Who CAN the Federation Ground Troops beat?

[Coyote]

Wow, what a scrap... miss a couple days and I'm pages behind.

Some sidebar info-- regarding the Merkava as an APC. The Merkava I and II had 105mm guns and could carry enough ammo in the turret to make the occassional use of ground troops deployed from the back. In fact, in a famous operation, members of the Sayyeret Tzanhanim (Paras) rode in the backs of Merkava-IIs that went into Lebanon on a smash-and-grab. The surprise operation was a success because Hezbollah was used to seeing armored convoys patrolling by and didn't interfere with them since they usually just rolled through. The "smash" part of the operation was literal; the lead tank rolled into a house and disgorged the troops from within, to the surprise of the pro-Hezbollah populace.

Later Merkava-III and the new Merkava IV use the 120mm Rhinemetall, like the US and German tanks, and they carry barely enough ammo to act in a normal tank capacity, so the use of Merks an a uber-APC is pretty much over for now, although the option still exists should someone decide it is worth it. But for now-- they need the space for shells.

In case one should ask-- I did do some time with the National Guard here as an M1A1 tanker and spent four years in Israel at University Ben Gurion in Beer-Sheva, and mixed with a lot of the Reservists in the dorms, and when I got with the tankers we shared tank notes.

As for the Matkal troops getting lost, hey, even the best troops get FUBAR. One anecdote is not a standard make.

The Battle of Hoth is hard to argue because while at one point we see AT-STs, later we don't see them and we are left to conjecture that they must have either been taken out or got sent off on some infantry mopping-up ooperation, thus leaving the walkers they were supposed to escort without any cover. Again, Imperial arrogance or at least somone just getting a little ahead of themselves. Remember, the Rebel infantry was doing the 'run away' maneuver like Knights 'afore a Rabbit so some Lieutenant decided to skate off and wipe 'em out.

But so much happened that was off screen-- I mean, we were concerning ourselves with Luke Skywalker and the actions of Pilot 3rd Class Bartholomew Q. Pigweed was not followed, even if Pilot Pigweed did take out two more walkers and all the scouts singlehanded. So we'll never know if the remaining AT-ATs were taken out by, well, exactly what.

But we could look at it from another direction-- Walkers were deployed with no rear protection because Imperial Intelligence had a psychological profile theorizing that the Rebels never attack from the rear, sure as a true gunfighter never puts one through a man's back. Jedi ethics and all, the Empire counts on the Rebel's sense of honorable conduct and uses that against them in their tactical planning...

One more thought among many...

[tharkûn]

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.
So you are telling me that X-wings fire with 500 MT shots? You realize that every X-wing shot in atmosphere should then be accompanied by an over pressure cloud? Whatever. You are grasping at straws. The very book you quote proves you *wrong*. Did it ever occur to you that proton torps might be:
1. Reactive based? Target supplies the energy so against an ISD they are 500 megatonne, against walkers (or air detonation they are less).
2. Variable yeild? That they might be using proton torps with less explosive bunch?
3. Hobby may be talking about EMPing them?
4. The blasts might be *directed*? Modern torps can have directed blasts so the majority of the energy goes into the target. If the blast is highly directed you might need 4 even to take out 4 walkers standing in off line when 1 would go straight through them?
5. Hobby might just be talking. As in he hasn't a clue?


Remind me again, why do X-wings even carry torpedos if their lasers are so much more powerful?

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.
Also note that you can't read worth beans.

You do not go in without a SENSIBLE combined arms platform

There is a difference, can you understand it or do I need to use monosyllabic words?

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.
And it was also conducted with the support of a naval group, without superior force, with inention of extracting hostages as opposed to unwilling enemy combatants.

A single Ugandan MBT or a jet fighter would have prevented the Israelis from succeeding.
Yep, that's why Kuti Adams gave the order to shoot the Ugandan Migs and disable them on the air feild. Oh wait soldiers who found novel threats on the battlefeild, changed plans and dealt with them, how strange.

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.
After he is shown to be wrong, my opponent feels that the appropriate action is to try to twist my position. In any event here are some things I'd like to say:
Entebbe was combined arms:
1. Aircraft were used for insertion and extraction.
2. More aircraft were in air the air to support the operation.
3. Mech infantry was used.

Now then possibly my opponent might understand the difference between an error and shoddy planning due to arrogance. At entebbe the raid was planned ahead of time with virtually every contigency the IDF could think of in it. Due to this planning and good tactics they completed the raid with *minimal* casualties.

Good tactics means one mistake or fluke won't kill you, and you do everything within your power to make a robust plan. For the imps this isn't true. For the IMPS you have too many things that can go wrong. Some of the X-wings can be left behind to fight the AT-AT's ... end result, Imperial defeat. Change the direction of speeder attack ... end result the Imps lose. The rebs have some KE weapons (or just mount X-wing blasters on some mech infantry), the imps can lose.

*ALL* of these things are corrected with just a little thought on their part. I'm not expecting them to walk on water, JUST REMEMBER THE DAMN BASICS. If the air cover can shoot at your armor you want to be able to shoot at it. If infantry get close to tanks, aerate them; tanks are bullet proof - enemy infantry are not. Do not make assumptions about how assets will be deployed (did we not learn that with Rommel's AA guns?).

Given what the imps know (that X-wings have enough fire power to *slag* AT-AT armor without torps) it was point blank negligent incompotence to go in without air cover. This is NOT a stealth raid, this is a damn frontal assualt.

Frankly I'm getting sick of this Master of nothing. You keep making asinine objections, I disprove them. You ignore the direct quotes showing you are wrong, and then try to distract with side issues, rather than I dunno conceed you were wrong. You are disengenious, you lie ... you just make statements of fact and then expect everyone to except your word as that of some mythical god.

The Battle of Hoth is hard to argue because while at one point we see AT-STs, later we don't see them and we are left to conjecture that they must have either been taken out or got sent off on some infantry mopping-up ooperation, thus leaving the walkers they were supposed to escort without any cover. Again, Imperial arrogance or at least somone just getting a little ahead of themselves. Remember, the Rebel infantry was doing the 'run away' maneuver like Knights 'afore a Rabbit so some Lieutenant decided to skate off and wipe 'em out.

But so much happened that was off screen-- I mean, we were concerning ourselves with Luke Skywalker and the actions of Pilot 3rd Class Bartholomew Q. Pigweed was not followed, even if Pilot Pigweed did take out two more walkers and all the scouts singlehanded. So we'll never know if the remaining AT-ATs were taken out by, well, exactly what.
You can honestly tell me that given the quotes about X-wings blowing AT-AT's the imps were not negligent for not have better AA coverage (something that can shoot behind the AT-AT's)?

But we could look at it from another direction-- Walkers were deployed with no rear protection because Imperial Intelligence had a psychological profile theorizing that the Rebels never attack from the rear, sure as a true gunfighter never puts one through a man's back. Jedi ethics and all, the Empire counts on the Rebel's sense of honorable conduct and uses that against them in their tactical planning...
I *really* doubt this one.

Again Stormies are among the best soldiers in sci fi. However, their blunders (at Hoth and Endor, giving them the benifit of the doubt for ANH) clearly do not potray them as the epitomy of soldiering. At some point arrogance becomes incompotence.

[Coyote]

Of course... the battle described in Isaard's Revenge happened a few years after the Battle of Hoth, so perhaps it was something they figured out after the fact-- it may well have been at an AAR where they said that given another chance at Hoth, they'd use the X-Wings.

There are other possibilities-- the Empire had very little data to go on and they may have assumed it was a minor Rebel hideaway; the paltry size of their attack force seems to carry this out. They would not have expected X-Wings or much else. Let's face it-- many times an army has gone into to battle only to find that faulty intel over- or under-estimated the size of the target. And many small strike teams will eschew a raft of complex weapons systems (ie, portable AA guns et al) for the sake of simplicity. When you stumble across a larger target than expected, that KISS philosophy turns around to bite you on the butt.

Let's face it-- the attack force that hit Grenada in '83 was originally supposed to be just a few Ranger teams. But the Ar Force wanted a piece of it, and the Marines, the Navy insisted on being included, and the Army wanted an expanded role with the 82nd and the 101st... it ended up as a goat-roping overkill. They SHOULD have trimmed away the fat and things would have been easier; the Empire suffered the opposite at Hoth and sent in too small a force. Fortunately, the Rebels were so concerned about evacuating that they did not exploit this. But we can't lose sight of one important fact--

-- the Rebels were not broken and in rout due to General Veers's command of the battlefield. We shortsightedly have focused all our attention on the size and equipment of Imperial to Rebel ground and atmospheric forces. The REAL threat, what the Rebels WERE running from, was a Super-Class Star Destroyer with six to eight Imperial-II Class Star Destroyers in escort! Even if the US had attacked Grenada with just a battalion of light infantry-- while at the same time surrounding the island with eight nuclear carriers and their battlegroups-- the Grenada-Cuban forces still would have been in their right minds to flee or surrender simply due to the threat posed by the Navy, not the measly ground forces.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't think you guys understand what happened when Sayerat Matkal went into Entebbe. I'm not sure that you understand the magnitude of their forces' confusion. Not one, not two, but FIVE different groups of Sayerat Matkal and Golanian forces got so lost that they missed critical places. They did not alter the plan on the fly. In fact, the plan was really never changed from the way they drew it up. These groups got completely lost in the building, to the point where they began aimlessly wandering around aimlessly in search of staircases or doors that they missed. In two instances, they actually came across Ugandan forces that they subsequently engaged, but in only one case were they able to get back on track properly. This is not changing the plan on the fly. This is wandering aimlessly, and without any real sense of direction. This is a blunder.

I also don't think you understand how contrary to Tharkun's statements about soldiers were. He said that "good soldiers" always go in with combined arms support. He said that they should always use armored forces, artillery, aircraft, infantry, and whenever possible naval forces together while in combat. The mission at Entebbe, in spite of the blunders I talked about above, is considered by almost all military analysts to be one of the greatest military operations in the last century. Yet it benefited from none of these combined arms tactics that Tharkun is harping on. Why is it considered the greatest combat mission in history? Quite frankly, because the Israelis succeeded in almost all of their objectives. Operation Jonathan succeeded in extracting all of the hostages (except one) very quickly. All of them, except one, escaped without injury.

You also ignore the real reason why the Israelis destroyed the MiG's. If you knew about the mission, you would realize that that was not in the plan. In fact, their destruction was solely to send a message to Amin and his forces that their association with terrorists was a mistake. It had nothing to do with mission security. As far as the aircraft goes, transports are not air support in the sense that they engage targets. The transports were there just to deliver the soldiers, and then extract them with the hostages. There was no air cover in the sense of other aircraft flying cover, or in the sense of fighters or bombers or anything like that. It was just transports, and nothing else.

Now, the Empire also succeeded in its objective on Hoth. Namely, that was to destroy the Main Generator. They did so very effectively, and dealt far more damage to the Alliance than Alliance forces did to them, even though they were on the offensive. Now, I won't say that the Battle of Hoth was as good as Entebbe. It wasn't even close. But it succeeded in carrying out its objectives. Like Tharkun's quintessential soldiers, the Imperials were able to carry on their mission despite their casualties and destroyed the Alliance troops. That should be seen as a victory, but Tharkun keeps speaking about it as if they got completely lucky in that the Rebels had no arms that could harm the AT-AT walkers.

In regards to Tharkun's clearly flawed statements,

1. How the hell can proton torpedoes be reactive based? They are clearly described as having explosive cores in all of the official literature. You are ignoring these facts and coming up with your own explanation while grasping at straws. They have hit shields and hulls with such explosive power. It is difficult to believe that they can do such damage to both shields and hulls if they are reactive based.
2. If the torpedoes were variable yield, then Wedge probably would not have been so worried about wasting them in the first place. He would have just set the yield lower. In addition, torpedoes have NEVER been even remotely implied as being variable yield. In fact, many books state that pilots hesitate to use them against starfighters for fear of wasting them, and do not use them in dogfights due to the overkill that they represent. That is not variable yield.
3. Oh, I'm sorry. Hobbie was talking about EMP weapons when I AM ARGUING THAT THEIR ARMOR WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO RESIST THE EXPLOSION! Are you seriously saying that the only way a torpedo could take them out is by EMP? That would contradict all of what you are saying. I don't think you can possibly claim that he decided suddenly that he didn't want to kill the walkers, just EMP them a little, and so he decided that he would shoot to miss but miss by a narrow enough margin that EMP would disable the walkers.
4. I know the blasts are directed. Assuming 90% directed, that still means that nearby walkers would be taking proximity hits from 50-75 MT weapons. That is still a hell of a lot of energy, and more than any known material can withstand. You are grasping at straws.
5. Nice try, but Hobbie had engaged walkers on Hoth. He had just worked to destroy walkers. He knew full well what their capabilities were, and he had probably studied them because RS spends so much time on the ground. Clearly he was fully aware of their abilities.

[Vympel]

"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."

PAY ATTENTION

How will infantry kill AT-STs? AT-STs are infantry killers! How the hell is an infantry man going to get behind an AT-ST if the AT-ST sees him?! If you forgot, I already told you that AT-STs have holographic projectors to see to the rear from the ICS. Oh and I guess AT-STs can't turn quicker than their larger cousins too- and that side mounted laser and concussion missile launcher cant swivel rearwards either.

"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."

Assuming they have stinger analogues, and that such a missile would be effective against the armor plate of a snowspeeder. Keep in mind the canon evidence of extremely heavy jamming used in all SW space combat- making the sensor suites of fighters practically useless. I doubt a stinger would have the power to burn through jamming.

" 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."

Since when is KE the only way to penetrate armor? Its pretty obvious from the movies that KE weapons have fallen out of favor for some reason, and that a slagging or HEAT effect via energy weapons is seen as preferable. We don't know why, and neither do you. Drop the theorizing about some sort of missile with the engine of a proton torpedo and a penetrator made out of the armor of AT-ATs- its nothing but assumption. Also you earlier statement that engines get more 'efficient' when they get smaller is misleading. They also get a lot more frigging expensive and complicated to make if you wanna make them nearly as powerful as their bigger cousins.

"Get this through your skull, to stop a penetrator you need *depth*, you need the ability to transfer KE into some other form."

And the only place on the AT-AT that lacks depth is too hard to hit with a conventional weapon, there is no evidence for a man-portable weapon that could do it, and even if there was there's the problem of All-Terrain Scout-Transports whose abilities I just laid out for you for the second time.

"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"

Shoddy mobility? Nice how you slipped this piece of utter bullshit in there.

Large target profiles? All the better elevation platform for your sensors.

Robustness/crap armor: scout transport. designed for scouting. Need not be invulnerable to everything. Again, I've already shown how hard it would be for an infantryman to get a drop on an AT-ST, so drop the point.

"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"

And the AT-STs will have such fun killing the little pissy Rebel vehicles behind them, considering how they'll be informed of the fact by the orbiting Star Destroyer. Good one. Or even better, will kill the crews before they get in the vehicles (actually to be fair, the latest generation of Russian airdroppable vehicles for the Air Assault Forces, the BMD-3, can drop with its crew inside).

"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"

How is AT-ATs blowing vehicles up a dubious assumption!? Its perfectly reasonable! It has much bigger fucking guns than that tiny hover vehicle in Episode 1 that took out the trade fed tank, does it not?! It was blowing the much faster and more nimble snowspeeders out of the sky, was it not!? And I already demonstrated the problem with your anti AT-ST argument (whose main guns are also bigger than that of the Episode 1 vehicle)

"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 didn't claim it never worked. From what we saw of the battle (which was damn little), yes it was stupid- but the Rebel pilots may have thought it was more likely. It may also require more skill to do what Wedge did.

"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."

Overconfidence is not incompetence. Incompetence is a much higer standard to prove than just being a bit too secure in your abilities and not considering unconventional tactics.

Hang on 50% losses? How much of the battle did we see? Hardly any! If you recall, Imperial troops entered the base before the shield was taken down, and before the retreat was called. Its obvious that there were other Imperial forces attacking, not just 4 AT-ATs.

"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."

AT-STs. I already said armored AA would've been preferable, but since AT-ATs can't be killed conventionally from the rear, I don't see it as damning evidence of incompetenece. With our 20/20 hindsight, yes it would've been good to have armored AA, but we weren't there were we

"(and please if you think forward deployed AT-ST's are viable close support ... don't make me laugh)."

Forward deployed? We see one AT-ST ahead of the line (scouting out for threats, DER!) and they're all forward deployed? Righhhht. And if twin laser cannons, a side mounted laser cannon, and a concussion missile launcher aren't close support ... tell me what is?

"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."

An RPG is not a stinger, nor small arms fire. The Black Hawks were flying to avoid small arms fire and stingers (flares, IRCM jammers for that purpose), not air-bursting RPGs aimed at the tail rotor.

Colonel David Hackworth applying 20/20 hindsight, oh hooray. I wonder if he'd call the troops fighting down there incompetent. And I was not aware 18 men lost is a massacre. Do you even know what the mission was? It wasn't 'lets go to war with the city', it was a capture operation that went SNAFU. I love your 20/20 hindsight, advocating fricking MBTs and IFVs for such a mission!

[tharkûn]

"I don't think you guys understand what happened when Sayerat Matkal went into Entebbe. I'm not sure that you understand the magnitude of their forces' confusion. Not one, not two, but FIVE different groups of Sayerat Matkal and Golanian forces got so lost that they missed critical places. They did not alter the plan on the fly. In fact, the plan was really never changed from the way they drew it up. These groups got completely lost in the building, to the point where they began aimlessly wandering around aimlessly in search of staircases or doors that they missed. In two instances, they actually came across Ugandan forces that they subsequently engaged, but in only one case were they able to get back on track properly. This is not changing the plan on the fly. This is wandering aimlessly, and without any real sense of direction. This is a blunder. "
I don't think you have a clue at Entebee. Betser's element had plan to use a specific door at the airport that the blueprints they had obtained said would be there. When they got to the actual building the door was not there so they had to find an alternate route. This is *NOT* getting lost, the frikking door was not there.

At the VIP lounge a door was locked which they quickly grenaded through.

Some hostages who stood up were shot, however two terrorists who were not in uniform attempted to grenade the IDF forces.

Now here are the numbers on Entebbe:
in *3* mins after landing over *half* the terrorists were dead (including the ones most dangerous to the hostages).

in *15* mins APC's had safely delivered the hostages to the Hercules.

in less than *30* minutes the hostages were in the air and gone

in *99* minutes the IDF was out of Entebbe

Quit damn LYING they did not "miss" any doors, the doors simply *were* not there. Further people were not "aimlessly wandering" you had specific groups securing the ground floor, entrance, and top of the Old terminal.

In two instances, they actually came across Ugandan forces that they subsequently engaged, but in only one case were they able to get back on track properly.
It was in their contingency plans to engage the Ugandan forces if need be. Hell in their practice rounds Yoni himself shot Ugandan soldiers (which he did at Entebbe also).

This is wandering aimlessly, and without any real sense of direction. This is a blunder.

BS. This is *MEMORIZING* the building's blue prints and finding that they weren't accurate. Excatly how long did they spend "wandering aimlessly"? They kill half the terrorists in 3 minutes after touching down (including the drive to the building), they deliver *APCs* and get the hostages onboard the plane in 15. Exactly how many minutes were spent wandering aimlessly?

He said that "good soldiers" always go in with combined arms support. He said that they should always use armored forces, artillery, aircraft, infantry, and whenever possible naval forces together while in combat.
When in doubt LIE.

I have always talked about "sensible combined arms". I have never said you should use armored forces (though Entebbe did use Armor Personel Carriers), artillerly, aircraft (though Entebbe did), infantry and when possible naval forces.

I have said you should use them when its sensible.

You see the Master of Lies has no real arguement he can only distort and build strawmen. Do I fault the Imps for not using air cover at Endor (even though they could have)? No. Its all about SENSIBLE combined arms. Maybe if I keep repeating it the Master of Lies will finally grasp it.

Look through the thread I say the stormies show a poor grasp of combined arms and that good militaries use sensible combined arms.

Operation Jonathan succeeded in extracting all of the hostages (except one) very quickly. All of them, except one, escaped without injury.

Bullocks. 1 hostage was left in Uganda as she had been moved to a hospital. Another *died* after being transferred to a hospital in Nairobi, another *critically* injured hostage was transferred to a hospital in Nairobi. The were several other hostages who were wounded, but were able to survive the flight to Israel where they received medical treatment.

You also ignore the real reason why the Israelis destroyed the MiG's. If you knew about the mission, you would realize that that was not in the plan.
Yep, that is why General Kuti Adams gave a specific order to prevent them from possibly going after the Hercules that was lifting off with the hostages.

In fact, their destruction was solely to send a message to Amin and his forces that their association with terrorists was a mistake.
In fact it was explicitly stated that they were destroyed, "tempt the Ugandan pilots into pursuit." You do realize that order to destroy them came from the *feild commander* and *NOT* from Israel proper, right?

As far as the aircraft goes, transports are not air support in the sense that they engage targets.
And only a moron would think that the only air support is combat air support. Combined arms is about all aspects of battle, like infantry working as artillerly spotters; like aerial recon for armor, artillerly, and naval vessels; like all manner of insertion and extraction. Only a rank imbecile would think combined arms involves only guns.

It was just transports, and nothing else.
Wrong again. You had 2 Boeings in support. One housed the feild commander and the communications equipment; the other was medical.


Now, the Empire also succeeded in its objective on Hoth. Namely, that was to destroy the Main Generator.
Yes and Star Trek ground forces routinely succeed in their objectives, does this make them compotent?

//Those who have been paying attention have noticed this question being asked before, perhaps they will have the guts to honestly answer it this time, but I doubt they'd be that honest.

They did so very effectively, and dealt far more damage to the Alliance than Alliance forces did to them, even though they were on the offensive.
Who *CARES? If the USMC goes up against tribal savages they should inflict seriously more damage than is inflicted upon them. Given the massive military disparity they started with anything less than a smashing victory is the product of incompotence.

It wasn't even close. But it succeeded in carrying out its objectives. Like Tharkun's quintessential soldiers, the Imperials were able to carry on their mission despite their casualties and destroyed the Alliance troops. That should be seen as a victory
I have never said it wasn't a victory. I've said is was a victory from LUCK, that IN SPITE OF their incompotence the Imps pulled out a victory. Victory does not always go to the better soldiers.

The Master of Lies seems to think that acheiving victory is the sign of the "epitomy" of soldiering, even if its against inferiorly armed opponents using crap tactics.

speaking about it as if they got completely lucky in that the Rebels had no arms that could harm the AT-AT walkers.

Official source (Isard's Revenge):
X-wings can kill AT-AT's

Canon source (TESB):
The rebs had X-wings

Canon source (ANH, TESB, RoTJ):
X-wings have the speed and mobility to attack the AT-AT's from behind

They were lucky the rebs, for whatever reason, used piss stupid tactics in their delaying action.

1. How the hell can proton torpedoes be reactive based? They are clearly described as having explosive cores in all of the official literature.
Gee you mean an explosive core can't used to provide the intial energy to the reaction. I have never said I had proof proton torps were reactive based, just a possible explanation.

If the torpedoes were variable yield, then Wedge probably would not have been so worried about wasting them in the first place. He would have just set the yield lower.
Now according to what has been posted here the X-wings were assisting *infantry*, this means that launching 100 megatonne bombs is out of the question because IT WOULD KILL THE INFANTRY. These are the effects of a 20 megaton ground burst over a large city from:
http://www.psr.org/Helfand1.htm

"Within 1/1000th of a second, a fireball would form enveloping downtown and reaching out for two miles in every direction from ground zero, the point where the bomb went off. Temperatures would rise to 20 million degrees Fahrenheit, and everything--buildings, trees, cars, and people--would be vaporized. "
So any infantry in the area would be dead before they blinked.

"Out to a distance of 4 miles, the blast would produce pressures of 25 pounds per square inch and winds in excess of 650 miles per hour. These titanic forces would rip buildings apart and level everything, including reinforced concrete and steel structures. Even deep underground bomb shelters would be crushed. "
Which means all those Rebel infantry (who are never shown using NBC protection) are dead.

"As far as six miles from the center of the explosion, the heat would vaporize automobile sheet metal. Glass would melt. Out to a distance of ten miles in all directions, the heat would still be intense enough to melt sheet metal. At this distance, the blast wave would create pressures of 7 to 10 pounds per square inch and winds of 200 miles per hour. Reinforced concrete buildings would be heavily damaged and all other buildings--masonry and wood frame--would be leveled. "
In other words the rebs with *EXPOSED FACES* would be dead.

Now the intelligent observer would notice that if Rouge Squadron had used ubermegaton bombs all they infantry they were supposedly protecting would be *DEAD*, this is beyond the range of AT-AT fire by a good margin.

Not to mention that any infantry up to 29 miles away would suffer 3rd degree burns and would be blinded.

In addition, torpedoes have NEVER been even remotely implied as being variable yield. In fact, many books state that pilots hesitate to use them against starfighters for fear of wasting them, and do not use them in dogfights due to the overkill that they represent. That is not variable yield.

Sorry but let's say they have a variable yeild from 1 kilotonne up to 500 megatonne. If you use it on the low setting that means you can't use it on the high setting. Hence if you can kill, say a TIE, with lasers or torps ... go with the lasers and keep the torp in case you need to hammer a cap ship.

Oh, I'm sorry. Hobbie was talking about EMP weapons when I AM ARGUING THAT THEIR ARMOR WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO RESIST THE EXPLOSION! Are you seriously saying that the only way a torpedo could take them out is by EMP
What you are argueing is irrelevant. Hobbie, unlike you, might give a damn about the infantry he's "protecting" and not want to see them turned into smoking piles of ash. I'm saying the one way to take out armored vehicles without killing the guys you plan on protecting would be using EMP.

I know the blasts are directed. Assuming 90% directed, that still means that nearby walkers would be taking proximity hits from 50-75 MT weapons. That is still a hell of a lot of energy, and more than any known material can withstand. You are grasping at straws.
And that is still more than enough to KILL ALL THE FRIENDLY INFANTRY. Damn are you stupid or what? We don't use thermonuclear weapons as tactical weapons because they kill *EVERYONE* in range. You can't pump hundreds of megatonnes of energy into the atmosphere without superheating it. If the AT-AT's are even in range to shoot the infantry Mr. Bean described then *any* above 20 megatonne's is NOT GOING TO BE USED SO AS NOT RACK UP FRATICIDES.

5. Nice try, but Hobbie had engaged walkers on Hoth. He had just worked to destroy walkers. He knew full well what their capabilities were, and he had probably studied them because RS spends so much time on the ground. Clearly he was fully aware of their abilities.

Oh so he'd be one of the stupid pilots flying directly into AA cover rather than making the safe rear attack? Sorry he could still be a moron (which is possible if he's thinking about using weapons with 50 megatonne bleed anywhere near infantry).

The REAL SIMPLE EXPLANATION is that using ubermegatonne bombs would be a DEATH SENTENCE for his own ground troops. Rather than the one where the X-wing *guns* are more powerful than the torps.

How will infantry kill AT-STs?
With AT guns, KE penetrators, spilling some logs in front of them?

Or how about letting the artillerly do it? Send up a bursting shot of trackbuster equivalents with timed detonators.

The things are piss easy to kill and making a *FRONTAL ASSUALT* against artillerly is stupid.

AT-STs are infantry killers!
And lousy ones at that. The guns are relatively imobile meaning they have to move the head to shoot.

the hell is an infantry man going to get behind an AT-ST if the AT-ST sees him
Really simple, you see modern AT-infantry is already getting up towards the km level of attack range. So you deploy infantry 100's of m apart with KEM's, KEP's or whatever with km range. They can only hit 1 target at a time and we do not see enough for them to supress large numbers of infantry.

If you forgot, I already told you that AT-STs have holographic projectors to see to the rear from the ICS.
Which is irrelevant. The rebs can radio to the AT-ST's their tactics and still succeed. The AT-ST's oberserved range is crap, but even if it has km range, you can still use the time honored tactic of multi-vector attack, lots of different AT groups very far apart.

Oh and I guess AT-STs can't turn quicker than their larger cousins too- and that side mounted laser and concussion missile launcher cant swivel rearwards either.

AT-ST's require multiple steps to turn, the side mounted guns *might* swivel for rearward fire, but might not. In any event they are big, infantry are not. Multivectored attack should kill them with relative ease. Their range is stated as 2 km (or so Mike says), we have kill abilities beyond that today.

Assuming they have stinger analogues, and that such a missile would be effective against the armor plate of a snowspeeder.
Aim for the glass (or whatever) over the pilot. Guided KEMs (all using observed SW tech) would shread Speeders.

Keep in mind the canon evidence of extremely heavy jamming used in all SW space combat- making the sensor suites of fighters practically useless.
LoS attack. Use it.

doubt a stinger would have the power to burn through jamming. Use it in LoS then.

Since when is KE the only way to penetrate armor? Its pretty obvious from the movies that KE weapons have fallen out of favor for some reason, and that a slagging or HEAT effect via energy weapons is seen as preferable.
You've *NEVER* heard of political lobbying? You've never heard of arms industry offering cutrate deals for shoddy weaponry? There are all sorts of reasons why we might see different weapons in use that are completely outside the purview of what the best soldiers would use.

Being resistant to HEAT does not make you resistant to KE. For instance the M1 frontal armor is resistant to the strongest HEAT out there for mech infantry. However it is not resistant to the strongest KE weapons out there.

We don't know why, and neither do you.
Irrelevant. If you wish to claim its because current HEAT in SW are superior to current KE in SW for armor penetration ... your burden of proof.

Drop the theorizing about some sort of missile with the engine of a proton torpedo and a penetrator made out of the armor of AT-ATs- its nothing but assumption.
Not at all. Do the laws of physics not apply? You have an engine that imparts 10,000g it will do that wether you have an explosive warhead or tungsten rod present. That rod will then have the KE and momentum that is imparted during the burn time. Tell me, where was the physics deriving the KE and the Momentum wrong?

you earlier statement that engines get more 'efficient' when they get smaller is misleading.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html

Scroll down to the case study of the Death Star. Exactly how misleading am I?

Do you *really* want me to rerun those numbers with Darth Wong's?

And the only place on the AT-AT that lacks depth is too hard to hit with a conventional weapon, there is no evidence for a man-portable weapon that could do it
I have ever and only said that you could hammer that hatch. The weapon need not be man portable, strategically dropped mech infantry can do it.

and even if there was there's the problem of All-Terrain Scout-Transports
Kill it from outside its 2km attack range.

Shoddy mobility? Nice how you slipped this piece of utter bullshit in there
Really? Their max speed (according to Wong) is 90 km/hour. Now let's compare this a HMMWV. The HMMWV is over 10% faster. Compare this to SPEEDER BIKES and you realize "shoddy" is being gratuitiously generous. Mobility is relative. Compared to the mobility of other SW vehicles, the AT-ST sucks.

Large target profiles? All the better elevation platform for your sensors.
Wahoo, whatever. All the better to line up from multiple km away, outside its attack zone.

Robustness/crap armor: scout transport. designed for scouting. Need not be invulnerable to everything. Again, I've already shown how hard it would be for an infantryman to get a drop on an AT-ST, so drop the point.

You however neglected the *range* concern:
"Its chin guns have an effective range of 2 kilometres, which would be similar to the small mortars often mounted on real-life recon vehicles."

Now here is the point where you pull a magic number out of thin air when you try to prove that an AT-ST (designed for scouting allegedly) would have greater range than a dedicated AT vehicle. Modern AT guns (like say TOWs) have ranges up near 4km.

And the AT-STs will have such fun killing the little pissy Rebel vehicles behind them, considering how they'll be informed of the fact by the orbiting Star Destroyer .
WHO CARES? The rebs can deliver a monogrammed card inviting the AT-ST to be killed from behind, deploy behind it, then blow it away from outside its maximum range. Scout vehicles do *NOT* have extreme ranges. AT mech infantry *does*. I repeat AT-ST's won't last long against dedicated AT troops.

Good one. Or even better, will kill the crews before they get in the vehicles (actually to be fair, the latest generation of Russian airdroppable vehicles for the Air Assault Forces, the BMD-3, can drop with its crew inside).


Drop the infantry 25 km behind the AT-ST's. Give them 10 minutes to man their vehicles. At this point in time any AT-ST's attempting to turn around and get into range would still be 10 km away. Then at your leisure drive up to your maximum range and fire. Given that you have superior range if you miss you can, just back away till you are ready for the next shot. AT mech infantry on something as fast as speeder bikes could encircle the AT-ST's and pound on them long before the AT-ST could hope to get a retalitory shot off.

How is AT-ATs blowing vehicles up a dubious assumption!? Its perfectly reasonable! It has much bigger fucking guns than that tiny hover vehicle in Episode 1 that took out the trade fed tank, does it not?! It was blowing the much faster and more nimble snowspeeders out of the sky, was it not!?
Its dubious because the rebs might have some *ARMOR*, suppose somebody brilliant used the strongest armor in the SW and instead of building a huge, slow plodding walker, built a quick fast tank with a much lower total mass. Such a tank could easily outmaneuvar an AT-AT and could shrug off shots from AT-ST's and possible even AT-AT's. Armor works both ways. If the other can't penetrate your armor (and its a near technological parity) then you probably can't penetrate his.

I didn't claim it never worked. From what we saw of the battle (which was damn little), yes it was stupid- but the Rebel pilots may have thought it was more likely. It may also require more skill to do what Wedge did.

Curios, then please explain the following exchange, my text is in bold, yours will be italized.

"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.


Overconfidence is not incompetence. Incompetence is a much higer standard to prove than just being a bit too secure in your abilities and not considering unconventional tactics.
I apoligize if I mistated extreme overconfidence is incompotence. Not all overconfidence is incompotence, but too much will lead to incompotence.

Hang on 50% losses? How much of the battle did we see? Hardly any! If you recall, Imperial troops entered the base before the shield was taken down, and before the retreat was called. Its obvious that there were other Imperial forces attacking, not just 4 AT-ATs.

Of course and I could easily argue that everything else was killed. We see only a small portion of the battle the only thing one can do is extrapolate from observation. Would you be happier if I said 50% observed casualties?

AT-STs. I already said armored AA would've been preferable, but since AT-ATs can't be killed conventionally from the rear, I don't see it as damning evidence of incompetenece.
Wrong. Isard's Revenge. X-wings using their guns (not torps mind you) kill at least one walker from behind.

With our 20/20 hindsight, yes it would've been good to have armored AA, but we weren't there were we
If you came up to me with a plan for open (non-stealth) frontal assualt against enemy artillerly with air cover and you'd have *none* of your own, I'd say bring omnidirectional AA. Any compotent military planner would say to bring omnidirectional AA (this is why *most* AA weapons can hit in just about any direction).

This is not some mystical idea. There are cap ship damaging fighters present, they may or may not engage you. You *have* to reach the power generator intact (i.e. its a rebel win even if they just disable the guns) capable of firing. Only a complete moron would skimp on AA for a *slow* assault.

Forward deployed? We see one AT-ST ahead of the line (scouting out for threats, DER!) and they're all forward deployed? Righhhht.
We see *none* rear deployed. *NOBODY* takes a shot at Luke as he's *scaling* the AT-ST. If you claim there were rear deployed AT-ST's ... your burden of proof.

And if twin laser cannons, a side mounted laser cannon, and a concussion missile launcher aren't close support ... tell me what is?
Automatic guns capable of sweeping fire. While aerating enemy infantry near your armor is a GOOD thing, the more important thing is to *SUPPRESS* them. The AT-ST has never done that. It fires single (burst?) shots and never sustained automatic shots. The AT-ST has to reposition every time it changes angle of fire. It does not have a gun which can easily sweep back and forth across large groups of infantry. Grenades and missiles might do the trick, but considering their abilities have never been witnessed (even in RoTJ when they should have been) one cannot count on them to be effective close support.

An RPG is not a stinger, nor small arms fire.
Like I said, dumbass, a new spin. The tactic is to aim light weapons at highly critical areas and try to down aircraft at close range. Its been done with numerous weapon systems.

not air-bursting RPGs aimed at the tail rotor.
Even though an RPG had hit US aircraft shortly before? This is *NOT* a new tactic. The Somalis had already tried it.

I wonder if he'd call the troops fighting down there incompetent.
He called everyone who planned the mission incompotent.

And I was not aware 18 men lost is a massacre.
I beleive massacre refers all the dead, Somali and US.

you even know what the mission was? It wasn't 'lets go to war with the city', it was a capture operation that went SNAFU. I love your 20/20 hindsight, advocating fricking MBTs and IFVs for such a mission!
Inesrtion of special ops forces with the goal of extracting high level hostile enemy combatants. IFV's and MBT's should be on you "hell in a handbasket" plan. You know the colourfully named plan all good militaries make in case things go horribly, horribly wrong (like say your vehicles not being able to breach barricades).

Sigh on *all* stealth insertion and extraction plans you want to have an "Oh hell" plan. A plan incase everything starts going hideously wrong. A sensible plan would have used tracked armored vehicles to run through the Somali barricades and to off complete protection to the troops. If you actually read about the incident in depth you'd realize that the US troops *did* request armored assistance from their allies (the Pakistanis and Malaysians had armor there), but due to the time it took to get politcal okay it was *8 hours*.

Sometimes the only role for armor is in APC's. Sometimes its to roll in, look big and mean so the enemy pisses their pants while your guys pull their asses out. However when entering an enemy strongpoint its normally a *GOOD* thing to have within range to reinforce in case everything goes to hell in a handbasket.

There are other possibilities-- the Empire had very little data to go on and they may have assumed it was a minor Rebel hideaway; the paltry size of their attack force seems to carry this out. They would not have expected X-Wings or much else. Let's face it-- many times an army has gone into to battle only to find that faulty intel over- or under-estimated the size of the target. And many small strike teams will eschew a raft of complex weapons systems (ie, portable AA guns et al) for the sake of simplicity. When you stumble across a larger target than expected, that KISS philosophy turns around to bite you on the butt.
Ahh but one must remember the claims of near perfect imperial intel made by some. Frankly this is the easiest explanation. The best troops virtually never do this, good troops sometimes do.

-- the Rebels were not broken and in rout due to General Veers's command of the battlefield. We shortsightedly have focused all our attention on the size and equipment of Imperial to Rebel ground and atmospheric forces. The REAL threat, what the Rebels WERE running from, was a Super-Class Star Destroyer with six to eight Imperial-II Class Star Destroyers in escort! Even if the US had attacked Grenada with just a battalion of light infantry-- while at the same time surrounding the island with eight nuclear carriers and their battlegroups-- the Grenada-Cuban forces still would have been in their right minds to flee or surrender simply due to the threat posed by the Navy, not the measly ground forces.


Its a holding measure to get the transport safely away (rather than rush them out 2 at a time). Depending on imperial ability to hit when the sheild comes down, the ion cannon might have had enough time to seriously damage the task force and allow higher rebel success on moving out their transports (maybe even loading them).


Well as it stand now we have the Master of Les who does nothing but:

Babble about how proton torps *weren't* used and that *must* mean the *ONLY* way to penetrate AT-AT armor is with 500 megatonnes. Nevermind that using weapons *anywhere near* that strength will kill all your friendly infantry. Nevermind that the X-wing guns *slag* AT-AT armor which means they are firing at those numbers and *are* giving off those fireballs and *are* killing all their ground troops. The most sensible explanation is low yeild torps (so as *NOT* to kill your infantry) and low energy guns somehow eludes him.

Misquote me and attack strawmen. I have reread the entire thread and I never said anything such as he attributes to me, but hey when in doubt, lie.

Try to establish attack my personal and *biased* choice for the best soldiers by bringing up an incident, misconstrueing it, and generally not having a frikking clue what he is talking about.

And we have Vympel who does seem to be debating intelligently, abeit still giving way too much credit to Imperial vehicles.

[Coyote]

At-STs are infantry killers, and fairly effective ones at that. People have a very lopsided recollection of the Battle of Endor, and that is focused on the fact that the Empire ended up losing the battle.

But remember, while the Ewoks were able to get the drop on the Imperials and temporarily confuse them with surprise and numbers-- see the Zulu and Boer wars for primitive tribals temporarily fukking up high tech armies-- the Imperials reacted quickly and once the element of surprise was lost, the Imperials were walloping the Ewoks. The teddy bears ran in terror and were being cut down like wheat 'fore a scythe. We saw a lot of Ewok death and misery, and only AFTER Chewie stole his own AT-ST did the Rebels and Ewoks regain the initiative. Chewie's walker got the jump on a couple of others and blew them apart and put a stop to the rather one-sided battle that had been raging.

The other AT-STs were taken out by simple but realistic traps, which I can assume that the Ewoks devised with the help of the Rebels. The traps were fixed and the Ewoks, while fleeing, had to lure the walkers into them-- but then, if Afghan tribesmen can bring down a Mi-24 Hind gunship with cables across canyons, or better yet, with a thrown truck tire, then this seems acceptable to me. Even the M1 tank can become ditched if the crew gets overconfident (as I almost once found out to my chagrin...)

But those AT-STs were kicking ass, and while we don't know WHAT happened to the AT-STs at Hoth (they may have just deployed to chase infantry off screen, we have no evidence they were wiped out), we have never seen groundmount troops do anything to an AT-ST, except flee in helpless terror.

[Vympel]

"With AT guns, KE penetrators, spilling some logs in front of them?

Or how about letting the artillerly do it? Send up a bursting shot of trackbuster equivalents with timed detonators.

The things are piss easy to kill and making a *FRONTAL ASSUALT* against artillerly is stupid."

-AT guns was done
- logs- I dont see any trees on Hoth
- artillery- iffy- will there shrapnel be enough to penetrate AT-ST armor? Most modern recon vehicles can withstand arty splinters.

"And lousy ones at that. The guns are relatively imobile meaning they have to move the head to shoot."

So? The head is the turret. Think Mechwarrior.

"Really simple, you see modern AT-infantry is already getting up towards the km level of attack range. So you deploy infantry 100's of m apart with KEM's, KEP's or whatever with km range. They can only hit 1 target at a time and we do not see enough for them to supress large numbers of infantry. "

Km range manpack weapons that aren't energy based rely on guidance. Star Wars uses prolific jamming in combat- that's well established by canon. You'd have to be Rambo to expect to get a kill with a LOS shot at anywhere over say 500-800m to be generous.

"Which is irrelevant. The rebs can radio to the AT-ST's their tactics and still succeed. The AT-ST's oberserved range is crap, but even if it has km range, you can still use the time honored tactic of multi-vector attack, lots of different AT groups very far apart."

Jamming. Greatly reduces effective range of such guided weapons. Multi-vector attack is a tactic you could use if you had the reach to kill AT-STs with such weapons. If you can't get within 2km to hurt them, on such a flat plain like Hoth, you're shredded.

"AT-ST's require multiple steps to turn, the side mounted guns *might* swivel for rearward fire, but might not. In any event they are big, infantry are not. Multivectored attack should kill them with relative ease. Their range is stated as 2 km (or so Mike says), we have kill abilities beyond that today."

We also have abilities to stop ATGMs today. Shtora (spoof ATGMs) and Arena (shoot down ATGMs) come to mind. The point about jamming is still there.

"LoS attack. Use it."

Iffy against a fast moving air target like a snowspeeder don't you think?

"Irrelevant. If you wish to claim its because current HEAT in SW are superior to current KE in SW for armor penetration ... your burden of proof."

No but you see there IS NO current KE in SW, in either canon or official. I don't see why you're so vehement on the point of KE weapons- it really doesn't do much to help your argument- you could simply replace man-pack KE weapons (no modern manpack AT weapons work on KE btw) with man pack high power energy weapons to penetrate the AT-AT hatch- your argument would be the same, and there might be official evidence for such high power man pack energy weapons. Why does it matter so much?

"Scroll down to the case study of the Death Star. Exactly how misleading am I?"

I was talking about the cost/complexity of minituarizing a proton torpedo engine, which is already pretty small. There are a lot of unknowns- how fast will you have to throw the penetrator? How heavy is the penetrator made out of AT-AT armor? Can you get your hands on AT-AT armor? Remember that the weapon, in order to bother getting made, must be capable of doing more than simply penetrating a hatch. Noone would design a weapon for that single purpose. But as I said above, this whole KE issue is a waste of time.

"Really? Their max speed (according to Wong) is 90 km/hour. Now let's compare this a HMMWV. The HMMWV is over 10% faster. Compare this to SPEEDER BIKES and you realize "shoddy" is being gratuitiously generous. Mobility is relative. Compared to the mobility of other SW vehicles, the AT-ST sucks."

Mobility isn't just speed. Its also your ability to traverse a wide variety of terrain. The whole reason military walkers are employed by the Imps is because there are some planets where repulsorlift vehicles just aren't practical, or even possible.

"Wahoo, whatever. All the better to line up from multiple km away, outside its attack zone."

Need guidance. Jamming.

"Now here is the point where you pull a magic number out of thin air when you try to prove that an AT-ST (designed for scouting allegedly) would have greater range than a dedicated AT vehicle. Modern AT guns (like say TOWs) have ranges up near 4km."

The rebel AT guns demonstrated close to that range IIRC. This dedicated AT vehicle better be using an energy weapon if it wants to hit anything at long range- jamming.

"WHO CARES? The rebs can deliver a monogrammed card inviting the AT-ST to be killed from behind, deploy behind it, then blow it away from outside its maximum range. Scout vehicles do *NOT* have extreme ranges. AT mech infantry *does*. I repeat AT-ST's won't last long against dedicated AT troops."

Jamming.

"Drop the infantry 25 km behind the AT-ST's. Give them 10 minutes to man their vehicles. At this point in time any AT-ST's attempting to turn around and get into range would still be 10 km away. Then at your leisure drive up to your maximum range and fire. Given that you have superior range if you miss you can, just back away till you are ready for the next shot. AT mech infantry on something as fast as speeder bikes could encircle the AT-ST's and pound on them long before the AT-ST could hope to get a retalitory shot off."

And I guess an AT-AT, with its superior range, firepower an armor can't be turned around in the time it takes for the Rebs to travel 25km? Again- they better be using energy weapons. Jamming.

"Curios, then please explain the following exchange, my text is in bold, yours will be italized"

I was referring to the use of vent and neck attacks instead of harpoon and tow cable attacks.

"I apoligize if I mistated extreme overconfidence is incompotence. Not all overconfidence is incompotence, but too much will lead to incompotence."

I wholeheartedly agree. I also apologize for using profanity.

"Of course and I could easily argue that everything else was killed. We see only a small portion of the battle the only thing one can do is extrapolate from observation. Would you be happier if I said 50% observed casualties?"

Yes

"Wrong. Isard's Revenge. X-wings using their guns (not torps mind you) kill at least one walker from behind"

What Coyote said about the quality of Imp intelligence is the best bet in this regard. From what they saw of the Rebel base from the probe droid- they attacked with adequate forces. Overconfidence that was not wholly unjustified.

"We see *none* rear deployed. *NOBODY* takes a shot at Luke as he's *scaling* the AT-ST. If you claim there were rear deployed AT-ST's ... your burden of proof."

It was near the end of the battle after the retreat had been called- Imp troops had already entered the base- its possible that either the AT-STs had all been destroyed, or had been sent to slaughter the retreating infantry, cause havoc in the rear, etc. If an AT-ST had been there, he would've been blown away. That's one of their missions.

"Automatic guns capable of sweeping fire. While aerating enemy infantry near your armor is a GOOD thing, the more important thing is to *SUPPRESS* them. The AT-ST has never done that. It fires single (burst?) shots and never sustained automatic shots. The AT-ST has to reposition every time it changes angle of fire. It does not have a gun which can easily sweep back and forth across large groups of infantry. Grenades and missiles might do the trick, but considering their abilities have never been witnessed (even in RoTJ when they should have been) one cannot count on them to be effective close support."

Automatic guns in combo with HE are the best suppressing fire. AT-ST has both- the concussion missile launcher and the side mounted light blaster- which should be capable of full auto fire for the following reasons

- light blaster on the Falcon was full auto
- rebel MG blasters were full auto
- even Imp stormie rifles are full auto
- it would be redundant for it to be a single shot weapon as well- the main cannons do that.

As for swivelling- the head is the turret.



"Like I said, dumbass, a new spin. The tactic is to aim light weapons at highly critical areas and try to down aircraft at close range. Its been done with numerous weapon systems."

But they were avoiding small arms fire and MANPADs like stinger. Not RPGs.

"Even though an RPG had hit US aircraft shortly before? This is *NOT* a new tactic. The Somalis had already tried it."

Except it was a direct hit, not an air burst (the movie got it wrong, they were airbursts not direct hits)- from what they knew, RPGs were thought to not be a threat.

"Ahh but one must remember the claims of near perfect imperial intel made by some. Frankly this is the easiest explanation. The best troops virtually never do this, good troops sometimes do."

This is a good explanation. I've never claimed the Imps are combat gods. But I don't think they can be called incompetent. They're competent- but they're not definitely not crack or elite troops. Perfectly adequate against red shirts tho

[CmdrWilkens]

Completely off-topic and worthless but when I was last actively posting this thread was on about page 14 and we were still discussing Fed troops versus late Napoleonic era armies...what the hell is this thread doing still alive?

[Darth Yoshi]

Successful thread hijacking by Tharkun.

[nightmare]

Ugh, so many wrong assumptions and misinformed positions in this thread that it hurts my eyes. Someone remind tharkûn of the battle in TPM. I don't care to.

[Sea Skimmer]

Wow, what a scrap... miss a couple days and I'm pages behind.

Snip..

The Merkava APC may be dead, with the I's and II's being converted into II"s, but intrestingly the Ukraine is now offering a lengthened T-84 which can transport three infantrymen in a compartment between the turret and engine. The troops exit via a rear hatch running though the engine compartment.

Now combind that with the 140mm gun there offering..

[tharkûn]

Imperials and temporarily confuse them with surprise and numbers-- see the Zulu and Boer wars for primitive tribals temporarily fukking up high tech armies-- the Imperials reacted quickly and once the element of surprise was lost, the Imperials were walloping the Ewoks. The teddy bears ran in terror and were being cut down like wheat 'fore a scythe. We saw a lot of Ewok death and misery, and only AFTER Chewie stole his own AT-ST did the Rebels and Ewoks regain the initiative. Chewie's walker got the jump on a couple of others and blew them apart and put a stop to the rather one-sided battle that had been raging.
Really? As I recall (and maybe I'll pop the video in later) The only thing we see Chewy's AT-ST do is blow the other AT-ST's. Did he actually fire on any stormied grunts?

Endor is a huge debacle. The AT-ST's go off alone and leave the stormies to face the numerically superior Ewoks. Despite the fact that Ewoks tend to clump in large numbers; nobody chucks in a frag grenade, uses some chemical weapons (teargas, nerve gas, or even good old Chlorine), nor do we see any sustained suppressive fire (its all quick single/burst shots).

But those AT-STs were kicking ass, and while we don't know WHAT happened to the AT-STs at Hoth (they may have just deployed to chase infantry off screen, we have no evidence they were wiped out), we have never seen groundmount troops do anything to an AT-ST, except flee in helpless terror.
On manage to ride on top of one. Your AP vehicles should not allow enemy infantry to scale them. People say the head is the turret, however it cannot fire behind itself (not fatal if its job is not sustained AP use, nor if it goes in with decent support, alone its a bad thing). When fighting against large groups of infantry who have surrounded you, it is a good idea to omnidirectional fire, i.e. multiple vehicles capable of sustaining fire in multiple directions.

Instead we see the AT-ST's strike out on there own (personally I'm a fan of the buddy system from infantry grunts, to tanks, to aircraft, even snipers ... there are just too many ways to kill lone units before they can complete their mission).

Good, sensible, combined arms is necessary for the best soldiers. A sensible combined arms plan normally kicks the crap out of inpendant operations.

-AT guns was done
Really? Do you have any shots of them shooting at the AT-ST's?

- logs- I dont see any trees on Hoth
Use ball bearings those should still be ubiquitious in the military

- artillery- iffy- will there shrapnel be enough to penetrate AT-ST armor? Most modern recon vehicles can withstand arty splinters.
I'm not suggesting KE shrapnel, I'm suggesting something like a mine round. AT-AT's may have enough mass in the legs to not give a damn about mines, however the AT-ST does not. Basically use artillerly to deliver some mines capable of knocking an AT-ST of its feet (which should't be all that hard as it has only one leg on the ground while walking). Like its larger brethern the AT-ST can die of its own GPE and KE.

So? The head is the turret. Think Mechwarrior.
Generally speaking altering your centre of gravity means you have a much harder time shooting and aquiring a target. When a tank moves its turret, the bulk of the mass remains immobile (within the frame of reference) its centre of gravity does not appreciably change. AT-ST's are the reverse, the bulk of the mass is in the head and it becomes a much more difficult shot. We never see an AT-ST making sweeping shots ... its always single/burst and after each shot it acquires a new target.

Km range manpack weapons that aren't energy based rely on guidance. Star Wars uses prolific jamming in combat- that's well established by canon. You'd have to be Rambo to expect to get a kill with a LOS shot at anywhere over say 500-800m to be generous.
At our current max velocities, yes. At those observed in SW, no. Against a stationary target with an accurate scope, yes you can get kills at several kilometres (snipers in Afghanistan bagged 2 km shots with rifles). The reason guidance is needed is that target velocity is sufficient to move it out of the kill zone during the time of flight (this is why most tankers will poor fuel on the engine, and quickly make erratic maneuvers if they see a missile heading for them).

At SW speeds/accelerations this is not an issue for vehicles with < 100 km/h speed limit.

Jamming. Greatly reduces effective range of such guided weapons. Multi-vector attack is a tactic you could use if you had the reach to kill AT-STs with such weapons. If you can't get within 2km to hurt them, on such a flat plain like Hoth, you're shredded.
AT-ST's are *huge*, they stand 8.6 metres tall, the M1 is only 2.4 metres tall. At AT-ST presents a large target profile (the curse of being tall) and as such is targetable from long distances with nothing more than optics.

We also have abilities to stop ATGMs today. Shtora (spoof ATGMs) and Arena (shoot down ATGMs) come to mind. The point about jamming is still there.
The point is modern missiles have long time of flight (relatively speaking), at the velocities observed in SW (let alone theoretical ones) nobody has the reaction capabilities to indentify the threat and react before it is on them. Currently even the fastest weapons still give the target enough time to react after being fired ... that doesn't work at SW velocities. Automatic systems may or may not be able to counter such extremely fast shots, I'd bet against it.

Iffy against a fast moving air target like a snowspeeder don't you think?
Depending on the range and relative velocities yes. However at high velocities over short ranges even a "speeder" becomes essentially an imobile target (especially if you can have computer targeted LoS on some of the weapons). This of course overlooks the possibility of airbursts and/or EMP.

Speeders appear to have weak armor (did *any* of them survive 2 hits, 2 hits from guns that blew guns up without obliterating the bodies of their operators?) and some nice airbursts would easily down them as they circle AT-AT legs.

Mobility isn't just speed. Its also your ability to traverse a wide variety of terrain. The whole reason military walkers are employed by the Imps is because there are some planets where repulsorlift vehicles just aren't practical, or even possible.
What differentation do you place between agility and mobility? AT-ST's may have superior terrain capabilities, but their top velocities are dwarfed by other SW vehicles.

Need guidance. Jamming.
Not really let's go back to the torp (just as a point of reference). With 10,000g's you have a flight time of 3/10ths of a second for a 4km shot. Now in this time the AT-ST has to:
1. Observe this (not to hard if they are using optics).
2. Register it as a threat (may never happen, battles give rise to information overload, you have to men to process everything incoming).
3. React and hit the controls.
4. Have the machine respond to the controls.

Most people will not be able to do this ... it just takes to long for their brains to register they are about to get hit and yank the controls. Bipedal locomotion makes #4 iffy because its rather hard to change plans with 1 foot off the ground.

All told the AT-ST is a good target with a nice optic scope and the time of flight weighs heavily toward the attacker.

The rebel AT guns demonstrated close to that range IIRC. This dedicated AT vehicle better be using an energy weapon if it wants to hit anything at long range- jamming.
See above.

And I guess an AT-AT, with its superior range, firepower an armor can't be turned around in the time it takes for the Rebs to travel 25km? Again- they better be using energy weapons. Jamming.
The AT-AT could turn around, but you still have these little things to deal with:
1. The rebs can be jerks and use spotters to coordinate indirect fire long before the Imps get into range (Spotter's are hideously underrated in their importance and performance).
2. You still have several km in which to maneuver before enganing the enemy, if they aren't facing you dead on, you can always skirt to just beyond the periphery of their targetting abilities.
3. I gave the rebs 10 minutes to man their vehicles, that time frame can be easily cut down (how far depends).
4. If you turn the main assualt force to face the rear, then I just pull back and lead you on a wild goose chase. The rebel goal is not victory (that would just be a bonus), its to delay the sheild coming down so they can get more junk on the transports and more transports out safely. If you turn around enough of the assualt force the number of targets for reb air support is reduced leading to higher effectiveness and a much greater chance of the the Rebs killing the remaining walkers.

What Coyote said about the quality of Imp intelligence is the best bet in this regard. From what they saw of the Rebel base from the probe droid- they attacked with adequate forces. Overconfidence that was not wholly unjustified.
If you don't know what type of aircover you will be facing, you should assume for the worst. This is a slow frontal assualt against an established position (as opposed to a stealth raid like say, oh Entebbe), you will have *no* possibility for air support to engage enemy air support. You should plan on bringing enough AA to be "safe" (even if you think you won't see heavy air cover, good solid AA should be part of your "Oh Hell" plan).

It was near the end of the battle after the retreat had been called- Imp troops had already entered the base- its possible that either the AT-STs had all been destroyed, or had been sent to slaughter the retreating infantry, cause havoc in the rear, etc. If an AT-ST had been there, he would've been blown away. That's one of their missions.
Again your burden of proof. We've never seen AT-ST's ordered to perform close combat support. If you send off your dedicated close support, you no longer have dedicated close support. Overrunning enemy lines is the *most* dangerous time for armor, the enemy has inordinate oppurtunities to deploy AT-infantry.

If all your AT-AT's were killed, then they had a rather poor showing in battle as all the rebel big guns were:
1. Ahead.
2. Fixed position.
3. Appeared to be concentrating fire power on the walkers.

Automatic guns in combo with HE are the best suppressing fire. AT-ST has both- the concussion missile launcher and the side mounted light blaster- which should be capable of full auto fire for the following reasons

- light blaster on the Falcon was full auto
- rebel MG blasters were full auto
- even Imp stormie rifles are full auto
- it would be redundant for it to be a single shot weapon as well- the main cannons do that.

However it does not use them at Endor, even when many ewoks are lined up right next to it.

But they were avoiding small arms fire and MANPADs like stinger. Not RPGs.

Yes and they should have been avoiding RPG's, yes this is 20/20 hindsight, but it was not an unforseeable tactic.

This is a good explanation. I've never claimed the Imps are combat gods. But I don't think they can be called incompetent. They're competent- but they're not definitely not crack or elite troops. Perfectly adequate against red shirts tho
1. I never said the imps were horrid soldiers. I have routinely said they among the best in sci-fi. This whole tangent started when I said they were not "the epitomy" of soldiering.
2. When being *very* optomistic the Redshirts don't last much into WWI (or whatever) even if they get transporters. Incompotent, druken, stormies could beat the hell out of redshirts (barring those with character sheilds of course).;

Successful thread hijacking by Tharkun.
Sigh whatever. If you actually go back all those pages you will note I made a direction reply to Master of Ossus. If you go back less than that you will notice I *specifically requested* that my opponents take and start another thread as we were way off topic.

I have requested that my opponents elect a representative (so the typing isn't as gratuitious) and a new thread be started if they care to continue ... they have done neither.

Ugh, so many wrong assumptions and misinformed positions in this thread that it hurts my eyes. Someone remind tharkûn of the battle in TPM. I don't care to.
Let's see that would be the insanely stupid battle were masses of infantry got within range of choking each other and NOBODY busted out some good old fashioned frag grenades to chuck over enemy lines, right?

[Vympel]

"Really? Do you have any shots of them shooting at the AT-ST's?"

No, but its a reasonable assumption.

"Generally speaking altering your centre of gravity means you have a much harder time shooting and aquiring a target. When a tank moves its turret, the bulk of the mass remains immobile (within the frame of reference) its centre of gravity does not appreciably change. AT-ST's are the reverse, the bulk of the mass is in the head and it becomes a much more difficult shot. We never see an AT-ST making sweeping shots ... its always single/burst and after each shot it acquires a new target."

But they seem accurate regardless, no?

"At our current max velocities, yes. At those observed in SW, no. Against a stationary target with an accurate scope, yes you can get kills at several kilometres (snipers in Afghanistan bagged 2 km shots with rifles). The reason guidance is needed is that target velocity is sufficient to move it out of the kill zone during the time of flight (this is why most tankers will poor fuel on the engine, and quickly make erratic maneuvers if they see a missile heading for them)."

Now we come back to the SW missile engine acceleration thing- I just remembered that a missile IS used in SW: in Attack of the Clones- the Hailfire droid launches a flurry of guided missiles- one of them slams right into an AT-TE and blows it to bits (but at very short range- at best, slightly less than 1km). They move at around modern ATGM speed (slower even- we need the DVD to be sure) but certainly not at the velocities of say a proton torpedo down the Death Star trench. Also- Anakin's proton torpedoes in The Phantom Menace don't seem to be moving that fast either when they hit the generators in the hangar bays of the Droid Control Ship

From this we can infer a few possibilities

- the missile weapons in the prequel trilogy are considerably lower tech (not very likely- there's no appreciable difference in technology between the PT and the OT)
- missile weapons in ground combat/ atmosphere move slower for some reason
- the N-1 starfighter uses different, slower proton torpedoes (possible- though they look the same as those the X-Wing carries in the ICS)

I think that 2) is most likely.

"What differentation do you place between agility and mobility? AT-ST's may have superior terrain capabilities, but their top velocities are dwarfed by other SW vehicles."

Yeah. But its a design tradeoff. The bikes get their speed from their small size and firepower.

"However it does not use them at Endor, even when many ewoks are lined up right next to it"

Nor was the concussion missile launcher- admittedly I'm simply looking at probablities- but its a reasonable assumption.

"I never said the imps were horrid soldiers. I have routinely said they among the best in sci-fi. This whole tangent started when I said they were not "the epitomy" of soldiering."

Agreed.

[Guest]

Let's see that would be the insanely stupid battle were masses of infantry got within range of choking each other and NOBODY busted out some good old fashioned frag grenades to chuck over enemy lines, right?

I do remember the Gungans using catapults and various smaller energy balls against the Trade Federation battledroids. They and the Ewoks are the only ones who I have ever seen use indirect fire in combat, however, the weapons they used were not as effective as frag grenades...

[tharkûn]

I do remember the Gungans using catapults and various smaller energy balls against the Trade Federation battledroids. They and the Ewoks are the only ones who I have ever seen use indirect fire in combat, however, the weapons they used were not as effective as frag grenades...
The gungans used some little spiffy CGI energy balls. The larger ones (presumably catapult fired) could rip through tanks, the smaller ones killed individual droids.

Basically the trade fed should have gone under the theatre sheild and gassed the place. Simple optics tell you that the Gungans are not employing NBC protection and your droids are immune/expendable (in small numbers).

But if the trade fed lacks the gas on hand to do that, I get some grenade launchers, walk under the sheild, fire and walk back. Barring grenade lauchers I'd have the droids toss frag grenades over that ludicrious sheild wall (which is only effective against direct fire).

If you have no grenades period, then I'm just going to have to say incompotent. Armies need grenades, preferably in high quantities.

No, but its a reasonable assumption.
As we look at the battle the Reb guns consisntently aim at the AT-AT, even after their fire has proven ineffective. If the artillerly did shoot the AT-ST's then its pretty early in the battle (assuming the rebs went for "lucky shots" only after taking out "easy" targets).

But they seem accurate regardless, no?
Yes and no, they have a very nice hit ratio, however they don't do terribly much damage per hit. For instance two Ewoks close togethor are gunned, 1 survives. For suppresive fire it actually doesn't matter how many times you hit the enemy (that is a bonus), successful suppresive fire comes when the enemy is unable to act (my personal favorite is an HMG with loads of tracer rounds and a mix of frags/flashbangs from grenade launchers .. scares the piss out of just about anyone). This never happens at Endor, the Ewoks continiously harass the AT-ST's without damage.

AT-ST's are good weapons, but not alone in a sustained offensive role, no as dedicated close support. I'd prefer to deploy them to the flank to make precision shots rather than supressive fire.

Now we come back to the SW missile engine acceleration thing- I just remembered that a missile IS used in SW: in Attack of the Clones- the Hailfire droid launches a flurry of guided missiles- one of them slams right into an AT-TE and blows it to bits (but at very short range- at best, slightly less than 1km). They move at around modern ATGM speed (slower even- we need the DVD to be sure) but certainly not at the velocities of say a proton torpedo down the Death Star trench. Also- Anakin's proton torpedoes in The Phantom Menace don't seem to be moving that fast either when they hit the generators in the hangar bays of the Droid Control Ship
Guidance actually slows missiles down. For instance one remedy to the LOSAT's targetting problems is to fire at low thrust until the target is acquired, then to hit the afterburners. After course correction you make increases ToF, sometimes by very little, sometimes by large amounts. The quickest shot is direct LOS with full afterburners.


- the missile weapons in the prequel trilogy are considerably lower tech (not very likely- there's no appreciable difference in technology between the PT and the OT)
- missile weapons in ground combat/ atmosphere move slower for some reason
- the N-1 starfighter uses different, slower proton torpedoes (possible- though they look the same as those the X-Wing carries in the ICS)
The first is quite likely in TPM. Remember Naboo is Nowheresville with little standing army and the fighters are likely not the greatest in the world. In the largely peaceful Old Republic, I doubt military spending is going to be a huge priority (especially if the central government is supposedly managing defense and you have only local assets).

Another possibility is that the guidance system had to slow to account for jamming/other counter measures ... needing to reacquire its target many times. Guidance and locks are cat and mouse. Truly advanced countermeasures give rise to even more advanced counter-countermeasures ... so on and so forth. All of this may slow the missile down.

Yeah. But its a design tradeoff. The bikes get their speed from their small size and firepower.
Yes but that does mean that AT mech infantry can get a massive boost in terms of speed, especially if we can get good airdrop going. One *highly* effective strategy is turn engagements into a rigged game of rock, paper, scissors; you have something which is a near garunteed win against 1 of their components and have everyone attack in the most unequal manner (i.e. planes kill tanks, tanks kill armored AA, armored AA kills planes). Everything in warfare is a tradeoff ... there is no free lunch. This is why sensible combined arms has become so vitally important ... its the best way to maximize your capabilities while minimizing your weaknesses.

AT-ST's are good for the role their name implies ... scouting. They can deal effectively with small groups of soldiers and the large target profile is a tradeoff for better scouting ability. However I would not want to use them against large numbers of infantry given their observed capabilities. If you have some AT infantry in there, they will likely die.

[Master of Ossus]

Sorry, Tharkun. I was wrong about the number of hostages that were killed/injured by the raid at Entebbe.

I was not wrong about the IDF people getting lost, or about the reasons that they hit the MiG's. You were right, though. I withdraw the incident from the debate. Sorry about that. I got a bad source that happened to be right about the other things. My bad. I should have checked it more rigorously.

[Vympel]

"Yes and no, they have a very nice hit ratio, however they don't do terribly much damage per hit. For instance two Ewoks close togethor are gunned, 1 survives. For suppresive fire it actually doesn't matter how many times you hit the enemy (that is a bonus), successful suppresive fire comes when the enemy is unable to act (my personal favorite is an HMG with loads of tracer rounds and a mix of frags/flashbangs from grenade launchers .. scares the piss out of just about anyone). This never happens at Endor, the Ewoks continiously harass the AT-ST's without damage."

The impression I got from Endor is that the AT-ST crews weren't generally concerned with Ewoks that got close- you have the ineffectual examples of them trying to trip it with a rope/ wreck the leg with a club, shoot rocks at it with catapults, drop rocks on the top of it with a glider- the AT-ST crews were having a field day, blasting away at their leisure. I think the Imperials would've easily won that fight if Chewie hadn't commandeered one of the AT-STs- out of four that we saw (why is it always four!?) two were taken out by creative Ewok traps- one was comandeered and the other was taken out by the captured AT-ST. For example- what would've happened if, when the AT-ST marched up to the back door, the hatch hadn't opened and Chewie had roared? It would've blown Han and Leia away- no open the back door, etc.

"AT-ST's are good weapons, but not alone in a sustained offensive role, no as dedicated close support. I'd prefer to deploy them to the flank to make precision shots rather than supressive fire."

No definitely not alone. They do IMO have the weapons to do the job though- and many modern IFVs are also vulnerable to the forces they should be suppressing- that's war I guess.

"The first is quite likely in TPM. Remember Naboo is Nowheresville with little standing army and the fighters are likely not the greatest in the world. In the largely peaceful Old Republic, I doubt military spending is going to be a huge priority (especially if the central government is supposedly managing defense and you have only local assets)."

Yes but on the other hand we know from the official literature that Naboo doesnt make its own tech, it simply purchases standard galactic tech and then applies it in a distinctly 'Naboo' way. The possibility remains that the proton torpedo might be a less effective model actually- I just remembered that they are blue, not red (though this could be just a tracer effect like the difference between Imperial/Republic and Rebel/Seperatist/Tradefed turbolasers)

"AT-ST's are good for the role their name implies ... scouting. They can deal effectively with small groups of soldiers and the large target profile is a tradeoff for better scouting ability. However I would not want to use them against large numbers of infantry given their observed capabilities. If you have some AT infantry in there, they will likely die."

Agreed- but only if such weapons do indeed exist in SW. The best evidence is for heavy vehicular mounted AT weapons- classic example is the Hailfire droid and the AT-TE- the AT-TE has a big ass mass driver railgun described as a missile launcher in the Episode 2 ICS. In that case, targets are vulnerable because they're big slow vehicles- and a repulsorlife craft doesn't have the sure footing of an AT-AT to fire such a big weapon- look at the Tradefed tanks in Episode 1, they recoil backwards when firing their main laser.

[tharkûn]

Sorry, Tharkun. I was wrong about the number of hostages that were killed/injured by the raid at Entebbe.
Thank you for the concession.

I was not wrong about the IDF people getting lost,
The IDF did not get "lost". The problem was that the building was designed by an Israeli company (or a company owned by an Israeli Jew or something). The IDF got the blueprints and built a mock-up they practiced in. They memorized the blueprints (and photos of the building). When they got there *1* element found that the door they planned to use did not exist. By three minutes into the operation (including drive time) the hostages were "secured", the terrorists most likely to kill them sporting a few more holes and less blood.



or about the reasons that they hit the MiG's.
That depends upon whom you ask. The man who gave the order said it was to prevent pursuit. Remember he is in a Boeing down there, far removed from the Israeli government. He does not have the authority to "send a message". Certain IDF soldiers wanted to send Ida Amin a message (i.e. like the message with the feul pump), but the justification for killing the planes was to preclude pursuit ... that's the IDF's official line even today.

I withdraw the incident from the debate. Sorry about that. I got a bad source that happened to be right about the other things. My bad. I should have checked it more rigorously.
Hey no biggie. I think I may even know your source, but that was a single first person account, and well recollection can be fogged. Whatever ... let's drop Entebbe it was irrelevant to the debate anyways.

The impression I got from Endor is that the AT-ST crews weren't generally concerned with Ewoks that got close- you have the ineffectual examples of them trying to trip it with a rope/ wreck the leg with a club, shoot rocks at it with catapults, drop rocks on the top of it with a glider- the AT-ST crews were having a field day, blasting away at their leisure.
Possible, doesn't speak much for Imperial discipline.

For example- what would've happened if, when the AT-ST marched up to the back door, the hatch hadn't opened and Chewie had roared? It would've blown Han and Leia away- no open the back door, etc.

Oh I'm sure they'd have found another way to fix it. Chewie did take out the remainder of the armored threat, but to the best of my knowledge the stormies were downed by primitive infantry. Frankly the Rebs played stupid here too. Once you control the bunker ... close the blast doors yourself until the charges are set and ready to blow. Then open the doors and run.

Like most sci-fi battles Endor is an example of double stupidity where either side being smart wins the day. If the rebs had closed the blast doors when they first took the place or if the Imps had kept the blast doors closed.

The whole door incident speaks volumes about Imperial combined arms. All 4 AT-ST's are gone, and *nobody* inside knows it. In modern warfare vehicles remain in regularly contact with superiors and other elements.

No definitely not alone. They do IMO have the weapons to do the job though- and many modern IFVs are also vulnerable to the forces they should be suppressing- that's war I guess.

The big thing is a high calibre mounted machine gun, while not particularly accurate it scares grunts like just about nothing else (naval bombardment and napalm come to mind). You want a high rate of fire (so timed movement is impossible), lots of noise/motion/etc. to let them know you are firing, and the ability to sweep so you can suppress without reacquiring the target each time.

In theory anything can be surpressed by anything else (lone marines have supress huge enemy formations with just a rifle) ... but that is the exception, not the rule.

Also, generally speaking, IFV's outrange the grunts trying to kill them.

Yes but on the other hand we know from the official literature that Naboo doesnt make its own tech, it simply purchases standard galactic tech and then applies it in a distinctly 'Naboo' way. The possibility remains that the proton torpedo might be a less effective model actually- I just remembered that they are blue, not red (though this could be just a tracer effect like the difference between Imperial/Republic and Rebel/Seperatist/Tradefed turbolasers)

or that the Naboo bought the anti-pirate modle whereas the Rebs wanted the anti-cap-ship modle.

Agreed- but only if such weapons do indeed exist in SW. The best evidence is for heavy vehicular mounted AT weapons- classic example is the Hailfire droid and the AT-TE- the AT-TE has a big ass mass driver railgun described as a missile launcher in the Episode 2 ICS. In that case, targets are vulnerable because they're big slow vehicles- and a repulsorlife craft doesn't have the sure footing of an AT-AT to fire such a big weapon- look at the Tradefed tanks in Episode 1, they recoil backwards when firing their main laser.
Actually you can cheat and get around the momentum problem by having backfire. Basically double end your porjectile, one half gets hurtled forward, the other backward where it vaporizes and produces a wash of superheated gas. This has its disadvantages, but suffice it to say you can pull some tricks with where momentum goes to minimize recoil.

[Vympel]

"Possible, doesn't speak much for Imperial discipline"

Hahah when I said at leisure I didn't mean they were on holiday- they just weren't reacting to the Ewoks up close

"Oh I'm sure they'd have found another way to fix it. Chewie did take out the remainder of the armored threat, but to the best of my knowledge the stormies were downed by primitive infantry. Frankly the Rebs played stupid here too. Once you control the bunker ... close the blast doors yourself until the charges are set and ready to blow. Then open the doors and run."

But remember that it was the back door only- could they secure the front entrance as well? The troops rushing in from the back door was to prevent their escape out the way they came in- thats my interpretation anyway. In fact, that's the whole reason there was a back door at Endor- part of the trap. They had to provide the Rebels with a soft enough target to invite them to attack.

"The whole door incident speaks volumes about Imperial combined arms. All 4 AT-ST's are gone, and *nobody* inside knows it. In modern warfare vehicles remain in regularly contact with superiors and other elements"

Well, only three were gone- what they didn't know was that number 4 had been captured.

"Also, generally speaking, IFV's outrange the grunts trying to kill them"

Not if the infantry are packing man portable AT missiles

[Rathark]

What is the effect of hand phasers on energy shields? They seemed to have little effect on that 50 MW (?) shield in Star Trek: Generations. Ship-mounted phaser cannons react violently with shields, the effect seemingly magnifying their "power" by the thousands (but not billions as the case may be with light elements). Is this a property unique to the larger phaser cannons, or do the hand phasers have a similar "shield-busting ingredient" on a vastly smaller scale?

[Sea Skimmer]

"Also, generally speaking, IFV's outrange the grunts trying to kill them"

Not if the infantry are packing man portable AT missiles

Incorrect, your average IFV auto cannon outranges any MANPADS ATGW in existence. Only the wimpiest of 20 and 25mm weapons are actually outranged by infantry ATGW's.

Now if we bring things like Hummer mounted TOW into it, which might be called infantry weapons but are in reality crew served and at the battalion level or higher, that&#8217;s another story.

[Vympel]

What about Javelin? 2.5km range.

Or the less advanced, 1980s vintage Soviet Fagot-M (AT-4 SPIGOT-B), also 2.5km range.

Or the Israeli Spike system, 4km range- heavier than its smaller cousin the Gill though (which has 2.5km range)

Autocannons of IFVs aren't very effective against dug in infantry from 2.5km away. Sure you can shoot that far- but good luck killing the ATGM

Actually its kind of a moot point anyway- it'd be a combined arms op and the infantry would be targeting the tanks, correct?

[Sea Skimmer]

What about Javelin? 2.5km range.

Or the less advanced, 1980s vintage Soviet Fagot-M (AT-4 SPIGOT-B), also 2.5km range.

Or the Israeli Spike system, 4km range- heavier than its smaller cousin the Gill though (which has 2.5km range)

Autocannons of IFVs aren't very effective against dug in infantry from 2.5km away. Sure you can shoot that far- but good luck killing the ATGM

Actually its kind of a moot point anyway- it'd be a combined arms op and the infantry would be targeting the tanks, correct?

Effectiveness and range aren't the same. Its unlikely anything but a CV9040 or BMP-3 would attempt to engage for such ranges in anything but an urban battlefield, but the weapons can reach and are accurate enough to pick out targets.

What the infantry shoot at would depend on many factors, though yes Tanks normally would have priority, especially if they're Soviet. Russian tanks with the 125mm gun carried a lot of HE rounds, and they had the ability to time fuse airburst them with an automatic setter linked the fire control system. Very lethal against infantry without proper overhead cover.

The BMP-3's 100mm gun also has this ability.

[Vympel]

Don't worry, I'm fully appraised of the abilities of Russian armor ... they frequently get sold short ("Soviet tank" is a derogatory term for some people) and it annoys me no end ... I'm a bit of an amateur AFV fanatic actually