LA-AT vs AT-AT

[Connor MacLeod]

The AT-AT has superior energy weapons and armor that will probably be highly resistant to LAAT energy weapons and possibly low-kt warheads. Also, its weapons are vastly faster than rockets and if the AT-AT has LOS, it can hit it.

However, it has poorer weapons coverage (as Sea Skimmer noted), and the projectile weapons on the LAAT (or AT-TE for that matter) can easily be employed even if the ship does not have LOS. Of course, there is also a possibility of the AT-AT intercepting the projectiles of either target, unless launched from outside teh weapons arc (Again, a distinct possibility). T he missiles are fast (Hypersonic velocity) but still far slower than most blaster bolts.

[Howedar]

That's an idiotic statement to make. 100KT missiles are more powerful than 1KT blasters, yes. But a superlaser is more powerful than 100KT missiles.

Actually they could be substantially more powerful than that... at least at maximum firepower (anywhere from 16-130 kt per bolt... but this is again Max firepower, so we don't know the exact recharge rate either.)

I was referring to a generic blaster weapon, not any particular one.

[Connor MacLeod]

That's an idiotic statement to make. 100KT missiles are more powerful than 1KT blasters, yes. But a superlaser is more powerful than 100KT missiles.

Actually they could be substantially more powerful than that... at least at maximum firepower (anywhere from 16-130 kt per bolt... but this is again Max firepower, so we don't know the exact recharge rate either.)

I was referring to a generic blaster weapon, not any particular one.

Well not all blasters are capable of 1 kt range (LAAT blasters and AT-TE blasters aren't.... kiloton range weapons are heavy artillery or fighter guns really.)