Who CAN the Federation Ground Troops beat?

[Guest]

tharkûn

I believe that you have provided a lot of good information on your posts. Don't expect to reason with the majority of the people who use this forum because it won't work. If you question the "findings or evidence" provided by Wong or Saxton you are labeled a heretic and they persecute you worse than the victims of the Spanish Inquisition. They are basically hypocrites. They resort to ad hominem attacks immediately and they are quick to point them out if you happen to use one. They don't see through their own hypocrisy. I applaud your efforts, but alas, they fall upon dead ears.

[Master of Ossus]

What good evidence has he provided?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Tharkun: More proof that big brother was right (Ingnorance is Bliss)

[Vympel]

Hhahahahah the latest village idiot candidate, commander leoro, applauding tharkun's arguments.

I'm shivering in fear

[Lord of the Farce]

tharkûn

I believe that you have provided a lot of good information on your posts. Don't expect to reason with the majority of the people who use this forum because it won't work. If you question the "findings or evidence" provided by Wong or Saxton you are labeled a heretic and they persecute you worse than the victims of the Spanish Inquisition. They are basically hypocrites. They resort to ad hominem attacks immediately and they are quick to point them out if you happen to use one. They don't see through their own hypocrisy. I applaud your efforts, but alas, they fall upon dead ears.

Of course, you don't seem to realise that to claim that the majority of people here wouldn't listen to reason rather than actually pointing out the points being contested and why they are good information as you claim, it just makes it sound awfully like you're the one throwing ad hominem attacks around. Be careful who you try to call hypocrites.

[Master of Ossus]

tharkûn

I believe that you have provided a lot of good information on your posts. Don't expect to reason with the majority of the people who use this forum because it won't work. If you question the "findings or evidence" provided by Wong or Saxton you are labeled a heretic and they persecute you worse than the victims of the Spanish Inquisition. They are basically hypocrites. They resort to ad hominem attacks immediately and they are quick to point them out if you happen to use one. They don't see through their own hypocrisy. I applaud your efforts, but alas, they fall upon dead ears.

I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy in Commander LeoRo's post. Note how he attacks the people here for making ad hominem attacks, when his entire post is in fact a giant ad hominem attack. Note that he insults me and Vympel and the other posters here by attacking our credibility, but makes no attempt, whatsoever to debate our posts, rebut our arguments, or cite evidence for his beliefs. I have been guilty of making such attacks on people's credibilities in the past, but I think I have always admitted to it, when challenged. Contrary to LeoRo's statements, I have also admitted it when I was wrong numerous times in the past. While I cannot and will not speak for others on this board, I am confident that my reputation for integrity is fairly well respected, and that LeoRo's attack on me and the other posters on this thread will fall on deaf ears and will not affect this continuing debate in any way.

Even DarkStar probably would not have made a post like this, LeoRo.

[The Yosemite Bear]

If they realized how stupid they are they would loose half their entertainment value.

[tharkûn]

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.

And there is *CANON* evidence they are metal. I'm not sure how much more explicit it can be:
"It [the AT-AT] teeters for a moment, and then crashes onto the icy ground, sending snow and metal pieces flying."
"The magnetic head and cable attach firmly to the metal hull."
"Luke cuts the solid metal hatch with his laser sword."

Metals are limited by their mechanism of binding ... the metallic bond. There are limits to the metallic bond. Take for istance the increase in strength going from Sodium to Magnesium. Mg has 2x as many delocalized electrons at 2x as many "excess" protons. Hence its a stronger bond. Transitional metals have even more delocalized electrons and "excess protons". This trend reachs a an ending point and then you start getting non-metallic character.

Even alloying has its limits. Tell me if I suggested that AT-AT armor was strong enough to reflect the Death Star Laser what would you say?

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.
No I'm assuming that the universe stays quantized. When you see a gun you see a finite number of photons. As you get down toward abysmally low numbers of photons you get truncation artifacts. Likewise looking through solids works the same way.

The big sign of the limitations of SW scanners is that they do not detect the MF. The Falcon is what 100 m inside an asteroid and their supposedly omniscient sensors don't see them.

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.
I already did. Look at the KE and Momentum of Luke's Torps, I have may have screwed the numbers (I have a bad habit of that, reason I did lousy in my physics classes), but if I did them right they can always go through. You see there is the little thing about metals, even if you come up with some uberstrong metal ... I just make the penetrator out of that metal. Du penetrators go through DU very easily. Its one of those pesky science things. If you have two identical materials ... the one with more momentum and energy wins.

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.
Nope you never have. Further I'm speaking from CANON, you are merely speaking from official material.

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).
I *purposefully* try to err on the conservative size. I.e. I made the torp path in ANH much too short (it should be closer to 80 km), the ATAT shot should have more burn time, etc. Any figure I give here is much lower than I'd estimate it at for accuracy.

Shoot and scoot is effective for several very simple reasons:
1. The sheild stops both ways. So you can drive your artillerly around the border to your heart's content.
2. Multivector assualt. Unlike an AT-AT which has to take a path to the generator, artillerly (especially with SW level KE's) can fire from just inside the sheild. Thus instead of 1 assualt up one predefined avenue of approach you could have ones coming in from all directions.
3. Jamming and feinting. You don't need to make a long slow walk across an open plain, all you need to do is distract counter batty fire until you can lay into the thing.
4. You can use their sheild against them. You can set up shot directly under the sheild, possibly even drive under, shoot get back out.
5. Sensor technology is limited. In all of SW (minus some EU trash I haven't heard of possibly) we have never seen terribly effective ground sensors. Echo base can't find Luke, the Imps can't quickly find the droids (its at least *hours* in ANH).

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'm sorry in the multiple pages of posts I replied to at once I made a mistake, it happens when you have pages of people and you use different names. The Winter War, I know better as the First Russo-Finnish War, the Second or Continuation War being the one in fought with German assistance. You do realize wars come with multiple names right? The Seven Years war is the same as the French and Indian War.

In any event I never said tactics win wars. I said tactics minimize casualties. I'd hardly call 250,000 casualties vs 25,000 casualties for a *worthless* strip of land lost in half a year a "win". Especially since the Soviet goal was to overrun Finland in a matter of days. Rather than acheiving that objective, the Soviets stalled and eventually made peace.

In any event it is only a moron who mistakes this:

Tactics win battles. The Finns won the battles.
Strategy wins wars. The Russians won the war.

One can win wars without without winning battles. One can win battles without winning wars. The Soviets use an attrition strategy it worked. The Russian army in the Finnish war was negligent, idiotic, and completely retarded (from forest camo in artic environment to human waves ... it was pathetic).


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.
You have yet to show them to be wrong. The initial points are still the same:
1. The stormies show poor grasp of combined arms. Every time we see stormies the infantry does one thing, the armor another, air cover and artillerly are not present.
2. The stormies do no use indirect fire, despites its value on the battlefeild.
3. Stormies provide no close support to their AT-AT's, so much so that people can scale on board them.
4. Stormies are never shown using NBC weapons even though their opponents never wear NBC protection.
5. The stormies enter Hoth with no rear facing AA, no rear facing guns period (if the rebels all made their attack runs from behind the entire Imperial force would have *DIED* as they had nothing protecting against attack from that vector). THIS IS MY MAIN CRITICISM. You do not assault against AIR COVER and leave open vectors of attack. Its suicidal except against incompotent pilots.

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).
Excuse me? You say such and such happened i.e. that the sheild might be able to stop over the horizon shot. Now this has never been ehibited in SW's. This makes no sense from a scientific standpoint (altitude dependance, sure). If you want to make a claim, tell me where to find it. "Technicalities" are all in the eye of the beholder.

. 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.
And what do we see it doing? Shrugging off shots from "antiquainted" fixed guns of unknown strength? Sorry but a T-72 can shrug off all sorts of artillerly fire, line it up with a modern KEP and its just another burning hunk of metal.

Further we see the thing blow from the inside out after Luke tosses a landmine in.

The first has *nothing* which gives us a way to measure its effective firepower, the latter suggest weak armor and seriously poor design.

Sounds like the trekkie NO LASER argument to me.
Really you sound like the trekkie no magnesite arguement. The script says its metal. That means its held togethor by delocalized electrons. Impurities may be present, but the binding is from electrostatic attraction.

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.
Yes indeed one should. As Mike has pointed out SW's is not spoken in English, therefore any word we see has been *translated* to english so we can understand it. If Lucas wanted it to be made out of superdense <insert technobabble here> he'd have said so. However on multiple occassions he explicitly calls it metal. I wonder why, because its metal?

Metal has a disntict definition, which I'm sure Mike can quote better than I. If you think you have a better one ...

In any event if you make the penetrator out of the same material it will go through, in a collosion he who has the most momentum wins. The only reason our current armor can stand up to KEP's is because the armor is INSANELY FRIKKING THICKER than the round. Now my opinion is that the entire underbelly is weak enough to send a KEP through, however that I cannot even attempt to prove (though that does seem to be the way Mike is leaning also). However the hatch itself is garunteed vunerable, while a difficult shot, if you have forever to try (no close support) its a danger.

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.
T-72's were actually rare in Iraq (they had many more T-62's and T-54's) however our troops still treated them all like T-72's until the had proof otherwise. Negligance comes from not having REAR FACING AA. Not having deployed against something akin to Luke's Proton Torp is just bad tactics (which may or may not get everyone killed).

In any event is not just Luke's Torp, I used that as an example. Look at every frikking engine in SW's, from the DS1 to ISD's to Rebel transports. They all have very high levels of thrust for their size. As you scale down engines become *MORE* efficient.

All available evidence is totally against you. But you'll keep up the shrill should should should should.
Sigh stinger missiles were quite rare in Afghanistan does that mean that you send the first wave in flying close to the ground for better accuracy? If you don't know assume the worst.

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.

Do you know *why* scouts and apc's today don't have armor? Because the *weight* limits their mobility and stealth. Does storm trooper armor do *either* of those? No. In a man can lug around enough armor to withstand a massive kinetic penetrator ... then why in hell aren't they putting this *light-weight* armor on the scout (which isn't even camoed)? Scouts are not unarmored because of tradition, because the cost of having armor is reduced mobility. How in hell does an armor system that is *MAN PORTABLE* impede scout mobility?

AND I ALREADY FUCKING SHOWED THAT THE HATCH WOULD BE TOO HARD TO EVEN BOTHER TRYING TO GET A HIT!!!!!!!
Where? Its a *straight* shot at a target what .25m^2? Its a difficult shot, but certainly not impossible given AT-AT's operating without close support.

AGAIN: "That weak spot is hidden beneath the lips of the lateral hull armour amidst the walker's drive mechanisms"
Irrelevant, you can hit from underneath. That was my whole point long, long ago. That infantry with AT-weapons doable with basic SW tech could shoot a high angle shot through the hatch.

In any event you still can do the ever fun - fire a big ass missile that blows up underneath and sends ultrasonic shrapnel through the 3cm hatch.

It is not an easy shot, indeed its rather difficult. However that does not mean its good tactics to *IGNORE* it.


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.


When I say mech infantry I mean:
People in HMMWV's
People in Bradlies
People in frikking WWII Trucks.

I *NEVER* said HMMWV's were the only mech infantry, that is a strawman you developed when I classed an AT-AT as armor.

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.
1. The engine on a Merkava is in the front so I have no idea what you are talking about with the engine having a drop down rear door.
2. The Merkava was *designed* to have the ability to work as a small armored carrier supplies or people. Modular compotents can be removed to increase capacity.
3. Its been *used* to deploy infantry. Wether you like it or not the IDF has used the Merkava to deploy infantry. The line between armor and mech infantry is grey.
4. The BMP-1 (the first true soviet IFV had room for *8*).

"'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.
Sigh not clear on my part. Current IFV's have more armor and fire power than earlier tanks. If you gave Patton a Bradley it would go in with the armor.

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.
Not really no. The best they can hope for is a wedge as they have piss poor turning ability. Given their extreme height and small number of crew they don't have LoS on close infantry so they relay on sensors. Which frankly is not a good idea in a battle where you may have jamming, smoke, IR decoys, whatever. Its a crew of what 4? Just doesn't have the ability to handle that much information coming in. You have a hundred odd possible targets, driving the thing and no ability to fire backwards, incoming fire (which at the very least is distracting), etc. AT-AT's do not have HMG equivalents, nor can the secondary guns aim significantly off axis from the main guns.

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.
Don't be disengenous. This not a division of tanks against a division of infantry, this was a *platoon* of armor (tanks) vs a division of infantry *with* air cover. The first mistake is having shoddy air cover. If you think 4 Soviet tanks could beat back a division of infantry with air cover, then you have another thing coming.

The rebels were idiots *one* change in flight paths turns this from an imperial victory to an imperial defeat. Limited range AA is a good way to die. No close support when you do not have effective internal containment of explosives is another.

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.
The point is tactics allow you to *minimize* your losses and still complete your mission. When the feddies barely hold AR-853 (or whatever the number) is it because they know how to fight Jem'Hadar? Or is because of dumb blind luck? The Imps are to damn arrogant for their own good, they beleive their armor is invincible, they beleive they are immune to serious air threat, and somehow the fighter that blew up the death star does not give them any pause.

Some amount of arrogance is healthy, too much (which the imperials are certainly at) is lethal.

Some threats are. Not most. And the Cold War is a very peculiar situation.
The cold war was not pecular, it is the future. Everyone still spies on everyone else with regards to new weapons. All sorts of other threats are countered before the battefeild. For instance some computer chips are now hardened and are built with Gallium. Likewise the enitre AEGIS missile defense was built in anticipation of new tactics using existing or soon to be existing technology.

How many of these do I need to tick off?

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.
Oh so they are too stupid to know its futile and that they are just making themselves better targets so they have fewer people to fight when the stormies do storm the place? Brilliant plan.

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
1. Fine laugh, I'm not the one selectively redefining the word to preserve my position.
2. I know Saxton doesn't say there are, he says "It remains uncertain ", and I'm saying there is no effective sheilding over the hatch, possibly none underneath at all, and maybe none on the whole vehicle.

And now of course you'll say it again, like a rabid trekkie: "but it says METAL, it says METAL, it says METAL!"
And like a rapid trekkie you will bury your head up your arse when little things like the Canon get in the way of your position.

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!?
Maybe because its *RIGHT NEXT TO SOME SERIOUS FIREPOWER*? On real tanks they have internal dividers than close damn fast to stop ordinance from cooking off and destroying the tank, little things like that are a GOOD THING. In any event I already noted, as does Mr. Saxton, that there are none on the hatch (my only claim), might not be some on the underbelly, and might be some on the rest.

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.
Because railguns come with enough KE to rip things apart without an explosive shell. Change the mass, change the current ... all of those allow for "variable yeilds".

I'm not saying they necessarily aren't just a delivery mechanism, but it certainly is within the realm of possibility that they are just KE weapons.


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)

I've read Curtis Saxton before, I happen to agree. However we see *NO* rebel artillerly shot anywhere near the neck. We see none near the hatch. Further even if the neck is a magical weakspot its still undesirable to attack there because you come under fire. You have unlimited access to the feet (which they attack from the front on) coming from behind. It is still point blank stupidity to attack into AA cover when you can get kills coming from behind at minimal risk.

Tharkun the thing that gets me pissed is your use of the words negligence and incompetence.
That's what it's called when you "forget" to have any AA facing the rear. That's what its called when you have 50+% casualties when you chould have virtually none (AA guns deployed far back of the assualt, some IFV's dedicated to close support). It is not just enough that you complete your objective, you should be doing it without careless loss of life. Not using frag grenades against the Ewoks is a prime example of incompotence/negligence. You have a brunch of natives with *no* armor who are inflicting serious casualties and nobody tosses a frag grenade into the large clumps of em.

Too much arrogance leads to incompotence.

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'
No because with you typing, Master of Ossus typing, etc. I end up having to write pages in reply or people like you piss and moan if I miss a point.

I agree with Wong:
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.

Have I not been saying that for pages?

Look at the point I was originally argueing against:
#3 is inapplicable, as there was no way for Rebel infantry to approach the AT-ATs, and nothing for them to do once they got there.

As I have said all along the underside is a *difficult* shot, but not impossible. If you get infantry (mech or otherwise) in range with appropriate weapons (which we should be SHOCKED if you can't make) then they can take shots at a weakness. A sensible plan its to have dedicated close support to stop enemy infantry from doing this.

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.
I see so you think Mike's ranting on ST for making up new elements is wrong? If words don't matter, how in hell do you use *anything* but the visuals. Do I get to flush the EU whenever I come across a word I don't like?

Look at the abilities of an AT-AT. All of them are consistent with a very strong abeit not beyond scientific ability. If this entails that there should be KE impactors, so be it.

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.
Umm current armor can withstand nuclear hits, depending on armor thickness and distance from the epicentre. It doesn't take a radical amount armor to withstand those, rather a more sensible explanation is sheilding of some sort.

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.
Then why does the one in TESB have to step out of line to make a fraction of that shot (and hence slowing the imperial assualt, not to mention making it a much more difficult targeting problem from a physics standpoint)? I take Canon over EU, how about you?

Further even if it can shoot 90 degrees off axis ... that is still only 3 steridians of range. The entire back side is open.


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.
Really it has perfect sensors to find good footing, but doesn't know enough to stand still when its entangled? It has 3 cm hatch between a potential attacker and enough explosives to blow the thing.


you question the "findings or evidence" provided by Wong or Saxton you are labeled a heretic and they persecute you worse than the victims of the Spanish Inquisition. They are basically hypocrites.
Actually I agree with Wong that the underbelly is a weakness. Other things I disagree with them on, but I trust Wong's scientific analysis almost completely. Everytime I've checked his numbers he's come out right, the only time I disagree with him is not on the "findings" but on the basic assumptions or the ones where he gives off the cuff answers (and even most of those I agree with); the actual numbers appear to be flawless.

You will note that Wong explicitly agrees with me that the underside is vunerable. You will note that Wong explicitly says its metal and not some mysterious technobabblical material.

And frankly they are right. Sure some of them have degraded to ad hominim attack and bitch when I don't have time to reply to everything. Sure some people try to demonize me because I follow different conventions than they do, but by and large they are responding to the arguments. Too bad most of it is appeal to technobabble and revoking the Canon in favor in the EU. But you are making more of an ad hominen attack than they are.

Anyways guys as I said before, pick a spokesman because I'm tired of typing against a 2:1 disadvantage.

[Vympel]

1- the hatch is a vulnerable spot. There is no evidence for the entire belly being vulnerable. I never argued the point that AT-ATs are easy to destroy from within- this is obviously true from the destruction of both.

2- this could only be exploited by enemy infantry in the lack of AT-ST support. At the stage of the battle Luke destroyed that AT-ST support, it had been taken out. As I agreed before, the thin skin of AT-STs is a flaw of the Imperial attack on Hoth, that and the lack of heavily armored AA (infantry AA would've been stupid- they'd be under fire from the defenders)

3- the script saying its metal (what the fuck else was the script gonna say?!) means NOTHING. The armor of the AT-AT displays peculiar qualities. If you want to posit that the Rebel fixed artillery had the firepower of BB guns and that modern metal could shrug off Rebel arty just as well because of the use of the word metal, you are stupid. Notice also that when both AT-ATs fall they remain structurally sound, as Wong points out- indicating very high strength on its own.

[rant mode]
Also, I'm SICK and TIRED of Canon versus official. FUCK OFF. The canon policy is perfectly clear to all except Darkstar, and unless you can find an explicit contradiction between the canon and the official info that AT-ATs can withstand multi-megaton blasts, you can SHUT THE FUCK UP, because the point stands.
[/rant mode]

"It [the AT-AT] teeters for a moment, and then crashes onto the icy ground, sending snow and metal pieces flying."
"The magnetic head and cable attach firmly to the metal hull."
"Luke cuts the solid metal hatch with his laser sword"

To nitpick:

This contradicts the film

1- the AT-AT does not teter
2- Luke doesn't cut the hatch, he cuts the handle and the hatch flies open

But moving on-

The main point is that even though that hatch can be penetrated, its too hard to hit. infantry with man portable weapons, even if it were possible to penetrate the hatch with some sort of man-portable mini-proton kinetic energy weapon- WHATEVER really, would be KILLED by AT-STs. Thats what the AT-STs are THERE for.

If such weapons were mounted on vehicles- they would be an easier target, and again, would be destroyed by either AT-ST or AT-AT fire. Also, in the face of such an assault- the AT-ATs could deploy their infantry.

We have 2 AT-ATs lost to:

1- sabotage: Luke exploits the destruction of the AT-STs to make a hatch attack
2- harpoon and tow cable: successful once, unsuccessful at the one other times it was attempted. All other Rebel speeders continued to attempt neck and vent shots. The possibility also remains that a frontal approach was somehow necessary for the harpoon and tow cable thing to work, but that's just a possibility and not a very convincing one to me. The possibility remains that AT-STs dealt with other snowspeeders attempting harpoon/ tow-cable attacks- if you accept that AT-STs can do AA, which is not certain but likely, IMO.

I don't understand how you can infer negligence and incompetence from this. At worst, the Imperials were overconfident, to be sure, but the fact remains they were unconventional, indirect tactics- it was the first time both had occured- and I don't see how anyone can argue incompetence based on these two.

Basically Tharkun's argument is they suffered casualties, therefore they are incompetent- no matter how unexpected the tactics used. Great. From now on, every force that suffers casualties due to unconventional tactics is clearly incompetent and negligent because they didn't think of it ahead of time.

Tharkun has a mathematical, antiseptic concept of battle- everything must be thought of ahead of time and nothing should be unexpected- just a simple set of equations to be worked out. Too bad because things ARE unexpected on the field of battle- and on the scale of the Battle of Hoth (i.e. the tactical level) NO MILITARY could adapt to unconventional tactics THAT QUICKLY. All up, the Imps accomplished their mission regardless and routed the Rebel defense? Arrogant? Yes. Incompetent/negligent, no.

Here's an interesting analogy- Moghadishu 1993. Somali tribesmen use anti-tank RPGs to down a pair of Blackhawks by knocking out their tail rotor. Who's going to expect such a tactic on the first run? I think if you called any of those guys incompetent or negligent for not expecting that, they'd smash your face in, and rightly so.

[Vympel]

"The engine on a Merkava is in the front so I have no idea what you are talking about with the engine having a drop down rear door."

I corrected this typo. Pay attention.

"Sorry but a T-72 can shrug off all sorts of artillerly fire, line it up with a modern KEP and its just another burning hunk of metal."

The P-Tower (the dish weapon) is anti-armor. Official.
The other one is anti-personnel. Official.

Additionally, a Soviet T-72BM is impenetrable along the frontal arc to the M1s 120mm APFSDS rounds at normal battle ranges- proven by a US Army test in 1997. The secret? Kontakts-5 second generation Explosive Reactive Armor (effective against both HEAT and APFSDS rounds). Ditto for the T-80U and T-90.

[Master of Ossus]

Tharkun, once again you disregard suspension of disbelief. The AT-AT is metal. Because its ability to withstand a multi-megaton weapon has been demonstrated we suspend disbelief and say that the walker is metal, and that it is vastly stronger than any metal known to man.

You also refuse to accept the fact that SW scanners scan something other than photons, even though they clearly have FTL scanning capabilities.

Tharkun, just because something is metal does not mean that it is weak, in terms of suspension of disbelief. You are speaking from canon, but you are completely disregarding facts that come from either canon (in the case of the scanners) and official sources (a multitude of them in the case of the walkers). That is not good debating.

Now, if you were to say that AT-ATs could repel fire from the DS, I would say you were an idiot because the limits of their armor cannot be higher than about 650 MT, based on all evidence available. AT-AT's have limits in terms of their armor, but their limits are vastly higher than any materials we have today. That seems like a contradiction, but it is covered by suspension of disbelief.

[seanrobertson]

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.

I'm not familiar with instances of AT-ATs being near megaton-range
blasts. I looked for this at Curtis' site and didn't find it.

Details, please

[Mr Bean]

I belive he refers to the fact that in Issards Revenge when Rouge Squadren is faced with 4 At-Ats that are hasseling the ground troops he thinks of using a torp on each(They are very close togther meaning one won't kill all four) and he;s heistant saying it COULD work(Meaning they might be able to take it) and it would be safer but he wants to save torps so he sends the Group in using Lasers on the necks(Thier Weak-point)

[Isolder74]

Just because an AT-At has weaknesses does not make then weak. And simply beause they are killed in unconvetional and unigue ways in the Battle of Hoth does not display incompitance on the part of the Imperial soilders. How would they be able to possibly be able to expect that the Rebels would use tow cables to knock down the At-At's(it was come up with on the fly on Luke's part anyway). And it only worked once on screen onced the Imp's knew about it they didn't let it happen. When Veers shoots the Power Generators we only see 1 walker but when the Rebel troops are retreating we see 3 to the losses seem to be only 2 walkers in the battle.

[tharkûn]

1- the hatch is a vulnerable spot. There is no evidence for the entire belly being vulnerable. I never argued the point that AT-ATs are easy to destroy from within- this is obviously true from the destruction of both.
Sigh again I have only argued that the hatch is a weak point. The entire belly might be vunerable, but there is no evidence to prove it is.

2- this could only be exploited by enemy infantry in the lack of AT-ST support. At the stage of the battle Luke destroyed that AT-ST support, it had been taken out. As I agreed before, the thin skin of AT-STs is a flaw of the Imperial attack on Hoth, that and the lack of heavily armored AA

AT-ST's appear to be frikking worthless. If you lack close support you need to get it. This is one of the arguments in favor of deploying your infantry back behind the armor ... more targets means some of them will survive. Did none of the Imps anticipate losing the AT-ST's? Do they not know the things are easy to crack and kill? Further if your AT-ST's are for close support ... why are none positioned behind the AT-AT's? Why do they have no rear gaurd? Every AT-ST could be quickly killed if the rebs attack from the rear.


(infantry AA would've been stupid- they'd be under fire from the defenders)
If the defenders can target them. For instance let's say its a stinger analogue. Its range (which with SW propulsion is sufficient to blow it out of orbit) means that the infantry can deploy km away, beyond any observed range for rebel artillerly (notice who they *waited* to start firing after seeing the AT-AT's). Yes you will lose some infantry ... better than having 50% of em die in when the AT-ATs go up.

3- the script saying its metal (what the fuck else was the script gonna say?!) means NOTHING.
I dunno lets go with:
1. Ceramics
2. Polymer composite
3. Non-metallic crystal (i.e. adamantane structures).
4. Neutronium

Not to mention the blindingly obvious Imaginary Trade Name. Lucas even goes so far as to describe a "metallic ring", face the facts they are *METAL*.

The armor of the AT-AT displays peculiar qualities. If you want to posit that the Rebel fixed artillery had the firepower of BB guns and that modern metal could shrug off Rebel arty just as well because of the use of the word metal, you are stupid. Notice also that when both AT-ATs fall they remain structurally sound, as Wong points out- indicating very high strength on its own.
Straw man. I posit that Rebel artillerly has *MUCH* less momentum than their missile engines (and spaceship engines) are capable of imparting to a penetrator mass. Rebel artillerly may be very high KE, but low momentum. The only thing I said modern weapons could do was breach 3cm of "solid metal".

Here's the basic problem, I fire a a KE projectile at your armor. The shot either stops or it rebounds. Where does the KE go? In modern armor the KE is spent deforming the penetrator itself and the armor. This can be accomplished at current KE's (far below those attained in SW's) by having really frikking thick armor. So that huge amounts of energy goes into deforming the armor and give the penetrator room to decelerate. Get this through your skull, to stop a penetrator you need *depth*, you need the ability to transfer KE into some other form.

Also, I'm SICK and TIRED of Canon versus official. FUCK OFF. The canon policy is perfectly clear to all except Darkstar, and unless you can find an explicit contradiction between the canon and the official info that AT-ATs can withstand multi-megaton blasts, you can SHUT THE FUCK UP, because the point stands.
Really despite you and others continually making this claim you have cited NO source. Either cite, with context, or shut up.

1- the AT-AT does not teter
Irrelevant one error does not negate the entire source, if that were the case we can ditch the EU in entirety.

2- Luke doesn't cut the hatch, he cuts the handle and the hatch flies open
Oh I see the handle is not part of the hatch

Tell me is the door handle part of your car door? Is the hatch control wheel part of the hatch on a naval vessel?

The main point is that even though that hatch can be penetrated, its too hard to hit. infantry with man portable weapons, even if it were possible to penetrate the hatch with some sort of man-portable mini-proton kinetic energy weapon- WHATEVER really, would be KILLED by AT-STs. Thats what the AT-STs are THERE for.
The AT-ST's are deployed moronically. The imps have *NO* rear facing guns, nor any that can quickly face behind. AT-ST's can be killed by KE we have on screen canon proof. We have screen canon proof that guns from a *SCOUT* vehicle blow them to kingdom come. If the AT-ST's lasted a minute against people trying to kill them, I'd be surpised. Large target profiles with shoddy mobility and robustness and above all crap armor are easy kills. The only way AT-ST's would be effective is if you had enough of them you could let them die in large numbers without making a dent in the total number.

If such weapons were mounted on vehicles- they would be an easier target, and again, would be destroyed by either AT-ST or AT-AT fire. Also, in the face of such an assault- the AT-ATs could deploy their infantry.

Whatever. We have the ability to airdrop vehicles *today*. Take and load a transport with the vehicles, take the long circular path around the AT-AT's, drop the vechiles and take a chopper equivalent down to jump height to deploy their crew. With nothing gaurding their rear the AT-AT's can't even aim at mech vehicles.

Just because AT-AT's can blow vehicles up (a dubious assumption, but one I don't care to argue about) does not mean they can kill em. Any MBT can kill a HMMWV with a single shot, however that does not mean that the HMMWV can't get close to the tank, mover around it, or launch AT weapons to kill it. Give the slow rate of imperial advance, an attack from the rear would *easily* allow the rebs to get under AT-AT's. AT-ST's are cannon fodder.

We have 2 AT-ATs lost to:

1- sabotage: Luke exploits the destruction of the AT-STs to make a hatch attack
Preventable if the imps had anything behind them providing close fire support.

2- harpoon and tow cable: successful once, unsuccessful at the one other times it was attempted.
Preventable with a single flak burst in front of the speeder.

As far as the unsuccessful attemp goes, it was still rank stupidity. If you have a clear vector of attack from the rear against the choice of attacking straight on through a LETHAL CROSSFIRE, most good (sane) pilots opt for the clean approach.

All other Rebel speeders continued to attempt neck and vent shots.
Stupidity. Attacking into AA cover for a tactic you claim NEVER WORKED before, when a DEMONSTRATED KILL is avaible with a clean approach vector ... sorry no two ways to cut it.

I don't understand how you can infer negligence and incompetence from this. At worst, the Imperials were overconfident, to be sure, but the fact remains they were unconventional, indirect tactics- it was the first time both had occured- and I don't see how anyone can argue incompetence based on these two.
Overcondifence is incompotence. When you have inadequite resources because you are so confident in your superiority ... that is incompotence. Going from a mission that would have involved minimal losses with sensible combined arms using weapons the Imps are supposed to have to 50+% casualties and only succeeding because your enemy does not exploit your glaring weaknesses ... that is incompotence.

Basically Tharkun's argument is they suffered casualties, therefore they are incompetent- no matter how unexpected the tactics used. Great. From now on, every force that suffers casualties due to unconventional tactics is clearly incompetent and negligent because they didn't think of it ahead of time.
AVOIDABLE casualties. It's a rather *BASIC* concept that omni directional AA = good, limited AA = bad. It's a rather basic concept that you have *something* as a rear gaurd.

From what we observed the assualt was incompotently planned.

Tharkun has a mathematical, antiseptic concept of battle- everything must be thought of ahead of time and nothing should be unexpected- just a simple set of equations to be worked out.
Just *BASIC* things. Like the idea of omnidirectional air cover. This is *NOT* a hard concept. It is not an ad hoc counter to a completely uncoventional tactic, its something you want *WHENEVER* the enemy has air cover.

Likewise for close support. Unless you are talking about masses of armor (i.e 20+ vehicles) you need something for close support. AT-AT's have no off-axis AP guns, they have nothing that can shoot at things under them nor at things behind them. These are not damning flaws, modern MBT's can't shoot infantry in close (of course some tankers like to put AP mines on the side of the tank to discourage infantry from getting too close), but you either operate with enough numbers to provide each other with close support or you have somebody help. We see *NOTHING* used to provide close support (and please if you think forward deployed AT-ST's are viable close support ... don't make me laugh).

These are time honored basics in war. Any half brained moron can understand them. Not following them is either extreme stupidity, extreme arrogance, or both ... all of which is incompotent.

Too bad because things ARE unexpected on the field of battle- and on the scale of the Battle of Hoth (i.e. the tactical level) NO MILITARY could adapt to unconventional tactics THAT QUICKLY.
You mean their SOPs don't include basics like the value of omnidirectional AA? Nor the value of close support. This is not Star Trek where adapting means finding a new particle to play with. This means you take rank simple and basic measures. What the hell is so hard to understand about it being a GOOD idea to bring omni-directional AA when you have no air cover? What the hell is so hard to understand about having something viable providing close support (an AP tank if you are that set against mech infantry).

All up, the Imps accomplished their mission regardless and routed the Rebel defense? Arrogant? Yes. Incompetent/negligent, no.

The federation troops accomplished their mission at AR-588? The had a piss poor defense strategy, no HMG's, no grenades, and all clumped closely togethor so a few frag grenades could kill the lot of them.

A compotent platoon could have held that chokepoint against charging Jem'Hadar without any losing any losses.

But they still accomplished their mission regardless.

Does that make the feddie redshirts compotent?

Here's an interesting analogy- Moghadishu 1993. Somali tribesmen use anti-tank RPGs to down a pair of Blackhawks by knocking out their tail rotor. Who's going to expect such a tactic on the first run?
We would. Because they did it *BEFORE*, only a few days before Black Hawk Down a US chopter was hit by a RPG that didn't explode. Commanders assumed that they didn't have weapons capable of easily downing a blackhawk (gee where have we heard that before?). Further *3* Black Hawks went down, one crash landed at the base.

Not to mention that that this is not a new tactic, just new spin. In Afghanistan mujhadeen were using Stingers and even even rifles to take pot shots at Soviet choppers.

In any event let me quote the words of (ret) Colonel David Hackworth:
""In a battle, fought on 3 October 1993, Major Generals Thomas Montgomery and William Garrison's lack of war-fighting skills caused 18 American warriors to be killed, 100 more to be wounded and our nation to be humiliated. Garrison and Montgomery made every basic error in the book, beginning with not understanding the enemy. They had bad intelligence, were overly dependent on firepower and technology and were arrogant. Nor did they bother to put a go-to-hell-plan in place in case the shit hit the fan. They made the identical blunders that were made in Vietnam over and over for eight bloody years.

Their mistakes were ones that good generals should never make, and because of them, great soldiers paid a terrible price. Besides the big picture stuff they screwed up, they also blew it on simple tactical techniques such as conducting seven raids using exactly the same drill while their the enemy watched and learned their modus operandi.

On the seventh raid, conducted on a hot Sunday afternoon, disaster struck and some of the best warriors America had were thrown into a death grinder. Just as in Vietnam, the enemy worked out our pattern, set up a counter operation, patiently waited for Special Ops warriors to throw their punch and then creamed our good warriors.

As is so often the case in battle, brave men down on the ground and up in the air saved a repeat of another Custer's last stand. But the entire massacre could have been avoided had the generals, both Vietnam veterans, remembered what went down in South East Asia three decades before. Unfortunately, they as most generals - - past and present -- suffered from CRS (Can't Remember Shit.)

After this disaster, we were chased from Somalia, just as we were from Vietnam thirty years before, once again, by mostly barefooted guerrillas, armed mainly with light infantry weapons because American military leaders did dumb things.

The mistakes made in Somalia have convinced me that little was learned from America's 25 year long Vietnam experience. And I fear that there will be more Mogadishu's, more dumb U.S. Army generals and sadly more blood spilled needlessly as we march down a bloody trail into Century XXI.

I believe the majority of the fights our forces will get into over the next thirty years will be Low Intensity Conflicts (LIC) , the irregular kind of dirty little shoot outs such as were fought in the 15th Century, in our Indian wars and most recently in Vietnam and Somalia. But most of these fights will be fought in cities.

With this in mind, here are a few tips for when operating in such an environment:

* Never use trails.

* Always take it for granted that the enemy's watching.

* Always have a go-to-hell plan.

* Never assume anything.

* Always expect the unexpected.

* Talk to the Grunts, they always have the best feel for what's going down.

* Keep operations sledgehammer simple and remember: if it can be f'd up, it will be.

* Train your force like a good football coach. Teamwork is the key and this is done by relentlessly repeating squad drills over and over until they are executed automatically and flawlessly. Then do them again!

And remember, squads who live by the basics of their trade make great Armies; Armies don't make great squads. And these squads must be perfectly trained in the basic fundamentals of the killing trade. And most importantly, NEVER, NEVER be in a hurry. Lastly, I predict that most of future LIC combat will be in urban areas which is the toughest and most costly way of fighting.... "

In other words that whole mission went south on FRIKKING GROSS INCOMPOTENCE you do not go in assuming the enemy does not have AA ability. You do not go in convinced that the enemy is a push over. You do not go in without a sensible combined arms platform (the troops had to wait *hours* for Armored backup because some jackass didn't want to "offend" the Somalis).

I think if you called any of those guys incompetent or negligent for not expecting that, they'd smash your face in, and rightly so.
Were the Rangers negligent? Hell yes. They even said it themselves, some of the NCO's ripped their own officer's new ones because the officers were so frikking incompotent. They should have had a damn simple back up plan to get the hell out (as in Bradlies waiting with artillerly support), they should have gone in with a sensible combined arms approach (i.e. a few M1's to roll into town if things get really nasty, some ariel support, some mech vehicles that were appropriate for the task). They should have not been so damn arrogant. Too much arrogance is identical to incompotence.


Personally I think the majority of the officers there should be *SHOT*.


The P-Tower (the dish weapon) is anti-armor. Official.
The other one is anti-personnel. Official.
Worthless information. There are plenty of anti-armor weapons that are not effective on the big boys, to the best of my knowledge there is only 1 system capable of deating the frontal armor of the M1 (and that is only by comparing numbers, not by any actual test I've seen).


Additionally, a Soviet T-72BM is impenetrable along the frontal arc to the M1s 120mm APFSDS rounds at normal battle ranges- proven by a US Army test in 1997. The secret? Kontakts-5 second generation Explosive Reactive Armor (effective against both HEAT and APFSDS rounds). Ditto for the T-80U and T-90.

And seeing as I wasn't talking about M1's exclusively this has been another useless fact. The fact of the matter is armor which can resist one form of attack cannot resist all forms of attack. The rebs had AT-guns, wahoo, that still gives us nothing quantifiable.

Tharkun, once again you disregard suspension of disbelief. The AT-AT is metal. Because its ability to withstand a multi-megaton weapon has been demonstrated we suspend disbelief and say that the walker is metal, and that it is vastly stronger than any metal known to man
cite it or shut the hell up.

You also refuse to accept the fact that SW scanners scan something other than photons, even though they clearly have FTL scanning capabilities.
They have FTL sensors cabable of what exactly? Finding other large ships? Seeing planets? In ANH we see Han *surprised* that they come out in a debris feild, hence his FTL sensors didn't warn him ahead of time.

The fact of the matter is you are claiming the Imps had the ability to see underground at Hoth, yet can't do the same in the Asteroid feild. You claim they would know the weapons capable of killing their tanks (despite any rebel ploys to hide such information) , yet that entails knowledge of the X-wings which can penetrate ISD armor, hell enough of em swarming can kill an ISD. Yet somehow the imps decided that none of these would be a threat? Or did they magically know that it would be 2 escorts per transport (as opposed to 1 or 2 for 3)?

Tharkun, just because something is metal does not mean that it is weak, in terms of suspension of disbelief. You are speaking from canon, but you are completely disregarding facts that come from either canon (in the case of the scanners) and official sources (a multitude of them in the case of the walkers). That is not good debating.

Its cannon that an ISD in orbit of an unsheilded desert planet can't find two bloody droids in hours. Why did it take them *hours* (at a bare minimum) to track the droids?

Now, if you were to say that AT-ATs could repel fire from the DS, I would say you were an idiot because the limits of their armor cannot be higher than about 650 MT, based on all evidence available. AT-AT's have limits in terms of their armor, but their limits are vastly higher than any materials we have today. That seems like a contradiction, but it is covered by suspension of disbelief.

Pulling numbers out of your arse. We have never seen the DS fire on an AT-AT, prove that it would penetrate an AT-AT.

I am well aware that armor limits go up, you are missing the point that their penetration abilities went up several orders of magnitude also.

Besides which there is this real nasty thing about rigid armor (you know stuff that doesn't bend under immense pressure) ... the other guy can just make his penetrator out of the same material. The only reason an M1 can stand up to a DU penetrator is that it has much thicker, has chobham to disperse KE (by literally deforming the armor). Now you take that same armor and you up the mass of the penetrator, keeping every else constant ... it goes right thourgh. The only way armor has a prayer is if its damn thick.

I belive he refers to the fact that in Issards Revenge when Rouge Squadren is faced with 4 At-Ats that are hasseling the ground troops he thinks of using a torp on each(They are very close togther meaning one won't kill all four) and he;s heistant saying it COULD work(Meaning they might be able to take it) and it would be safer but he wants to save torps so he sends the Group in using Lasers on the necks(Thier Weak-point)

In other words no actual observation of such resiliancy. Thanks.

Just because an AT-At has weaknesses does not make then weak. And simply beause they are killed in unconvetional and unigue ways in the Battle of Hoth does not display incompitance on the part of the Imperial soilders. How would they be able to possibly be able to expect that the Rebels would use tow cables to knock down the At-At's(it was come up with on the fly on Luke's part anyway). And it only worked once on screen onced the Imp's knew about it they didn't let it happen. When Veers shoots the Power Generators we only see 1 walker but when the Rebel troops are retreating we see 3 to the losses seem to be only 2 walkers in the battle.

Because so *REAL* simple AA deployment would have saved their asses. Because its RANK ARROGANCE to assume that the rebs won't commit any X-wings to kill them. The fact that the rebs used tow cables is actually immaterial (save that the design was pathetic if it didn't just stand still instead of letting its KE and GPE disable it), that the Imps went in with no rear facing AA is negligent.

bah too much typing. I guess you guys are insecure in your position to have one man speak for you all.

[D.Turtle]

Tharkûn:
Are Turbolasers lasers, becuase of the word Laser in them?

Likewise, is AT-AT armor metal, simply because they say metal?

The Imperials had AA: They shot down most (or all?) speeders.
Also, if the Rebels did NOT have a reason to attack from behind, because the weapons of the speeders couldn't penetrate the armor of the AT-ATs. If they had shown the ability to damage or kill AT-ATs from behind, it wouldhave been a simple thing to turn one AT-AT around in order to defend against them. (Remember, an AT-AT can fire in an arc of 90° within one second!)

We have screen canon proof that guns from a *SCOUT* vehicle blow them[AT-ST's] to kingdom come.

Lets see: Bradleys can kill other Bradleys, that means Bradleys suck?
Better: Bradleys can kill many MBTs, does that mean MBTs suck?

About Somalia: Militarily seen, the US beet the Somalians. They lost only 18 soldiers, while the Somalians lost hundreds , if not over a thousand soldiers/armed militants/civilian supporters!

Its cannon that an ISD in orbit of an unsheilded desert planet can't find two bloody droids in hours. Why did it take them *hours* (at a bare minimum) to track the droids?

That actually shows just how good their sensors are! They can find droids (they didn't even know how many, what type or anything else, except that they were droids) on a PLANET within HOURS or a couple of days! (Not on the entire Planet but a relatively large area, as the Jawas picked them up and moved them with their Crawlers.)
At Hoth, they oly had a single base in a relatively small area that they had to observe. (Remember, most of the defence of Hoth was outside).

About your constant bashing that AT-ATs suck, because they have a weak hatch: Does that mean M1A2s suck, because they have weak rear, side, top, AND bottom armor?
Do Bradleys suck, because they can't survive a hit from most MBTs?
Would an M1A2 survive being hit by 2 HUGE tree trunks simultaneously from both sides?
Do Tanks and all tracked vehicles suck, because their tracks are easily disabled?
Do all wheeled vehicles suck, because their tires can be easily blown out?

We KNOW that the hatch is a weak spot.
However, it is a VERY FAR stretch, to go from saying the AT-ATs hatch is a weak spot to AT-ATs are sucky and have weak armor!

In ANH we see Han *surprised* that they come out in a debris feild, hence his FTL sensors didn't warn him ahead of time.

Everybody know that in Hayperspace SW ships have bad sensors, simply because of the speed they are moving at.

[tharkûn]

Are Turbolasers lasers, becuase of the word Laser in them
Sigh. Are Megatonnes megatonnes because they have the word megatonne in them?

You can't pick and choose words in cannon to take at face value and those not to. The language of SW is not English, everything is translated into English and words do have meaning.

The ranking of canon is clear:
1. The visuals come first. These are objective, from "God's own eyeview".
2. The written canon comes second.
3. The EU comes third.

Unless you have contradiction from 1, 2 stands. In the case of turbolasers we have direct visual effects saying that the weapons are not lasers, however that does not mean they don't use lasers (say to excite the plasma or whatever).

The Imperials had AA: They shot down most (or all?) speeders
Sigh not this AGAIN, look at the neck of an AT-AT it does not hae 6 steridians of range. It can only shoot at targets in front and in a restricted cone at that. The imps have no rear facing AA.


Also, if the Rebels did NOT have a reason to attack from behind, because the weapons of the speeders couldn't penetrate the armor of the AT-ATs.
The rebels can attack from behind, or are the tow cables magical and somehow not work? Make your attack run from the back, make a tight circle around the legs (like seen in TESB when they down an AT-AT) then fire your tow and proceed as normal. There is no good reason not to attack from behind.

they had shown the ability to damage or kill AT-ATs from behind, it wouldhave been a simple thing to turn one AT-AT around in order to defend against them.
Bullocks. Look at the joints on an AT-AT, the knee has no side motion, the hip is extremely limited. All told its very poor articulation. Its turning radius will be huge.

Remember, an AT-AT can fire in an arc of 90° within one second!)
Contradicts canon. A walker must step out of line and alter its centre of gravity to make much slower shot to hit the last speeder we see go down. If it had such capabilities it would have used them. Further the time fram needed to make this adjustment is not consistent with that listed.

Lets see: Bradleys can kill other Bradleys, that means Bradleys suck?
Better: Bradleys can kill many MBTs, does that mean MBTs suck?
1. I don't care if 1 AT-AT can kill another AT-AT the point is they are 1 shot kills at long range for any AT squad the rebs deploy. Normally you either but the biggest guns and best armor in the front or you dismount your infantry and send them forward. Sending IFV's in front of tanks is not particularly useful ... they are too vunerable and cannot help a tank who gets set upon by AT-infantry (protecting tanks are normally a big role of mech infantry).
2. Scout vehicles are not made for sustained combat against artillery (besides which the AT-ST is a complete downgrade from earlier and other SW scouts), air cover, and possibly AT weapons. They are made to be quick (which an AT-ST isn't, compared to say a speeder bike), small, and stealthy. *IF* they go to battle they normally like to do hit and run. They are much closer to a HMMWV than to a Bradley.
3. Of course various components can kill others, that's why good militaries used combined arms. The problem is not that the AT-AT has weakspots ... everything has some weakness. Its that the Imps leave them *WIDE FRIKKING OPEN*. In a brilliant military something else would have provided rear facing air cover, something besides cannon fodder like AT-ST's providing close support, and artillerly of their own to boot. The fault is not in an imperfect AT-AT its in poor tactics.

About Somalia: Militarily seen, the US beet the Somalians. They lost only 18 soldiers, while the Somalians lost hundreds , if not over a thousand soldiers/armed militants/civilian supporters!
You make me sick. You COUNT civilians when making a battle toll of who wins? But you know what? If your goal is to rack up kills here's a much more effective method:
USE A DAMN B52. You want to kill thousands? Drop 30,000 kg of TNT on them. It's *zero* risk and much better kill rates. The casualty ratios aren't worth A RAT'S ASS, they were completely worthless. The goal was to nab some bad guys without enraging the local populace, it failed *bigtime*.

That actually shows just how good their sensors are! They can find droids (they didn't even know how many, what type or anything else, except that they were droids) on a PLANET within HOURS or a couple of days! (Not on the entire Planet but a relatively large area, as the Jawas picked them up and moved them with their Crawlers.)

Oh please the Imps knew where they were within bounds. The know where the escape pod lands. They know the max speed of an R2 unit over sand. That means they start with a small circle. Further they are in the middle of a desert with bloody Golden body armor, if they can see underground weapons piles the lone patch of golden metal in a sea of sand should be easy. Besides which I do beleive the droids *left tracks* in the sand.

About your constant bashing that AT-ATs suck, because they have a weak hatch: Does that mean M1A2s suck, because they have weak rear, side, top, AND bottom armor?
Dumbass my point is not that AT-AT's suck its that the Imps using them were moronic. An M1's backside is weak, but for that reason you see tanks with infantry support or tanks in such large groups then can mow down infantry by the division.. Sending 4 M1's out alone (or let's give them HMMWV's to drive in front and take the first bullet) against hostile ifantry with air cover and artillerly ... that is called suicidal. That is called gross negligence.

Do Bradleys suck, because they can't survive a hit from most MBTs?

Sigh the point that is desperately drilling its way through your skull is that what sucks is IMPERIAL TACTICS or lack thereof. Sending Bradleys in front of M1's to assualt fixed guns and artillerly with no air support or artillerly of your own, yes that would suck.

Would an M1A2 survive being hit by 2 HUGE tree trunks simultaneously from both sides?
In a heart beat. Tree trunks are *soft*. They are beta-glucose bubbles surrounding water. At the pressures needed for a treek trunk to pierce the armor on an abrams, the tree would tear *itself* apart. Why do you think nobody uses wooden bullets? They are too soft.

Do all wheeled vehicles suck, because their tires can be easily blown out?
Sigh, this is why combat vehicles that expect to be hit use *solid* wheels. Other combat vehicles don't intead to be hit, but that means they don't make *slow frontal assualts* against artillerly.

Everybody know that in Hayperspace SW ships have bad sensors, simply because of the speed they are moving at.
Cite.

Sigh read the damn thread first. Most of your crap has already been dealt with and if you'd learn to read with comprehension you notice that I'm argueing that the Imps should have taken measures to stop exploitations of their weaknesses by compotent foes.

[Master of Ossus]

Tharkun, if AT-AT's can take multi-megaton weapons, then how the hell would a modern army fight against them and expect to win, which is essentially what you tell us would happen.

Number 2, you stated that the IDF is made up of quintessential soldiers (or something to that effect). Are you aware that these soldiers got lost on a mission in a building that they had rehearsed to raid, and wandered around shooting at random targets while stumbling about looking for a set of stairs? Shouldn't that have already been dealt with before they went on that mission? Shouldn't those soldiers have known their way around the building, at least enough so as not to get lost while storming it?

Tharkun, the speeder that was fired on by the walker off-axis showed that AT-AT's have considerable agility and their ability to target a speeder coming in from the side is considerable. That the walkers can fire 90 degrees off-axis quickly does not contradict canon at all. In fact, it is a conclusion supported by canon.

[tharkûn]

Tharkun, if AT-AT's can take multi-megaton weapons, then how the hell would a modern army fight against them and expect to win, which is essentially what you tell us would happen.
By exploiting known weaknesses. Unless the weapon goes off under the AT-AT the entire blast will hit the more heavily armored top and sides. Its only the heat and other high energy the bottom would have to take. As we have seen numerous times the ability to block radiation and high energy, low momentum shots is not the ability to block high momentum shots.

Number 2, you stated that the IDF is made up of quintessential soldiers (or something to that effect). Are you aware that these soldiers got lost on a mission in a building that they had rehearsed to raid, and wandered around shooting at random targets while stumbling about looking for a set of stairs?
I said some of the IDF. Not the run of the mill conscripts, not even the run of the mill career soldiers. I'm talking more about the Sayeret (notably MATKAL and S'13).


Tharkun, the speeder that was fired on by the walker off-axis showed that AT-AT's have considerable agility and their ability to target a speeder coming in from the side is considerable.
Then why did it shift position? You can visibily see the front foot of the AT alter to accomodate the shot. That is not 90 degree mobility.

That the walkers can fire 90 degrees off-axis quickly does not contradict canon at all. In fact, it is a conclusion supported by canon.
When you are forced to turn your vehicle to acquir a target in *open air* you do not have the stats you are claiming. If it has the cabalities you claim their is no need to alter the the course of the walker at all. The head should have been able to turn by itself. Having to alter the trajectory of your vehicle is indicative of poor range of motion.

I need to check the movie again, but the from the screen shots I'm looking it it has nowhere near good enough articulation.

Personally I want to know what arguements you still are holding to and which ones you've conceded. Because every time you post you make more statements without citing proof. You effectively punt your more idiotic positions without saying so, and then try to insult my intelligence because I refuse to accept your unattributed figures. And to top it all off go back and nitpick something I said (without bothering to get it right) hoping to paint me as a hypocrit.

Am I that good that you feel the need to nitpick my personal (and admittedly biased) opinions rather than attack my real points ?

[Master of Ossus]

Number 2, you stated that the IDF is made up of quintessential soldiers (or something to that effect). Are you aware that these soldiers got lost on a mission in a building that they had rehearsed to raid, and wandered around shooting at random targets while stumbling about looking for a set of stairs?
I said some of the IDF. Not the run of the mill conscripts, not even the run of the mill career soldiers. I'm talking more about the Sayeret (notably MATKAL and S'13).

That WAS Sayerat Matkal. The soldiers I was referring to were not namby pamby conscripts. They were elite Israeli units, getting lost.

Incidentally, I don't know how you can figure that any weapon we have today could possibly have more than a hundred megatons worth of energy behind it. We have NOTHING that is anywhere near that good.

And the Walker's ability to fire off-axis is dependent on its ability to move its feet, but that does not mean that it cannot quickly target and fire on a speeder attacking it from the side. Its ability to rapidly shift its footing and articulate its head is considerable, if it can fire that far off of its original direction that quickly.[/quote]

[tharkûn]

That WAS Sayerat Matkal. The soldiers I was referring to were not namby pamby conscripts. They were elite Israeli units, getting lost.
Would you care to name the specific incident or do you intend to continue this distraction technique with just vague statements?

As I have already noted I *know* my choices are biased, I said that *outright* in the first time I mentioned it. This amounts to a nitpick of irrelevant material.

As far as the nuclear shot I'm done listening to rant about it. Either derive your numbers or cite your source. I'm not going to waste time when all you are going to do is regurgitate the same numbers without basis.

Maybe I won't have to convince you of the difference between high momentum impacts and low momentum impacts or have to explain with monosyballic words how Energy sheilding might protect you from a thermonuclear explosion, but not from a KE penetrator.

However I'll be damned if I'm going to listen you prate without giving specifics. If you want to debate, cite your source(s) or go home.

[Master of Ossus]

I was referring to Isard's Revenge, and the mission to Entebbe.

AT-AT's do not use shields, according to all official and canon sources. They just have their armor.

[tharkûn]

I was referring to Isard's Revenge, and the mission to Entebbe.

Okay now we are getting somewhere.

Now the only mention Curtis Saxton makes of AT-AT's in his section on AT-AT's is :

"Out of the hangars trotted a quartet of AT-ATs, the Imperial walker units that had wrought so much havoc at Hoth. They moved quickly, not looking as cumbersome and slow in the light snow as they had on Hoth's icefields. Back then we were in airspeeders- undergunned and overmatched. A smile slowly twisted his lips. Not the case this time.
...

Hobbie, her wingman, came in on a crossing path that gave him a clean shot at the tail. Lyyr's shots had slagged armor on the mechanical beast's flank, but hadn't done any serious damage. Hobbie's attack ran from below the AT-AT's body up on the back, and at least one shot holed the fuel tank. Flaming fluid streamed down like a tail, then an explosion ripped the walker's back end open. The blast pitched the walker up into the air and through a somersault that landed it on its back. "

Not only does this *NOT* mention anything about proton torps, but it makes some points you guys have been making laughable.

Now let me get this straight. The Imps allegedly *KNOW* that rebs have X-wings (and lots of them), with such fire power that one "holed the fuel tank" and blew the thing apart. Not only are X-wings powerful enough to pierce AT-AT armor, they have enough energy to SLAG it. And then they came in with *crap* air cover. If the Imps *KNOW* that the rebs have X-wings, and they *KNOW* that these things can gun through the armor *and* slag it, and deploy with a COMPLETELY OPEN ATTACK VECTOR (even if we give an AT-AT +/- pi/2 in still only 5 steridians max, and a lot of these are ground shots) ... this isn't negligent it's GROSS UTTER INCOMPOTENT NEGLIGENCE.

The Imps have *NO* way of knowing if the X-wings are going to be sent out 1 to a transport, 2 to a transport or 3 for 2. Say the rebs go 3 for 2, that's what a *dozen* X-wings against 4 AT-AT's? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that more than the entire complement of Rogue Squadron?

Further the fluid is "flaming" which is either:
1. an error
2. means that AT-AT armor can be blown apart by simple *chemical* reactions like oxidation.


Try being honest next time.
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.

Well let's see if X-wing's can *slag* AT-AT armor would you count that as proof? Or how about holing the fuel tank so the damn thing blows itself up.


Is THAT enough proof for you?

[Master of Ossus]

The incident I was referring to with proton torpedoes was when Hobbie tells them that they could have taken the four walkers with four proton torpedoes. This indicates that a single torpedo cannot destroy two walkers, and indirectly means that only a direct hit with a torpedo will allow a proton torpedo to destroy a walker. Proton torpedoes are in the 500-750 MT range. This indicates that walkers can take proximity damage from thermonuclear weapons without being destroyed, indicating a resilience far in excess of what you are claiming them capable of, and also FAR in excess of any modern material.

[Master of Ossus]

Also note that the mission at Entebbe was carried out in direct violation of Tharkun's claim that good soldiers always use combined arms tactics. That mission was carried out without air cover of any kind. It was carried out with no artillery. It was carried out with no heavy armor. It was an almost entirely infantry operation, and had no combined arms, whatsoever. A single Ugandan MBT or a jet fighter would have prevented the Israelis from succeeding. This is exactly the kind of thing that Tharkun is attacking the Imperial forces for not doing, yet the mission in Entebbe is seen as one of the greatest military operations in history, in spite of these flaws. Clearly Tharkun is either mistaken about how "good soldiers" always use combined arms, or he mis-defined the term "good soldier" when I asked him about it.