AT-ST vs kinetic weapons

[The Silence and I]

Even if the explosion was directed inward, (how could it have been? The launcher is externally mounted--explosion should be externally directed) there were TWO of them, both pointing inward. Now I'm not fluent in the properities of hot, expanding gasses, but it seems logical to me that the inward shockwaves would reflect back outward, off each other. If so, then a) makes little difference in the end. B) is more correct. Because the explosion 1) couldn't have been inwardly directed 2) would have resulted in an outward "blowback" anyway and 3) failed to slow the logs, the answer is simple: the logs provided the destructive force. I don't care what the explosion looked like--there are ways to explain a large, low yield explosion. e.g. flour, blow some flour into the air and spark it--you get a very large fireball, same thing with hydrogen--it expands some before you light it and thus the explosion is large, but not very dangerous. Note, I am not suggesting the explosion was due to some guy passed gas before hand, but whatever the yeild, it did not displace the logs *shrug* thems the visuals.

[Ma Deuce]

Therefore, the AT-AT scout would probably stop tank rounds up to 90 mm. I am sure that the 105mm and above would give an AT-ST a run for its money, if for no other reason than the shock of hitting the scout might knock it down, but penetrators or HEAT rounds might penetrate the armor as well. This will depend on just how resilient the armor material is from melting, from spalling, and from separation at the penetration point. I am sure that the Empire has addressed this issue to allow it to fend off everything up to E-web class weaponry. I think the E-web would give a scout something to worry about, personally, since it's a threat to the armor of small starships.

I think a TOW-II or Hellfire missile would take out an AT-ST. Their armor penetration capabilities are extreme. At the very minimum, it would knock the AT-ST down.

I'd be very careful about judging the penetrating power of tank guns simply by their caliber. For example, the most modern 105mm APFSDS rounds have well over double the penetration of the 105mm rounds of 40 years ago (the most modern 105mm rounds also have roughly equal penetration to the early 120mm DM13 rounds for the Rh-120 L44 gun on the Leopard 2 and M1A1/A2 Abrams, and the most modern shells available for the Rh-120 are much more powerful than the early ones). The point is, it's not just gun caliber, but also ammo that makes the difference. Since AT-STs seem designed to absorb energy attacks, HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) warheads would probably not be too useful (they are chemical-energy based), since HEAT rounds penetrate armor by burning or melting a hole through it using a jet of molten metal (Virtually all ATGMs have HEAT warheads). The most powerful HEAT rounds (like on the Hellfire) might be able to do the job, but it would be safer to go with kinetic rounds (APFSDS) if available.

[airBiscuit]

Well said.

[Comosicus]

Maybe the explosion was not caused by amunition detonation but by the fuel ignition.

[Darth Wong]

AT-ST's are weak verses K.E. attacks.

Weak relative to what? How many two-seat lightly armed scout vehicles could shrug off direct hits from those two logs? For that matter, did you know that the British military was using concrete bombs to kill tanks in Iraq? Just sheer kinetic energy from a one-ton falling rock.

[Isolder74]

AT-ST's are weak verses K.E. attacks.

Weak relative to what? How many two-seat lightly armed scout vehicles could shrug off direct hits from those two logs? For that matter, did you know that the British military was using concrete bombs to kill tanks in Iraq? Just sheer kinetic energy from a one-ton falling rock.

You know I said that when I first got to this thread. The fact of the matter is if even the Armor wasn't peirced then the structure of the unit would be damaged beyond use.

[nightmare]

Even if the explosion was directed inward, (how could it have been? The launcher is externally mounted--explosion should be externally directed) there were TWO of them, both pointing inward. Now I'm not fluent in the properities of hot, expanding gasses, but it seems logical to me that the inward shockwaves would reflect back outward, off each other. If so, then a) makes little difference in the end. B) is more correct. Because the explosion 1) couldn't have been inwardly directed 2) would have resulted in an outward "blowback" anyway and 3) failed to slow the logs, the answer is simple: the logs provided the destructive force. I don't care what the explosion looked like--there are ways to explain a large, low yield explosion. e.g. flour, blow some flour into the air and spark it--you get a very large fireball, same thing with hydrogen--it expands some before you light it and thus the explosion is large, but not very dangerous. Note, I am not suggesting the explosion was due to some guy passed gas before hand, but whatever the yeild, it did not displace the logs *shrug* thems the visuals.

An outward explosion that's like flour powder? Did you and Stewart go to the same school or something? Since you have no clue about gasses, I'll spell it out for you - explosions are violent. Guess why there's warning signs everywhere where volatile gas tubes are kept? There's a massive difference between a contained gas explosion and an open air gas explosion. An open air explosion expands very rapidly to a huge size and then disappears just as quickly. The visuals doesn't support this idea. It's very clearly an internal, contained explosion.

What part of "you can't get around it" missed you? The explosion is visually internal, and the logs and the impact weren't affected by it - this is ample proof that all the power of the explosion went inward, and I've already shown the extent of the energy involved.

[Ender]

You can't get around it. Either you have superdense logs, or the cabin lost strutural integrity in the explosion. The third interpretation is that the 4.5 m fireball had almost no energy, even though it consisted of exploding proton grenades and that the size of the fireball indicates energy in the 3.7 MJ range. As a comparison, 9 MJ rounds typically penetrates reactive tank armor. Now decide which interpretation you want.

That's a rather exact range. Who ran the numbers for that explosion, when, and where?

[nightmare]

You can't get around it. Either you have superdense logs, or the cabin lost strutural integrity in the explosion. The third interpretation is that the 4.5 m fireball had almost no energy, even though it consisted of exploding proton grenades and that the size of the fireball indicates energy in the 3.7 MJ range. As a comparison, 9 MJ rounds typically penetrates reactive tank armor. Now decide which interpretation you want.

That's a rather exact range. Who ran the numbers for that explosion, when, and where?

I did. HDS has a online fireball calculator based on Saxton's formula. It was a quick way to get an answer, but I haven't scaled the fireball pixelwise. I just wanted a round number so I just eyeballed it compared to other objects. Hence, "in the range", even though the resulting number comes with decimals.

I also calced the log impact to a minimum of 2 mJ, though this is definitely too low. I would guesstimate in the 10 mJ range by assuming a 50% higher terminal velocity than the median velocity, and density comparable to fresh wood rather than dry pinewood, but of course the momentum is relatively low so it's no anti-tank weapon. It's not very important, so I haven't bothered to find out exact terminal velocity. What's more interesting is that the armor was not penetrated in either log trap.

[Ender]

Did you account for the difference in gravity and atmospheric density indicated by the small size of the ewok hang glider?

[nightmare]

In short, no. I'm aware of the probable lower gravity, but it doesn't automatically effect log density, and I have no way to determine the atmospheric composition. The lower atmospheric density would give a larger fireball for less power involved, but it also lowers the amount of oxygen which means a smaller one. I'm out on a line if I start speculating in it.

[Sarevok]

Lower gravity would cause trees to grow taller which means they would be denser as well.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Lower gravity would cause trees to grow taller which means they would be denser as well.

actually, they could be less dense. There's really no way of knowing.

[Darth Wong]

That means that the logs collapsed a cabin that had already structurally failed, unless you want to suggest that the explosion that engulfed the whole cabin, with a fireball that had a diameter of ~4.5 m had no effect on it? Alternatively, the logs are made of durasteel

The logs don't have to be as hard as the AT-ST's hull plating to buckle them. If you want, you can perform a simple experiment: take a piece of aluminum sheet metal and suspend it across two stands so that its middle is unsupported. Then, jump on it.

Voila, the aluminum sheet buckles. But does that mean the skin on your feet is harder than aluminum? Of course not. It's a simple matter of geometry and stress analysis.

The AT-ST's sidewalls are tall and thin. They were obviously not designed to take large physical impacts. This is, after all, a damned scout vehicle we're talking about, armed with strictly low-grade anti-personnel weapons.

[nightmare]

The logs don't have to be as hard as the AT-ST's hull plating to buckle them. If you want, you can perform a simple experiment: take a piece of aluminum sheet metal and suspend it across two stands so that its middle is unsupported. Then, jump on it.

Voila, the aluminum sheet buckles. But does that mean the skin on your feet is harder than aluminum? Of course not. It's a simple matter of geometry and stress analysis.

The AT-ST's sidewalls are tall and thin. They were obviously not designed to take large physical impacts. This is, after all, a damned scout vehicle we're talking about, armed with strictly low-grade anti-personnel weapons.

Quite true, and I don't suggest that the logs are made of durasteel. The density is an unknown, but I expect something within reason for wood. This comment was mainly regarding the fireball which didn't affect the impact nor the logs noticeably.

[General Zod]

Quite true, and I don't suggest that the logs are made of durasteel. The density is an unknown, but I expect something within reason for wood. This comment was mainly regarding the fireball which didn't affect the impact nor the logs noticeably.

there's some types of wood that are rather resistant to the effects of fire to the point where the most it will do is blacken it. solid oak, for example, can take quite a punishment and withstand high temperatures if it's only a brief exposure. in order to catch fire it needs to be exposed to constant high level sources of flame. a single blast of fire won't do that.

[Darth Wong]

The characteristics of dried wood and the characteristics of living, damp, or recently cut wood are vastly different. Living wood has much less flammability and much greater density than dried wood.