AT-AT underbelly armour

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Andras
Jedi Knight
Posts: 575
Joined: 2002-07-08 10:27am
Location: Waldorf, MD

Post by Andras »

Anyone check the novelization? I'm pretty sure it says maintenence hatch.
vakundok
Jedi Knight
Posts: 749
Joined: 2003-01-03 06:03pm
Location: in a country far far away

Post by vakundok »

Howedar wrote:If I remember correctly, it was probably three feet by two. Quite large enough to squeeze out of.
Closer to two feet by one, or 65-70 x 30-35 cms. Likely a maintenance hatch and possibly not for humans.
User avatar
wautd
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7595
Joined: 2004-02-11 10:11am
Location: Intensive care

Re: AT-AT underbelly armour

Post by wautd »

Darth Wong wrote:Just an interesting observation from TESB. Not sure if anyone's noticed this before, but it is a widely held belief that AT-AT underbelly armour is extremely weak because Luke cut through it so easily.

One small problem: he didn't. If you carefully watch that scene, he does not cut through anything; he hits some kind of control device and you can see the hatch slide open on its own. Watch that scene carefully.

Just something to keep in mind the next time somebody talks about feeble AT-AT underbelly armour. The principal evidence used in support of this claim is being misrepresented.
Actually i always tought it was quite obvious a hatch slide open. Never tought the underbelly would be weak (wouldnt make any sense make the underbelly of a how-many-metres high walker weak)
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: AT-AT underbelly armour

Post by Darth Wong »

wautd wrote:Actually i always tought it was quite obvious a hatch slide open. Never tought the underbelly would be weak (wouldnt make any sense make the underbelly of a how-many-metres high walker weak)
Well, let's just say that it's a persistent claim.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Murazor
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 2003-12-10 05:29am

Post by Murazor »

I had noticed too that the hatch opened itself. I agree: it would be stupid to make the underbelly of the AT-AT unarmoured (however, it seems that the AT-AT shares the stupid "Achilles heel" flaw seen way too often in sci-fi).
User avatar
Isolder74
Official SD.Net Ace of Cakes
Posts: 6762
Joined: 2002-07-10 01:16am
Location: Weber State of Construction University
Contact:

Post by Isolder74 »

Murazor wrote:I had noticed too that the hatch opened itself. I agree: it would be stupid to make the underbelly of the AT-AT unarmoured (however, it seems that the AT-AT shares the stupid "Achilles heel" flaw seen way too often in sci-fi).
ITs only an "Achilles heel" if the enemy happens to have a grappling hook, and that enemy happens to have a Lightsaber, and that enemy also has a heavy thermal dotonator.

how often is that ever going to happen?
Hapan Battle Dragons Rule!
When you want peace prepare for war! --Confusious
That was disapointing ..Should we show this Federation how to build a ship so we may have worthy foes? Typhonis 1
The Prince of The Writer's Guild|HAB Spacewolf Tank General| God Bless America!
Murazor
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 2003-12-10 05:29am

Post by Murazor »

Isolder74 wrote:ITs only an "Achilles heel" if the enemy happens to have a grappling hook, and that enemy happens to have a Lightsaber, and that enemy also has a heavy thermal dotonator.

how often is that ever going to happen?
The AT-AT is designed I suppose to attack big ground defenses were the presence of artillery is almost a certainty. I suppose that the possibility of the underbelly region being open to fire from enemy batteries is small, but I think that the retractable hatch would be a lot safer in the back of the walker, which offers a very small target profile to any enemy (in the event of attack from the rearguard).
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Murazor wrote:The AT-AT is designed I suppose to attack big ground defenses were the presence of artillery is almost a certainty. I suppose that the possibility of the underbelly region being open to fire from enemy batteries is small, but I think that the retractable hatch would be a lot safer in the back of the walker, which offers a very small target profile to any enemy (in the event of attack from the rearguard).
What are you talking about? The hatch itself wouldn't be any smaller if it was on the back, so what difference does it make how big the entire face is? Moreover, the hatch in its current location is protected by the armour skirt, so you have to get very close to the walker in order to tag the lock (with a weapon that can melt blast doors, mind you), and then you still have to lob something inside. If it was on the back of the walker, you could hit it from very far away.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Murazor
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 2003-12-10 05:29am

Post by Murazor »

Darth Wong wrote:What are you talking about? The hatch itself wouldn't be any smaller if it was on the back, so what difference does it make how big the entire face is? Moreover, the hatch in its current location is protected by the armour skirt, so you have to get very close to the walker in order to tag the lock (with a weapon that can melt blast doors, mind you), and then you still have to lob something inside. If it was on the back of the walker, you could hit it from very far away.
Well... I suppose that melting blast doors it is possible for Rebel artillery. Anyway, although the location of that thing strikes me at odd, I won't argue with those with more knowledge than I in that field.

P.S. What "armour skirt"?
Post Reply