WTF is it with the At-AT?

[Connor MacLeod]

Mike, what the fuck is an AT-SE?

Considering an "E" is relatively close to the "T" on a keyboard, he might also mean AT-ST

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Jesus Christ, is Tharkun deliberately trying to enlarge his posts and make them difficult to read? He must have gone to the RSA school of "complicating a debate for others."

The fact that Tharkun doesn't use quote tags and instead italics makes his posts seem much longer than they are, but his point-by-point debating style is the primary contributer to the maddening length of his posts.

Also, using the quote tags would make it a lot easier to read his responces, as a quote is a lot easier to skim past and identify his replies than italics are.

[Robert Treder]

I want someone to come up with photos of the Empire's AT-HE (All Terrain Heavy Enforcer) mentioned in passing in the ICS.

I'm guessing Saxton is hinting at this:



(from Art of Star Wars: Episode V)

That's from Saxton's site, and he seems to be impressed by it in his description of it. Seeing as he wrote both this article on it and the E2ICS, it's possible he was thinking of them as the same machine. He's not the type to just randomly throw stuff out there, after all.

[Darth Wong]

Jesus Christ, is Tharkun deliberately trying to enlarge his posts and make them difficult to read? He must have gone to the RSA school of "complicating a debate for others."

He doesn't believe in letting the smallest thing go by without comment. That's why he tends to generate these huge posts and people get tired of debating him. He's also as stubborn and difficult as a fundie in science class. Remember that we held on a debate for several pages over his "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" bullshit, with him INSISTING that demands for proof of a negative are never unreasonable.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I want someone to come up with photos of the Empire's AT-HE (All Terrain Heavy Enforcer) mentioned in passing in the ICS.

I'm guessing Saxton is hinting at this:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/ ... gfoot1.jpg
(from Art of Star Wars: Episode V)

That's from Saxton's site, and he seems to be impressed by it in his description of it. Seeing as he wrote both this article on it and the E2ICS, it's possible he was thinking of them as the same machine. He's not the type to just randomly throw stuff out there, after all.

I don't know, I'd think he meant a taller, wider version of the AT-TE fulfilling the same role.

[Robert Treder]

I want someone to come up with photos of the Empire's AT-HE (All Terrain Heavy Enforcer) mentioned in passing in the ICS.

I'm guessing Saxton is hinting at this:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/ ... gfoot1.jpg
(from Art of Star Wars: Episode V)

That's from Saxton's site, and he seems to be impressed by it in his description of it. Seeing as he wrote both this article on it and the E2ICS, it's possible he was thinking of them as the same machine. He's not the type to just randomly throw stuff out there, after all.

I don't know, I'd think he meant a taller, wider version of the AT-TE fulfilling the same role.

Well, that one certainly is taller and wider. And Saxton indicates that he's unsure as to the role of the above, but presumes it may be an ultra-heavy siege vehicle.
I'm just saying that it's the only known walker that even remotely fits the limited description of the AT-HE, so for now, it's a possibility that they're one and the same.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Could it be that those extra leg attachments are to lock the feet in place when it fires it's main cannon(s)?

[Boba Fett]

Could it be that those extra leg attachments are to lock the feet in place when it fires it's main cannon(s)?

I rather think it prevents the walker's leg from stumbling to the side.

BTW the AT-AT has it as well. (At least on my model kit...)

[tharkûn]

Yet again everyone and their brother decides to reply and then people bitch about length. Whatever.

So I'll try to keep this down in length. We saw Hoth. At Hoth the Imps had: AT-AT's, AT-ST's, stormies. Of these exactly *1* was seen performing AA duty. The AT-AT. From what was seen the Imps went in with minimal AA cover. We saw the AT-AT's performing AP action as well, however even when the enemy was directly on a friendly vehicle NOBODY provided close support. And finally we saw the AT-AT perform long range attack of a target at a fixed position.

This is why I view Hoth as poorly planned. A better plan would involve better AA coverage and better dedicated close support. How often is it better to have a jack of trades vehicle to work AA, AP, and taking out hardened targets than to have specialized units for each?

Artillerly makes intrinsic sense ... and I don't care if it is rocket artillerly, traditional ballistic, or something more exotic. Whatever form of indirect fire that works, works (and we have no proof for any counters against indirect attacks). I mentioned anti-matter as one possible source, people didn't like that ... fine. Assuming I converted units correctly, fusion can you up to 82 kt/kg (this is using Deuterium and stopping at He), so 4 kg of deuterium should be sufficient fuel for a 150 kt blast even with nonideality. Twice in the cannon we have seen indirect fire vehicles ... never have we seen a counter. Some of you say a THEB is logical, but my question is if these things can burn through all forms of cheap and effective indirect fire ... why are these systems NEVER deployed against unsheilded TIES or speeders?

Now for the rebels:
The rebels had some ineffective artillerly peices, infantry, speeders, X-wings, and transports. From cannon we that speeders can down walkers with unexpected tactics. From official sources we know X-wings can down walkers. From some of you have said that x-wings, tie fighters, etc. can't work under sheilding:
So we have the ICS quote. It says that high energy exhaust from speeders and starships is stifled by the sheild. However from the cannon we know speeders operated fine on Hoth. We further know that starships can operate under sheilds ... because the almightly Thrawn had cloaked ships UNDER a planetary sheild and firing from beneath it. To me the only logical explanation of the quote is that the penetrating refers to the actual act of moving through the sheild perimetre. That whilst moving THROUGH the sheild high exhaust velocities are stifled and energy discharges are an issue, NOT when moving under the sheild.

As far as rebel tactics. Harpoon attack runs should be made from the back. You've had zilch for effect shooting at the neck (or whereeverthehell the magical weakspot is), make a run at the legs and do so without asking to be lit up. If you are going to attack head on, do not position yourself in a crossfire. Rather than flying between two walkers, fly on the far edge of either one. If there is some reason why you have fly directly through a crossfire, please provide it.

The main weaknesses of the AT-AT are:
1. For "all terrain" it exerts tremendous ground pressure.
2. For its target profile it has weak armor and limited active defenses.
3. Simply igniting the fuel tank kills the thing.

NONE of these make it unusable. It is a walking deathtrap ... but so are plenty of other military vehicles. It is only effective in a well balanced combined arms force or when the enemy can only bring weak weapons to bare.

For the remainder of the thread I will only respond to a point raised by either Mike or Sea Skimmer (the most rational/knowledgeable one debating here). If you give a damn about something then ask them post it.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Make sure you actually quote this time. (HINT: you can hit "ALT-Q" to make open and closed quote tags).

[DPDarkPrimus]

Could it be that those extra leg attachments are to lock the feet in place when it fires it's main cannon(s)?

I rather think it prevents the walker's leg from stumbling to the side.

BTW the AT-AT has it as well. (At least on my model kit...)

Really? None of the AT-ATs in ESB had them... huh...

And is it me, or is that black shape in the top right corner of the drawing part of the AT-HE's chassis? It would be hanging much lower than an AT-ATs...

[Cal Wright]

The main weaknesses of the AT-AT are:
1. For "all terrain" it exerts tremendous ground pressure.

There you go. All the terrain it covers will be flat. Perfect!

2. For its target profile it has weak armor and limited active defenses.

Weak armor? Compared to what?!?

'That armor is too strong for blasters!' -Luke Skywalker Empire Strikes Back

Numerous flak bursts and direct artillary fire to supposed 'weak' points such as the head and knee joint.
If I knew how to get screenshots up, I'd post the ones were the snowspeeders shot the fallen AT-AT. What's so strange about Straha, and yourself coincidentaly, is that you claim this gives it weak armor. However there are two things to look over. First, the walker had just fallen face first into the ground. The pressure of the head being forced back into the body via the neck joint will greatly stress out the integrity of the overall structure. The speeders shots also hit the are of the neck, which is a stated weak point. However, it is almost impossible to manuver and hit this.

3. Simply igniting the fuel tank kills the thing.

Igniting a fuel tank on anything will kill anything. This makes no sense. In the future, please list what page the quotes are from. It was hell digging the crap that is EU back out to find.

p120 Isards Revenge Paperback

'Hobbie, her wingman, came in on a crossing path that gave him a clean shot at the tail. Lyrr's shots had slagged armor on the mechanical beast's flank, but hadn't done any serious damage. Hobbie's attack ran from below the AT-AT's body on up the back, and at least one shot holed the fuel tank. Flaming fluid streamed down like a tail, then an explosion ripped the walker's back end open. The blast pitched the walker up into the air and through a somersault tha landed it on its back. The massive legs telescoped down into the body, then tore free. The Walker's armored head slammed into the snow-covered ground, cracking armor plates, and started leaking smoke.'

This is interesting. Amazing how crappy Stackpole truly is. But I must muddle through it regardless.
First off, a run already 'slagged' armor. Which is not to unbelievable when coupled with this fact.
X-Wing lasers. These weapons should be more powerful than standard repulsor lift vehicle weaponary. They're designed to engage starships. We know they do considerable damage to the Death Star's surface. However it still took two runs to break through the AT-AT.

Now, at least ONE shot holed the fuel tank. There could have been more that punched through. Also, the EGtV&V shows only a fuel slug tank. By the other parts of thier own diagram this is directly connected to the drive units. Looks more like it's really just a fuel cap. So simply 'holeing' the fuel tank requires some deft manuvering, crack skills, and a number of shots.

NONE of these make it unusable.

We know that.

It is a walking deathtrap ...

We know that too. Watching the puny ground troops trying to scatter as three behemoth walkers tromp through the lines is damned impressive.

but so are plenty of other military vehicles.

Which suck ass and are not near as damned cool or effective as the Imperial All Terrain Armored Transport.

It is only effective in a well balanced combined arms force or when the enemy can only bring weak weapons to bare.

That's true for ALL vehicles.

For the remainder of the thread I will only respond to a point raised by either Mike or Sea Skimmer (the most rational/knowledgeable one debating here). If you give a damn about something then ask them post it.

So basically you can't handle all the shit everyone else is throwing your way and are demanding that only who you consider the 'best/rational' debate with you. Fuck off asshat. I know some of the others are flaming you for nitpick ideas, but this is just a cop out.

[vakundok]

As far as rebel tactics. Harpoon attack runs should be made from the back. You've had zilch for effect shooting at the neck (or whereeverthehell the magical weakspot is), make a run at the legs and do so without asking to be lit up. If you are going to attack head on, do not position yourself in a crossfire. Rather than flying between two walkers, fly on the far edge of either one. If there is some reason why you have fly directly through a crossfire, please provide it.

Of course it would be far safer to attack the AT-ATs from the back. However the primary goal was to defend the generators or at least save time before they are being destroyed. In this case when the first walker come into range of the generators the rebell loose, doesn't care whether the speeders have losses or not. The speeders were sacrificed for time. They added targets to the AT-ATs slowing them while shooting the speeders down.
While you are in front of the two AT-ATs, you will be in crossfire the angle is nearly unimportant. If you are on the side of either one, one will still the chance to lock on you. But, if you are between them both have this chance but none of them will fire to avoid hitting each other!

BTW, remember that we saw that only one AT-AT was clearly destroyed by the rebells (Luke). If an AT-AT simply stop when attacked by a harpoon it will become an invulnerable firing position still dangereous to anything within rage.

[Boba Fett]

As far as rebel tactics. Harpoon attack runs should be made from the back. You've had zilch for effect shooting at the neck (or whereeverthehell the magical weakspot is), make a run at the legs and do so without asking to be lit up. If you are going to attack head on, do not position yourself in a crossfire. Rather than flying between two walkers, fly on the far edge of either one. If there is some reason why you have fly directly through a crossfire, please provide it.

Of course it would be far safer to attack the AT-ATs from the back. However the primary goal was to defend the generators or at least save time before they are being destroyed. In this case when the first walker come into range of the generators the rebell loose, doesn't care whether the speeders have losses or not. The speeders were sacrificed for time. They added targets to the AT-ATs slowing them while shooting the speeders down.
While you are in front of the two AT-ATs, you will be in crossfire the angle is nearly unimportant. If you are on the side of either one, one will still the chance to lock on you. But, if you are between them both have this chance but none of them will fire to avoid hitting each other!

BTW, remember that we saw that only one AT-AT was clearly destroyed by the rebells (Luke). If an AT-AT simply stop when attacked by a harpoon it will become an invulnerable firing position still dangereous to anything within rage.

Plus the way it is, looks better in the movie.

Rogue group tried to draw the AT-AT fire onto themselves till the AT-AT's get in the (AT) Atgar towers effective range.

[Boba Fett]

Could it be that those extra leg attachments are to lock the feet in place when it fires it's main cannon(s)?

I rather think it prevents the walker's leg from stumbling to the side.

BTW the AT-AT has it as well. (At least on my model kit...)

Really? None of the AT-ATs in ESB had them... huh...

And is it me, or is that black shape in the top right corner of the drawing part of the AT-HE's chassis? It would be hanging much lower than an AT-ATs...

Maybe the model kit maker company used the concept drawings instead of movie shots to copy the AT-AT. That1s why the attachment is on my model kit?!

I watched ESB and there's really no attachements on the legs.

[Robert Treder]

And is it me, or is that black shape in the top right corner of the drawing part of the AT-HE's chassis? It would be hanging much lower than an AT-ATs...

The black shape is the underbelly. And according to Saxton's scaling, that underbelly is higher up than the top of an AT-AT. Also, the distance between the two feet is longer than the length of an AT-AT.
Seriously, look at the scene of Luke dangling from the AT-AT and then compare it to the troops in this pic. This thing is a monster. The underbelly is 32 meters off the ground.

[Slartibartfast]

BTW, remember that we saw that only one AT-AT was clearly destroyed by the rebells (Luke). If an AT-AT simply stop when attacked by a harpoon it will become an invulnerable firing position still dangereous to anything within rage.

Incorrect. The harpooned AT-AT was also blown up with blasters right after falling down (which probably shut down its shields).

[Darth Servo]

BTW, remember that we saw that only one AT-AT was clearly destroyed by the rebells (Luke). If an AT-AT simply stop when attacked by a harpoon it will become an invulnerable firing position still dangereous to anything within rage.

Incorrect. The harpooned AT-AT was also blown up with blasters right after falling down (which probably shut down its shields).

Um, He said, "IF AN AT-AT STOPS". W/o foreward motion, the thing will NOT fall forward

[vakundok]

Incorrect. The harpooned AT-AT was also blown up with blasters right after falling down (which probably shut down its shields).

It was a hip of junk after the fall. (If a plane scrashes and you blow it up, whether really you are the one who destroys it?) The rebells bluw up a hip of junk. I simply don't score it as a kill. Of course, this is subjectiv.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Incorrect. The harpooned AT-AT was also blown up with blasters right after falling down (which probably shut down its shields).

It was a hip of junk after the fall. (If a plane scrashes and you blow it up, whether really you are the one who destroys it?) The rebells bluw up a hip of junk. I simply don't score it as a kill. Of course, this is subjectiv.

Novelisation and other sources state that while the snowspeeder did shoot the AT-AT, it was self-destructed.

[CmdrWilkens]

Yet again everyone and their brother decides to reply and then people bitch about length. Whatever.

So I'll try to keep this down in length. We saw Hoth. At Hoth the Imps had: AT-AT's, AT-ST's, stormies. Of these exactly *1* was seen performing AA duty. The AT-AT. From what was seen the Imps went in with minimal AA cover. We saw the AT-AT's performing AP action as well, however even when the enemy was directly on a friendly vehicle NOBODY provided close support. And finally we saw the AT-AT perform long range attack of a target at a fixed position.

This is why I view Hoth as poorly planned. A better plan would involve better AA coverage and better dedicated close support. How often is it better to have a jack of trades vehicle to work AA, AP, and taking out hardened targets than to have specialized units for each?

<snip>
For the remainder of the thread I will only respond to a point raised by either Mike or Sea Skimmer (the most rational/knowledgeable one debating here). If you give a damn about something then ask them post it.

Okay so those of us who have only tangentally addressed the thread are excluded by your dictate? Wow that's rational on your part, why not just shut up and read my resposne before you proclaim you won't respond to anyone else.

1) The issue of AA coverage. The AT-ST seems almost perfectly built for this role in that the concussion grenade launcher is an excllent flak weapon and they have the rotational ability to provide the equivalent of a walking 360 degree AAA platform.

Now how does that factor into this battle? It factors into a question that comes to mind. Where were the other 20 odd speeders? A traditional airplane squadron is 24 vehicles and we see little more than half a dozen and focus almost exclsuively on Luke, Wedge, and Zev. This leads we to the question of where exactly these other speeders were. Hell even if we take the preference for 12 fighter squadrons in SW that still leaves us 9 speeders largely unaccoutned for (one died early but neh).

Here's how I resolve the question of the miraculously non-appearing Speeders and the miraculously virtually MIA AT-Sts. It comes from an age old adage:you go after the guys most liek yourself first and the guys who can hit you the hardest second. The speeders (having no Air to Air action) engaged the AT-STs which were serving in the AAA role supporting the AT-ATs. This idea resolves the locaiton of the missing Speeders (busy killing AT-STs) and the missing AT-STs (busy killing speeders).

In other words the logical ramificaiton of the missing vehicles is (since we know they were there) that they spent their offscreen time fighting one another. This further means that the AT-ATs did come with AAA protection.

2) Close Support: The AT-AT here seems PERFECTLy analogous to the mdoern IFV wherein mid-range to long-range (for infantry) tragets are engaged by the primary weapons of the IFV and only when the range to object has dropped are troops then deployed providing clsoe support during the critical last moments when the enemy is clsoe by. In other words IFV design is partially designed around the IFV as the mid-range fighter and the infantry as close support being deployed only when the range has dropped to the point that close contact is probable.

The case of a single sapper attaking an IFV from an undetected position is exactly the same vulnerability as most modern IFVs have. In this particular case do you want an AT-St to be firing at the legs of a parent walker possibly commiting fratracide? Do you want Snowtroopers plodding along slowing the entire advance to footspeed? Do you want to create a horribly expensive vehicle whose only purpose is to eliminate lone sappers who happen to engage an IFV like the AT-AT before it deploys its troops?

3) AT-AT as artillery: You seem to be suggesting that the AT-AT is filling the role of artillery support and your only proof is that it takes a "long range attack." The problem is 17 Km is only long range for us today. When fixed, generation old, gun positions three meters off the ground have ranges exceeding 16 Km I think calling 17 Km long ranged is excessive. In fact for SW I would call that as roughly equal to the kinds of ranges we can see in tank combat over similair terrain (today its in the 3-4 Km range with that kind of flat shooting gallery terrain). In other words I think, given the nature of SW combat, that the ranges the AT-AT fights in are distinctly MID-ranged which is perfect for its role as an IFV.

[tharkûn]

To quote some one with some brains:
"grow a pair of testicles and appoint a champion."
I picked whom I thought was your strongest champion (Mike and Sea Skimmer). If you'd like a different champion debate among yourselves and decide. I refuse to have yet another thread where everyone and their brother posts a series of nitpicks and then people bitch about length.

In any event I will be leaving the country soon (as morbid as this sounds I'm just waiting for some one to officially die) so make your arrangements soon if you give a damn. I refuse to debate against a gaggle of people who do nothing but forward claims that are contradicted either in canon or if canon is silent ... official material.

[Cal Wright]

To quote some one with some brains:
"grow a pair of testicles and appoint a champion."

Yeah, you should try that. If you ever managed to sprout something from that funky smelling vagina between your legs, you wouldn't get flamed, asshat.

I picked whom I thought was your strongest champion (Mike and Sea Skimmer).

Who are you, Scooter? You picked?!? What a fucktard. Get over yourself. Your not the great of greats from some other board or website. Your just some lonely bastard that has no idea what he's talking about. Geez!

If you'd like a different champion debate among yourselves and decide.

Eat shit, you ass spelunker.

I refuse to have yet another thread where everyone and their brother posts a series of nitpicks and then people bitch about length.

You go first.

In any event I will be leaving the country soon

If there is a God, I pray to him it's you leaving America son. Cuz we all know the IQ level could use some burden lightening.

(as morbid as this sounds I'm just waiting for some one to officially die)

I'll leave this one alone...Who the fuck am I kidding. I was almost bored to death by your sloppiness. Does that count?

so make your arrangements soon if you give a damn.

NEWSFLASH!!! No one gives a damn.

I refuse to debate against a gaggle of people who do nothing but forward claims that are contradicted either in canon or if canon is silent ... official material.

Bullshit. I pulled my shit straight from the god damned movies. You went so far as to pull out a damn novel by an asshat author in fucked up universe. What's really going on here is your trying to elevate yourself. Well, it seems someone needs a bitch slap. You either want to

A. Debate Wong or Ocean Spammer for reasons that are merely your opinion. That they are the two best debaters.
B. Debate some flunky in hopes of showing them up so you can walk around all puffed up.

How about this. No one here gives a flying fuck or a rats ass much less gives a damn. If you got wrought by Wong or River Runner you think it would be an honourable discharge. You also think that if some lowly brownnoser walks in and you smack them down, that you will be all high and mighty. No. No consellation for that Guardian...err Farfrompuken. Your an asshat on the verge of fucktardedness. You are getting flamed. Outright. Why? Because of reasons previously stated at length and properly quoted. Go draw in your coloring book, and when grade school gets out, I hope you will have acquired an education.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Sea Skimmer, not Ocean Spammer.

[vakundok]

If it was to me instead of an answer: I do not think there are others from my country here at all. (I am Hungarian this is why my English is so terrible.) I am definitely not the brother of anyone here. (Otherwise I had to talk to my mother .)
Uff, it seems to be more personal than a logical discussion. I am sorry to disturb you!