moves across the wide bridge, Captain Piett hurries
up to Ozzel.

PIETT: Admiral.

OZZEL: Yes, Captain

PIETT: I think we've got something, sir. The report is only a fragment
from a probe droid in the Hoth system, but it's the best lead we've
had.

OZZEL: (irritated) We have thousands of probe droids searching the
galaxy. I want proof, not leads!

PIETT: The visuals indicate life readings.

OZZEL: It could mean anything. If we followed every lead...

PIETT: But, sir, the Hoth system is supposed to be devoid of human
forms.

Vader moves to a large screen showing an image of the Rebel
snow base. Rebel speeders can be seen approaching the base in
the distance.

VADER: You found something?

PIETT: Yes, my lord.

VADER: (studying the image on the console screen) That's it. The
Rebels are there.

OZZEL: My lord, there are so many uncharted settlements. It could be
smugglers, it could be...

VADER: That is the system. And I'm sure Skywalker is with them. Set
your course for the Hoth system. General Veers, prepare you men.

Now what does this tell us? That:
1. The data is fragmentary. That Ozzel does not even think its proof that the rebels are there. You'd think he could tell the difference between a settlement and cap ship killers.
2. We do *NOT* see the entirety of the rebel base, guess what's missing in the shot? X-wings, the Millenium Falcon, etc. In other words a whole slew of nice rebel toys.
3. The images are *useless* as targetting data without a frame of reference. Unless the Imps have the position of the probe they *can't* target the generator.


You fall for the fallacy that because the walker's armor was thin, it must also have been extremely weak. Don't you realize that armor's strength only goes up with its thickness in comparison to other armor of the same quality?
Don't you realize that we are talking about *metal* which is *explicit* in the script? Don't you realize that the phrase "solid metal" is explicity used in the script? Don't you realize that eventually you reach a frikking limit because its just electrostatic attraction. Don't you realize that I have been *GIVING* you orders of magnitude *better* armor just be conservative. So tell me what type of "solid metal" can withstand the purile KE's and momentums derived from Luke's torpedo in ANH with only 3 cm?

Don't you realize that modern ceramics and kevlar armored body suits are more resilient to small arms fire than the white armor manufactured during the Middle Ages while being thinner?
Dumbass. Don't you realize the meaning of the phrase "orders of magnitude"? You are talking about something *orders of magnitude* better which Kevlar in comparison to steel is *not* (news flash the main reason armor gets better is the *weight* is going through the roof). Do you realize that Kevlar is *NOT METAL*? Lucas specifically said metal, eat it.

Further, anybody with ANY real-world experience should know that tactics are not what win battles between forces with radically disparate capabilities. Was it tactics that allowed the Spaniards to conquer the Aztec?
Dumbass two things lead to Spanish victory:
1. Smallpox. Its kind of hard to fight when the majority of your army is keeling over and dying.
2. Local tribes *allied* with the Spaniards. The spaniards had ludicrious amounts of native enemies of the Aztecs who gleefully signed up in droves to fight the Aztecs.

That is what beat the aztecs, not the gun, the cannon, nor anything else. SMALLPOX.

Was it tactics that made them wear bulky, heavy armor and carry useless bits and pieces of decoration while fighting against tremendous numbers disadvantages and against people who were used to the climate and used better tactics?
No it would be the hordes of native allies who used superior tactics.

Was it tactics that allowed the Soviets to eventually win the Winter War? Was it tactics that allowed the Soviets to beat the Nazis?
Yes. Its called "Scorched Earth", as the soviets withdrew they burnt everything behind them so the Germans died in the winter.

Was it tactics that allowed the Americans to defeat the Nazis? Hell no.
You mean like the convoy tactic that defeated the wolfpack so we could ship things overseas without getting killed? Yes. You mean the tactics the British employed to be alive to give us the "Great Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier"? Yes. Numbers mean something, but with incompotent tactics (see Napoleon in Russia, the first several Generals of the Union, etc.) you still lose.

The Imperials were there for one reason only: to knock down the shield. They needed to do nothing more. With the possible exception of Veers, everyone there was expendable, and they probably all knew that. But their mission was to knock out the generator, and they did that.
The only reason the succeeded is the rebels were incompotent. Remember the last speeder Veers shoots down? Was it flying head on or attacking from the rear (despite being told that the armor is too strong for direct assualt, and knowing that its only guns are mounted forward)? All the rebels needed to do once they got the harpoons working is to make those attack runs from behind and the Imps *fail*. Good militaries win. Great militaries don't win by luck.

You ask why Veers didn't report that. Maybe he did. If you read SW literature, you would know that he DID report the casualties to his forces, but that he also deemed them insignificant. You have absolutely no knowledge of SW and you are clearly in over your head.
You mean the first time an *impentratable* unit is killed is *IGSIGNIFICANT*? How in hell is that INSIGNIFICANT? If its the first time something gets killed in combat its *always* significant.

Do you even know how strong materials are in SW? They are proportionately stronger when compared to weapons than they are in real life.
Sure, but on AT-AT's you are using *metal*, or do you not know this?

Their materials are also "hellishly" more advanced, as well as just their weapons.
Metal is metal. Further their are limits on strength that come from the nature of electrostatic attraction (you know at the MOLECULAR level).

Consider the force of a spear, thrown with enough momentum to throw a man across a room and nearly knock him unconscious JUST on acceleration/deceleration. Stormtrooper armor stopped one of those EASILY. Its integrity was not even compromised. Just because a weapon can go through meters of modern armor does not mean that it is a threat to an AT-AT.
Right and a nice soft tree trunk beats the hell out of AT-ST armor. Either the Imps are too *STUPID* to use their mythical Stormie armor on their Mech infantry or the book contradicts cannon ... which is it?

How can you not recognize this, if you know so much about militaries? We are not saying that Tungsten and depleted uranium do not exist in SW.
Its going through METAL. There is not a metal in existance which Tungsten and Uranium can't go through at those KE's and Momentums.

SW technology is so much better than modern technology that most comparisons between the two levels are totally worthless.
Irrelevant. AT-AT's are *metal*, the hatch is explicitly described as *SOLID METAL*. They aren't using the technobabble.

Incidentally, Tharkun, it is STATED that that is the first time that AT-AT's engaged in combat against concentrated Rebel forces, and the first time that they had taken any casualties in the EU.
Whatever, cite the source or drop it.

You are not only assuming that AT-AT armor is only as good as modern armor.
No I assume it follows the basic LAWS OF PHYSICS governing the strength of metal.

Go home, learn about SW, and then come back once you have something to say. Until then, don't come crawling over here spouting utterly moronic concepts about how SW technology does not work.

Ooh appeal to technobabble as your dues ex machina? Come on. Besides which its *really* poor debate tactics to pat yourself on the back. The fact of the matter is SW tech follows the laws of physics, metal cannot just become arbitrarily stronger. The order of magnitude changes are beyond anything seen in history.

Grow a brain that's the US militaries own weapon! Talk about nitpick. When Iraq gets a LOSAT equivalent, then what I said would be false. Nice quote of fas.org/man by the way, the site all amateurs go for military information (no comment on the mech infantry mistake, concession accepted btw). Also, while LOSAT might have impressive armor penetration abilities, its not a good weapons system and in its current form will not be adopted- become a member of g2mil.com if you want to know why its sub-optimal (aside from other reasons which I cannot remember- the fact that the damn thing doesnt have a turret and is unguided is a big mark against it).
Sigh I quote the LOSAT because it is the reigning champ of armor penetration. I can derive the same figures and compare them to a 120mm penetrator, A-10 shots, or whatever. I just use the LOSAT because it goes through more armor than anything else. 3 cm of metal DON'TSTAND A CHANCE. The main criticisms of the LOSAT have NOTHING to do with its ability to rip through armor. It has to do with targetting difficulties, cost, and missile guidance.

As far as the "mistake" I just don't have the time to reply to every stupid point the lot of you dream up. From not knowing basic units, to not having a clue about the horizon, its a lot for one set of hands to reply to. Here is my reply to your idiotic nitpick.

The Merkava has a rather big ass gun, some heavy armor, AND the ability to work as an APC. It's the IDF's MBT, all APC's are not mech infantry. All armor are not excluded from being APC's. The boundry between Armor and Mech is a rather blurry one. Todays IVF's are much better than their earlier counterparts the '41 T-60 had a 20 mm main gun. The Bradley mounts a 25 mm cannon with much greater rate of fire. Hell compare them to their WWI predecessors which were just mobile, armored pillboxes in some cases. The line between mech infantry and armor is a grey one. You use US convention, I don't.

WTF? Who makes a comparison comparison between a mobile mechanized infantry force attacking a target which they already have reconaissance on (probe droid/space recon- suck it) and a fixed defense line?! Jeezus... its not as if the AT-AT force couldn't have CHANGED its tactics in the face of a DIFFERENT DEFENSE.
You stated you don't develop defense against "noexistant threats". A German Blitz through Belgium was a "nonexistant threat". Tanks had never pushed that far that fast. The Maginot line was built with guns aimed at Germany, a German force attacking from the rear was a "nonexistant threat". Great militaries *anticipate* threats.

As noted the probe droid is *fragmentary* such that *only* Vader even knows its Rebel Military. Piett sights *LIFE SIGNS*, not a massive tactical analysis. Ozzel doesn't even think its military.

ONE TINY HATCH ON A MASSIVELY ARMORED VEHICLE AT A AN ANGLE WHERE IT IS *EXTREMELY DIFFICULT* TO GET A SHOT. What negligence! This is like saying that tanks should have extremely heavy rear armor because they don't know if they're gonna be hit in the rear. There's your modern military knowledge again
Modern tanks do not have only front facing guns. Modern tanks do not enter battle WITHOUT SUPPORT. Hell and damn the hatch is only a problem because the IMPS have NO SENSE of combined arms. Because people can frikking scale them without getting shot at. In real armies infantry who get close to tanks have *REAL* short life expectancies. Because other tanks cover close support, mech infantry covers close support, and its common to have infantry walking behind you.

"Further if we assume basic compotence you use combined armed ... naval support. Its pretty hard to lose if your supporting fire is coming from an ISD."

Theater Energy shields. Nuff said.
Do I have to spell everything out in simplistic terms? One POSSIBILITY is that AT-AT's never engaged under a theatre sheild hence they have always had cap ship support.

"Look I don't care if you have Yoda himself check the terrain ahead if its too soft you don't go. For instance let's say an AT-AT comes up to a bridge, if the bridge ain't strong enough not matter where you set the foot down, the bridge is going to give.

Infallible is one of those BS words that tells you the guy who is saying it is either talk about some God figure or has no frikking clue (or both) its just as lame as "100% efficiency". In combat you have to expect your sensors to fail, especially given that it's the reb's home turf (meaning they have the advantage in transmitter size, power generation potential, etc.)."

ASSUMPTION ASSUMPTION ASSUMPTION.
When in doubt don't give the details. Look things have limits. If you try to drive an M1 over a pedestrian bridge, the bridge will collapse. It just can't handle the pressure/weight. Same thing for an AT-AT. If the bridge gives out 1 atm and you put 2 atm on top the bridge *will* collapse.


ROFL!!! Shows what you know. The reason the jets were ineffective was because miniscule numbers were built (only 1000+ Me-262s) and the fuel for them was destroyed. In addition, the quality of German pilots in 1944-45 (the period of the jets widespread introduction) was DEPLORABLE.


I see so how many bi wings can a F-22 shoot down? How many early modle Migs? Speed is life and without good tactics the Germans would have mopped the sky. Further there were other ariel super weapons they built that had minimal effect because of superior tactics.

HAHAHAH same thing! And when they first used these, where were the infantry?
Deployed behind the tanks filling the infantry trying to use them full of lead.

Here is how real militaries work. In the cold war the US developed nuclear AA missiles. The instant the Soviets saw that cabability they immediately switched bomber tactics (bombers began butting huge amounts of distance between each other). Most threats are countered BEFORE they are observed on the battlefeild.

First time. Star Wars trivia. If you're gonna debate it, know it.
cite it or drop it.

Which was done! We saw no AT-STs at the end of the battle. However, anti-tank gunners with ineffectual 37mm and 50mm guns tried to stand up to the well-armored T-34s on the Eastern Front still fired their guns, hoping to get a lucky shot (i.e. shot trap, or disabling shot on the turret right, etc). When you think about it, the AT-ATs legs are the most obvious thing to target- moving parts- most likely to fail if subjected to firepower. Of course, their weapons were not up to the job- the legs were too heavily armored.
Whatever you but forth both points. The AT-AT is invunerable from infantry attack, even at close range. Infantry can do nothing to hinder AT-AT's.

Infantry can hinder AT-AT's with lucky shots.

Which is it? Can infantry hinder AT-AT's or not? (By the time the Sunbuster plot rolls around New Republic infantry can damage a walker).

Obviously the suppressive fire was not very effective at that stage of the battle- arty had been blown away, troops had been killed!
Possibly.

Just note that the link is to show you that not everything the US military says about a weapon should be taken as gospel (thats all fas.org has most of the time), and has nothing to do with the attack on Echo Base. Check out the 1st Tactical Studies Airborne Group as well for other criticisms of US weapons programs (V-22 Osprey, Stryker IAV, etc)
All I talk about the LOSAT for is its ability to penetrate armor. That is not in question.

In one fell swoop, we have:

- the weak spot Luke exploited would be pretty damn ridiculously hard to hit with a weapon
- the reason why the snowspeeders were attacking from the front (vent and neck attacks)
- reasoned conjecture on the nature of walker armor
Yes too bad it goes against canon. Because
1. The script itself specifies METAL
2. Luke can stike both his hand and lightsabre through any presumed sheilds (note lightsabres do *not* go through sheilds).

Actually, the most effective ATGMs today are mounted on either M113 chassis (the TOW 'Hammerhead' battalion we worked with at Fort Carson with the 1/12th Infantry) or the newer versions, mounted on Bradleys or the latest addition to the arsenal, the Stryker four-axle APC... you're thinking of the old TOW-mounted M-151 Jeep MUT, which was more of a Marine thing than Army. Some HMMWVs are equipped with TOWs but their poor armor (and the superior cross-country mobility of things like the Stryker and Brad) make this a poor man's choice for ATGM cover. In my experience, only the Israeli army (specifically the Golani Brigade) uses man-pack TOWs and it is not the norm.
Sorry I misspoke. The point is most AT squads don't do it on foot.

Further the M1 is not "nigh to invunerable", this is why I bring up the LOSAT KEM ... it is currently the reigning champ for armor penetration, at least as such as I am aware.
Its a demonstration tech. Its actually use in the battefield is in question (piss hard to aim), but its ability to go through armor is unprecedented (such as I am aware).

BTW coyote I have continiously agreed with your sidebar rant. Apparently its not enough if you say "Stormies are among the best soldiers in SciFi" for some people here.

Yes, maybe kinetic energy anti-armor weapons like APFSDS rounds etc. should exist in the SW universe, but the fact of the matter is that their is no evidence for them.
That type of thinking is damn dangerous. You should always be thinking about what is the enemy going to deploy *tommorrow*. The point is to be able to beat the hell out of his planned improvements, not just what he has on the ground.

- turret mounted missile launcher (variable yield) utilizing mass driver. That its called a missile launcher and that it has variable yield means its *DEFINITELY NOT* a KE weapon (KE weapons do not have explosive yield and why one would want to use less speed to kill a target is beyond me)

umm no variable yeilds can occur easily with a railgun. Just change the mass of the projectile for one. (remember asteroid impacts are talked of in terms of yeilds).

All three are not 'kinetic' weapons the way we are discussing them- we are talking kinetic energy anti-armor weapons (i.e. a hunk of metal, in real life nowadays its a thin sabot, shot very fast at enemy armor- nothing more- no chemical explosive warhead at all)
We have AT railguns, they are just to ineffective for use (you'd need way too much space for the electronics, not to mention all the fun you can play with the system).

A variable yeild Missile can be kinetic, that's the whole point of Kinetic Energy Missile. Distance from the target (or more aptly burn time and mass loss) determines the effective yeild.

[Master of Ossus]

There is official evidence that AT-AT walkers can take multi-megaton blasts at very close range. No modern metal, or even ceramic, can come anywhere near that. The AT-AT's may be made of metal alloys, but that still does not mean that they are weak.

In regards to your statements about how some constants exist from orbital scanners, WTF? You assume that SW scanners use the same methods of scanning for things as we do today. Even modern satellites can pick up rifles and other such things, and some have the ability to look into buildings (albeit not with the kind of accuracy that is required to spot small arms). SW sensors use some kind of FTL technology to provide data on an enemy's movements.

Prove that, in SW, there are weapons that are capable of punching through AT-AT walker armor quickly and easily, other than the lightsaber. You stated that "if the technology exists." Well, show that the technology does exist, keeping in mind what I just told you about AT-AT armor.

If you would like to learn more about AT-AT's, read Tales From Mos Eisley Cantina, a book that I believe I have directed you to read before.

I also liked how you state that shoot and scoot would be effective, while simultaneously telling us that SW weapons can fire into the 4000m/s (your calculations are wrong, incidentally, but they er on the conservative side).

And do you even know what the Winter War is, moron? I talk about the Winter War, and then you come back and say something about the GERMANS? WTF is that, idiot? You really don't know military history, do you?

I don't know what kind of metal can withstand that kind of force, but it is obviously known in SW. AT-ATs can take thermonuclear blasts. No metal that we have can withstand that kind of damage. The exact nature of the metal falls under suspension of disbelief. We may not know how it works, but it does because its abilities have been seen.

I find your debating tactics disturbingly similar to DarkStar's. You appear to ignore rebutals that you do not like and repeat your original points, even when they are shown to be wrong. Also, you repeatedly attack rebutals that are correct either on technicality, or demand further proof that they are correct (you do this more frequently, and the first one far less frequently, than DarkStar, but they are both still there).

[Vympel]

Tharkun you're unbelievable. Now your entire argument is based around the off-the-cuff use of the term 'metal'! Only a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT would try and say that that somehow contradicts what we see AT-AT armor DOING, and which Technical Commentaries lays out.

Sounds like the trekkie NO LASER argument to me.

They never say what the armor on a Star Destroyer is in any of the canon; but if it used the word 'metal', well jeez I guess we should just say its all frigging straight modern day metal and adjust the weapons stats accordingly.

"In short, dumbass, the SW has everything it frikking needs to make high energy KEP's. Unless they have no uranium or have forgetten how to shape hard metals or some other silly excuse."

Should should should should should. Except that they'll never be seen, there is no evidence whatsoever for them except for the proton torpedoes on a starfighter (which are exceedingly rare in the Reb Alliance according to official material- ICS), but hey lets infer negligence at Hoth all the same.

"Proton torpedoes are very expensive and are available to alliance forces only in limited numbers"

All available evidence is totally against you. But you'll keep up the shrill should should should should.

"Right and a nice soft tree trunk beats the hell out of AT-ST armor. Either the Imps are too *STUPID* to use their mythical Stormie armor on their Mech infantry or the book contradicts cannon ... which is it?"

Uggghhhhh. A thin arse AT-ST designed for scouting and anti-personnel work. By your stuffed up reasoning, every nation that builds APCs on Earth are too stupid to heavily armor all their vehicles to the same level as their tanks.

"I just use the LOSAT because it goes through more armor than anything else. 3 cm of metal DON'TSTAND A CHANCE"

AND I ALREADY FUCKING SHOWED THAT THE HATCH WOULD BE TOO HARD TO EVEN BOTHER TRYING TO GET A HIT!!!!!!!

AGAIN: "That weak spot is hidden beneath the lips of the lateral hull armour amidst the walker's drive mechanisms"

"Here is my reply to your idiotic nitpick.

The Merkava has a rather big ass gun, some heavy armor, AND the ability to work as an APC. It's the IDF's MBT, all APC's are not mech infantry. All armor are not excluded from being APC's. The boundry between Armor and Mech is a rather blurry one. Todays IVF's are much better than their earlier counterparts the '41 T-60 had a 20 mm main gun. The Bradley mounts a 25 mm cannon with much greater rate of fire. Hell compare them to their WWI predecessors which were just mobile, armored pillboxes in some cases. The line between mech infantry and armor is a grey one. You use US convention, I don't."

No I use a STANDARD convention. You are an idiot. Mechanized infantry implies an infantry unit that is mobile in armored vehicles- today that's Infantry Fighting Vehicles like the BMP, Marder, Warrior and Bradley. Before then it was APCs like the M113 with a lot less armor and firepower (all IFVs have an ATGM to deal with tanks). When someone says mechanized infantry, they do not mean HMMMVs, which was my original point.

Your use of the Merkava is laughable. It does NOT have ability as an APC at all. It is a tank. Just because its engine has a drop down rear door with room for extra men (to pick up armor crews from dead or disabled tanks, primarily) does not an APC make.

"'41 T-60 had a 20 mm main gun"

Wrong again. The T-60 was a light tank, not an IFV. It couldn't carry troops.

"You stated you don't develop defense against "noexistant threats". A German Blitz through Belgium was a "nonexistant threat". Tanks had never pushed that far that fast. The Maginot line was built with guns aimed at Germany, a German force attacking from the rear was a "nonexistant threat". Great militaries *anticipate* threats."

You still don't get it do you? I guess AT-ATs only have the ability to move forward, can't vary their stride, can't spread out, can't support each other with fire, etc. For fucks sake, if there was need to do it, they would do it. There was NO NEED. If a Soviet tank division smashes through a light infantry division, should we assume that if they come up against a US unit they won't know what to do? As you like to say, Dumbass.

" see so how many bi wings can a F-22 shoot down? How many early modle Migs? Speed is life and without good tactics the Germans would have mopped the sky. Further there were other ariel super weapons they built that had minimal effect because of superior tactics."

Bullshit. As I said, hardly any of them were in the air, because there was no fuel for them, their were not enough pilots to crew the aircraft that even could fly, and the pilots that there were were trained like shit. It has very little to do with tactics.

"Here is how real militaries work. In the cold war the US developed nuclear AA missiles. The instant the Soviets saw that cabability they immediately switched bomber tactics (bombers began butting huge amounts of distance between each other). Most threats are countered BEFORE they are observed on the battlefeild"

Some threats are. Not most. And the Cold War is a very peculiar situation.

"Whatever you but forth both points. The AT-AT is invunerable from infantry attack, even at close range. Infantry can do nothing to hinder AT-AT's.

Infantry can hinder AT-AT's with lucky shots.

Which is it? Can infantry hinder AT-AT's or not? (By the time the Sunbuster plot rolls around New Republic infantry can damage a walker)."

Strawman. I didn't say infantry can hinder AT-ATs with lucky shots. What I said is that that's what they were hoping for. By firing at the knee joints, with their FIXED ARTILLERY. It didn't work.

" The script itself specifies METAL
2. Luke can stike both his hand and lightsabre through any presumed sheilds (note lightsabres do *not* go through sheilds)."

1: I continue laughing hysterically at your 'metal' argument.
2: Saxton doesn't say there are shields- in the sense that you mean. READ THE DAMN POST.

"It remains uncertain whether these unusual properties are innate to the armour material, or are the result of augmentation by something akin to an energy shield suffusing the hull of an active walker. If the properties are innate to the material, then the armour may incorporate forms of matter beyond those available to modern chemistry and nucleosynthesis on Earth.

The resistance to blaster fire is not just a ray shield projected out to some distance from the surface of the vehicle, as a starship would use. If it was a ray shield, we would expect to see absorbed bolts splinter into a shower of relatively harmless daughter bolts, as is the known behaviour of ray shields in space"

And now of course you'll say it again, like a rabid trekkie: "but it says METAL, it says METAL, it says METAL!"

Also, if there is a shield (on the surface of the armor), why would they bother shielding a tiny hatch that you can't hit with a weapon!?

"umm no variable yeilds can occur easily with a railgun. Just change the mass of the projectile for one."

Why not? If you can set the explosive yield of the missile (fuze settings?), then the railgun is simply there to get the weapon to the target as quickly as possible.

"A variable yeild Missile can be kinetic, that's the whole point of Kinetic Energy Missile. Distance from the target (or more aptly burn time and mass loss) determines the effective yeild."

I doubt thats what ICS meant when it said variable yield- more likely it was referring to the yield of the missile which you can see on an ammo belt- but this point is all interpretation anyway.

Furthermore, if there *are* KE anti-armor weapons in SW- and you can only get a kill shot on an AT-AT on a hatch on the underside with one- which you cannot hit- why would the rebels bother using them!!! Blasters are clearly preferable to hit the other, EASIER TO HIT weakspots (I thought you'd be happy at the pointing out of the other weakspots but I realized that it ruins your point of the Rebels being incompetent because they were attacking from the front- clearly the AT-ATs are only clearly vulnerable along an angle where all the GUNS ARE)

"BTW coyote I have continiously agreed with your sidebar rant. Apparently its not enough if you say "Stormies are among the best soldiers in SciFi" for some people here."

Tharkun the thing that gets me pissed is your use of the words negligence and incompetence.

[Vympel]

Tharkun: "Swears he will type everything himself (I don't want somebody who will C&P 12 different arguements from other people"

Why, because they're right? Forge that. If I were to say "Curtis Saxton disagrees with you" and didn't post the argument, that would be an argument from authority. However, I AM posting the argument- it stands for itself, and you have nothing to contradict it except the exceedingly lame clinging to the use of the term 'metal'

In addition, Curtis Saxton's argument agrees with Mike Wong's arguments.


Darth Wong summing it up on the homepage.

Synopsis of capabilities:

"An AT-AT's basic capabilities are fairly well known: its armour shrugged off direct hits from Rebel artillery fire or snowspeeder guns in the Battle of Hoth. Its combination of two heavy chin-mounted guns and two light side-mounted blasters (seen above) have variable firepower and enough flexibility to target and destroy anything from infantrymen to enemy artillery pieces, low-flying aircraft, and even entire installations as far away as the visible horizon. However, its mechanized underside is vulnerable if you can get close enough to exploit it, and it has two dorsal vents which appear to be vulnerable points. Its maximum speed over flat terrain ground is said to be over 60 km/h, which would mean that it can cover its own length in roughly 2 seconds at full speed."

And I totally forgot-

"An AT-AT's armour system is capable of withstanding intense energy bombardment, as seen during the Battle of Hoth:

Snowspeeder blasters were useless against AT-AT armour. They produced nothing but bright flashes at the point of impact, without even so much as a small puff of smoke. When you compare this to the destructive effect of X-wing blasters on the surface of the Death Star, or even ordinary small arms on building and starship interiors, you can see the problem. Blasters normally vapourize a small amount of material, thus leading filling a combat area with thick, opaque smoke. Even against heavy blast doors, a blaster hit produces a small puff of smoke. The great strength of AT-AT armour is all the more impressive when you consider how the Naboo speeders' tiny anti-tank guns blasted huge holes through Trade Federation battle tank armour, and how X-wing guns blasted entire buildings on the Death Star's surface.
Even large Rebel artillery pieces had no effect whatsoever on AT-AT armour. One particular blast struck an AT-AT on its right rear leg, with very interesting effects. The armour glowed white-hot at the point of impact but in a fraction of a second, the heat apparently conducted away in all directions without even the faintest puff of smoke that normally accompanies even the smallest blaster hit. This indicates that the armour was thermally superconductive, but that would beg the question of why the Death Star, an "armoured battle station", wasn't made of the same material. A better explanation is that the apparent superconductivity of the armour has nothing to do with the armour itself, and is actually the result of an active energy diffusion field that acts along or perhaps even inside the surface of the armour. The Death Star, by virtue of having a much larger shield (albeit one that semi-permeable to slow-moving objects, hence the intrusion of the X-wings), was not expected to require such defensive measures. Therefore, it actually served as a useful demonstration of the effectiveness of starfighter blasters on unshielded armour, while the AT-AT walkers served as a demonstration of the impotence of light vehicle-mounted guns against shielded armour.
It has been suggested that AT-AT armour might be some sort of thermally superconductive but mechanically brittle ceramic, rather than a strong, ductile metal (which would suggest that it would be easily damaged by projectiles). However, this simply cannot be the case. No fewer than two AT-AT walkers were felled during the battle, and in both cases, they crashed to Earth without suffering any noticeable structural deformation. This is very impressive; the impact of such a massive object crashing to Earth from that height would normally be expected to deform hull plates, shear off bolts, and overwhelm welded joints, while the thickly armoured hulls of the AT-AT walkers in TESB suffered no discernible physical damage or deformation whatsoever."

A few typo corrections to my previous post- "Just because its engine has a drop down rear door with room for extra men (to pick up armor crews from dead or disabled tanks, primarily) does not an APC make"

Remove 'engine'. Change 'its' to 'it has'

"If a Soviet tank division smashes through a light infantry division, should we assume that if they come up against a US unit they won't know what to do"

change US unit to US tank division

[Master of Ossus]

Tharkun, have you even heard of suspension of disbelief? It means that you are wrong. Basically, it doesn't matter that the script says metal because its abilities are well known. AT-AT armor can withstand hits from nuclear and even thermonuclear weapons without damage to the unit underneath it. It absolutely does not matter that the armor itself is metal, because it is clearly stronger than any metal allow we have now.

SWEGVV says that AT-AT's can fire up to ninety degrees off-axis in less than a second. That is not something that any MBT in the world can do right now, so your statements that they have limited fire range are somewhat disproven.

In any case, I cannot believe that you don't understand suspension of disbelief. It is clear what the AT-AT's capabilities are. The fact that the modern world cannot produce something that matches these capabilities is irrelevent.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I am currently reading the New David Drake "Slammers' novel and looking at it from the point on Blaster and Superconductive material arguement threads on the side bar of my mind.

Needless to say, It appears that federations ground troops would last as long against Hammer's Mercs and Hammer's Mercs would last against General Veer.