WTF is it with the At-AT?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-25 06:48pm

TIEs or Gunboats were not brought in for support. The barges had to disengorge the AT-ATs beyond the shield perimeter.

The X-Wings only left w/ the Transports, all of which only flew while the shields were down. The only things flying w/in the shield perimeter were the T-47s.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-01-25 07:03pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:TIEs or Gunboats were not brought in for support. The barges had to disengorge the AT-ATs beyond the shield perimeter.

The X-Wings only left w/ the Transports, all of which only flew while the shields were down. The only things flying w/in the shield perimeter were the T-47s.

So? We know from the YJK series that Tie Fighters can operate beneath a shield. Again I ask for specific proof that they could not operate ties beneath the shield, not that they just didn't want to.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-25 07:34pm

Canon > Official

Are you sure it wasn't a different kind of shield?

X-Wings, TIEs, Transports, and Walker barges all operated only under undershielded conditions in the movie.

If you can demonstrate an alternative theory, I'd be happy to hear it.

By the way, your argument seems to imply that the AT-ATs should've been changed because of what Felth said. You're arguing for Imperial incompetence. Not if the walker is a bad design (which it has been demonstrated not to be).

Concession Accepted.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-01-25 08:11pm

Read Mr Wong's site on this. Theater shields apparently do not allow repulsorlifts to pass. Watch TPM again. Why else would the Trade Fed have the tanks sit there and bombard the Gungan shields and, when that failed, rather than move the REPULSOR tanks in, they march in WALKING droids? Maybe because the repulsors couldn't pass?

And don't cite some YJK novel as a counter to this. As has been pointed out, Canon is greater than official.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-01-25 08:26pm

Straha wrote:

A. Knee Joint takes a shot from an Inferior (and if I am remembering right) anti-personal weapon, and doesn't even flinch.

Wrong. It is an anit vehicle weapon. However, I don't know any canon evidence to support that one is style of emplacements is anti vehicle, the other anti personal, vice versa or both cover just one kind of target. However, the larger gun emplacements do strike constantly on the heads of the AT-AT walkers. The smaller dish like weapons let out a heavier bolt and have a direct hit on the knee joint. Inferior, schmerier. In fact, the novelisation doesn't mention anything about the guns being out dated or lacking in defensive powe.

B. So you say that hull integrity is fucked up by all the fire?

You've mastered the second letter of the alphabet, however you have failed to obtain comprehension. Did I say FIRE?

My Passage:

They all take blaster fire. It isn't until one has fallen and the hull integrity is fucked up.

Has FALLEN. Let's try to actually READ one's statment before butchering it please. I said they took fire. Peon.

But wait!

For what? Your slow thought process to catch up? I don't have all damn day.

That means it would have been destroyed even before it was taken down.

No. It means you lack any form of reading comprehension what-so-ever. Heaven forbid my horriable grammer and spelling manage to rear thier ugly heads in this reply.

So the fact that it was brought down doesn't matter does it?

Now your trying to turn my words on myself and act like your right. Alright fucktard. I'm rolling up the sleeves. Watch it again. When the walker falls, panels actually bounce up. Not only that, but if you'll look with your eyes and not your ass, you'll see that the speeder's shots hit the NECK of the walker. Which is supposed to be one of the few weak points.

C. The Walker tilted sideways, once. The rest all got owned by the speeders.

I believe TWO got owned. Much like I'm owning your ass in this one. Besides, they didn't have much trouble waxing many other speeders that were zipping by, or do you think the Ford company made Luke's speeder and he went down due to faulty wiring?

Finally I wish to make my stance clear.

Hopefully clearer than your thoughts.

I AM A WARSIE!

If there is a God, may he help us all!

Thing is I think the At-At was horribly designed

,

Yet again, much like your post.

you can't disagree that there is not much room for improvment can you?

[/quote]

I can and will. The AT-AT is damn near flawless. It fucks people up the ass. Royally. Understand that fucktard, or the flames will only become more virulent.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-25 08:28pm

Straha wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:TIEs or Gunboats were not brought in for support. The barges had to disengorge the AT-ATs beyond the shield perimeter.

The X-Wings only left w/ the Transports, all of which only flew while the shields were down. The only things flying w/in the shield perimeter were the T-47s.
So? We know from the YJK series that Tie Fighters can operate beneath a shield. Again I ask for specific proof that they could not operate ties beneath the shield, not that they just didn't want to.

Why must we repeat this a dozen time? They can't pass through the shield in the first place. Once inside its not an issue, but you must have ground contact to pass through a shield, otherwise it fries the craft. This is spelled out in ATOC ICS.

You've already been told this many times. Now shut the fuck up and concede.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-25 08:33pm

Straha, what the fuck is so hard to understand about the fact that they couldn't land their troops until the shield was down? If they could send in TIE's before the shield was down, they could have sent in landing craft. They didn't, because they CAN'T send in TIE's until the shield is down. Why the fuck are you refusing to admit this?

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-01-25 08:42pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Canon > Official

Are you sure it wasn't a different kind of shield?

X-Wings, TIEs, Transports, and Walker barges all operated only under undershielded conditions in the movie.

If you can demonstrate an alternative theory, I'd be happy to hear it.

By the way, your argument seems to imply that the AT-ATs should've been changed because of what Felth said. You're arguing for Imperial incompetence. Not if the walker is a bad design (which it has been demonstrated not to be).

Concession Accepted.

Look, you pick and chose your refutations against me. You still have not stated anything about the balance point brought up. Secondly the walker is a bad design if two people with a rope and a anchor for the rope could trip the damn thing.

Secondly for the alternative theory A. I don't need to prove it, you suggested it, you prove it. B. Try this, they want to keep the Ties with the ship to stop the Transports they know are going to be evacing the base.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-01-25 08:49pm

They don't use TIEs because the TIEs can't get in because the repulsorlifts will keep them from going into the shields. The same principle that had the droid army walk into the Gungan shields is the same one that would dictate the use of Walkers when trying to bring down a similar shield.

Read my earlier post. Read Mr Wong's Ground Combat page on Imperial Armor. And, as someone said before, the AotC ICS (don't know if it has it, but someone said it did). Or, watch TPM again.

As for why they didn't do anything about the cables or what have you, well, it is a risk. But nothing's perfect. I'll leave it to others to defend it, though I'd say that since the blasters are line of sight weapons, a greater height would translate into greater range for them.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-01-25 08:50pm

I can and will. The AT-AT is damn near flawless. It fucks people up the ass. Royally. Understand that fucktard, or the flames will only become more virulent.

Flaw less. Lets go through a list of design flaws.

A. No one in the brilliant imperial design core thought, HMM... maybe someone will try to trip or big gangly walker, we should try to stop that.

B. The thing has the center of balance of a cow, you could knock it over from the side if you gave it a small push.

C. The thing has no clear cut role, and instead takes a chameleon series of conflicting roles. Unlike an APC it is a big target and is supposed to be hit, unlike Artillery it is designed to fight in relativley face to face combat considering the Ranges of the various weapons of the galaxy. Unlike a tank it has a horrible movement range.

D. THE DAMN THING CAN'T TURN! We have never seen it turn on screen, and it does not have the movable joints in the body section that would allow it to turn.

E. Finally they put the Cockpit in the front of the vehicle, the part that was taking the most hits, and the part that is the most vulnerable. If you want to protect the most vital part of the machine you put it in the center of the craft.

You claim that as perfect?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-25 08:51pm

Straha wrote:Secondly for the alternative theory A. I don't need to prove it, you suggested it, you prove it. B. Try this, they want to keep the Ties with the ship to stop the Transports they know are going to be evacing the base.

You're so full of shit.

Each ImpStar II has a wing of fighters, and the Executor likely has several wings.

They could've sent some down if that was true. Or, as Lord Wong put it: see above.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-25 08:52pm

Straha wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Canon > Official

Are you sure it wasn't a different kind of shield?

X-Wings, TIEs, Transports, and Walker barges all operated only under undershielded conditions in the movie.

If you can demonstrate an alternative theory, I'd be happy to hear it.

By the way, your argument seems to imply that the AT-ATs should've been changed because of what Felth said. You're arguing for Imperial incompetence. Not if the walker is a bad design (which it has been demonstrated not to be).

Concession Accepted.
Look, you pick and chose your refutations against me. You still have not stated anything about the balance point brought up. Secondly the walker is a bad design if two people with a rope and a anchor for the rope could trip the damn thing.

Secondly for the alternative theory A. I don't need to prove it, you suggested it, you prove it. B. Try this, they want to keep the Ties with the ship to stop the Transports they know are going to be evacing the base.

One man with improvised weapons can disable and destroy an M1A2, if he can get within a few feet of it while its near stationary, as would be required for ground personal to tie up and trip and AT-AT. Does that make the M1A2 and indeed every other tank in existence a bad design?

By your fucked up wall of ignorance logic it does.

I'm starting a VI poll if you keep this shit up.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-01-25 08:53pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Straha wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:TIEs or Gunboats were not brought in for support. The barges had to disengorge the AT-ATs beyond the shield perimeter.

The X-Wings only left w/ the Transports, all of which only flew while the shields were down. The only things flying w/in the shield perimeter were the T-47s.
So? We know from the YJK series that Tie Fighters can operate beneath a shield. Again I ask for specific proof that they could not operate ties beneath the shield, not that they just didn't want to.
Why must we repeat this a dozen time? They can't pass through the shield in the first place. Once inside its not an issue, but you must have ground contact to pass through a shield, otherwise it fries the craft.

Why do they need to have ground contact? Your saying that a bird would be fried even if it was only flying half a foot above ground? That obviously doesn't make sense.

And to use one of the things you said, bring me the quotes. I am not going out to buy the book for this alone, quote it, the burden of proof is on you.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-25 08:56pm

Straha wrote:A. No one in the brilliant imperial design core thought, HMM... maybe someone will try to trip or big gangly walker, we should try to stop that.

More point-defense weaponry a la the AT-TE would easily fix this.

Straha wrote:B. The thing has the center of balance of a cow, you could knock it over from the side if you gave it a small push.

The thing masses so much according to Darth Wong's page (IIRC), it would take projectiles the size of MBTs to knock it over. Sorry bitch.

Straha wrote:C. The thing has no clear cut role, and instead takes a chameleon series of conflicting roles. Unlike an APC it is a big target and is supposed to be hit, unlike Artillery it is designed to fight in relativley face to face combat considering the Ranges of the various weapons of the galaxy. Unlike a tank it has a horrible movement range.

A repulsorlift tank would be disabled by shields and certain interference devices. A treaded APC would be too small and not heavily armored enough and couldn't transport as much.

Straha wrote:D. THE DAMN THING CAN'T TURN! We have never seen it turn on screen, and it does not have the movable joints in the body section that would allow it to turn.

Bullshit. It can turn. Don't make bullshit claims.

Straha wrote:E. Finally they put the Cockpit in the front of the vehicle, the part that was taking the most hits, and the part that is the most vulnerable. If you want to protect the most vital part of the machine you put it in the center of the craft.

Post Proof or Retract. Show where the AT-ATs' shields and armor are insufficient to protect it against energy weapons encountered.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-01-25 08:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:Straha, what the fuck is so hard to understand about the fact that they couldn't land their troops until the shield was down? If they could send in TIE's before the shield was down, they could have sent in landing craft. They didn't, because they CAN'T send in TIE's until the shield is down. Why the fuck are you refusing to admit this?

I understand they couldn't land troops inside the shield perimiter. But If they can walk AT-ATs underneath the shield barrier they can repulsor/hover ties underneath. Simple logic, I don't see why your making the leap in logic to say "if ties weren't there they couldn't possibly bring ties down there"

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-01-25 08:59pm

Straha wrote:Why do they need to have ground contact? Your saying that a bird would be fried even if it was only flying half a foot above ground? That obviously doesn't make sense.

And to use one of the things you said, bring me the quotes. I am not going out to buy the book for this alone, quote it, the burden of proof is on you.

"At-TEs are effective at penetrating powerful energy shields. Walker movment uses simple surface traction, whereas high-velocity exhausts that drive aspeeder or starship are stifled by particle shields. Furthermore, flying craft can be damaged by energy charges leaping from the ground at shield interfaces, but a walker's natural grounding provides invulnerability against thsi effect."

Eat it chump, and I suggest you concede soon, or prepare to be the newest VI.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-25 08:59pm

Straha wrote:A. No one in the brilliant imperial design core thought, HMM... maybe someone will try to trip or big gangly walker, we should try to stop that.

Normally, if you are underneath an armoured vehicle, there are lots of ways to take it out. This thing was designed to kill things at long range, and use light vehicles to keep its flanks clear. Why do you find this so difficult to understand?

B. The thing has the center of balance of a cow, you could knock it over from the side if you gave it a small push.

Define "small push", considering that its mass is going to be in the thousands of tons. BTW, its body is largely hollowed out to hold troopers and its legs are probably solid, hence its centre of gravity is probably lower than you think it is.

C. The thing has no clear cut role, and instead takes a chameleon series of conflicting roles. Unlike an APC it is a big target and is supposed to be hit, unlike Artillery it is designed to fight in relativley face to face combat considering the Ranges of the various weapons of the galaxy. Unlike a tank it has a horrible movement range.

OK, so it doesn't fit neatly into a modern category. That doesn't mean it has no usefulness.

D. THE DAMN THING CAN'T TURN! We have never seen it turn on screen, and it does not have the movable joints in the body section that would allow it to turn.

Its hip joints are not much different from the AT-ST's, and we know the AT-ST can turn. The fact that it never turned in the straight-line assault of Hoth hardly proves that it can't turn at all.

E. Finally they put the Cockpit in the front of the vehicle, the part that was taking the most hits, and the part that is the most vulnerable. If you want to protect the most vital part of the machine you put it in the center of the craft.

Good thing it's shielded, then.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-01-25 09:04pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Straha wrote:A. No one in the brilliant imperial design core thought, HMM... maybe someone will try to trip or big gangly walker, we should try to stop that.
More point-defense weaponry a la the AT-TE would easily fix this.

Fair enough, but could you post a link to the picture of the AT-TE? I have yet to see this vehicle.

Straha wrote:B. The thing has the center of balance of a cow, you could knock it over from the side if you gave it a small push.
The thing masses so much according to Darth Wong's page (IIRC), it would take projectiles the size of MBTs to knock it over. Sorry bitch.

A cow is massive, a cow can be pushed over by a pinky finger. you making the mistake that the weight would help it stay put, the thing is on such gangly legs placed so close togetger it never could support it self once it got pushed over.

Straha wrote:C. The thing has no clear cut role, and instead takes a chameleon series of conflicting roles. Unlike an APC it is a big target and is supposed to be hit, unlike Artillery it is designed to fight in relativley face to face combat considering the Ranges of the various weapons of the galaxy. Unlike a tank it has a horrible movement range.
A repulsorlift tank would be disabled by shields and certain interference devices. A treaded APC would be too small and not heavily armored enough and couldn't transport as much.

I have yet to see proof of this. By Stardust show me proof or STFU! Id did the same for you, now do the same for me.

Straha wrote:D. THE DAMN THING CAN'T TURN! We have never seen it turn on screen, and it does not have the movable joints in the body section that would allow it to turn.
Bullshit. It can turn. Don't make bullshit claims.

Have you ever seen it turn? Have you even seen the ability for it to turn? The back section is all armor, meaning it can't rotate the front section relative to the backsection, meaning the thing can't turn.

Straha wrote:E. Finally they put the Cockpit in the front of the vehicle, the part that was taking the most hits, and the part that is the most vulnerable. If you want to protect the most vital part of the machine you put it in the center of the craft.
Post Proof or Retract. Show where the AT-ATs' shields and armor are insufficient to protect it against energy weapons encountered.

It's not that it is insufficient, it's just that it's plain stupid. You put the most valuble section of the craft in the most vulnerable section of the craft. The navy moved ts bridges from the top to the interior of the craft when computers came around because it was plain stupid to make it so 1 shell could wreck our bridge. Why can't the Imperial army do the same thing?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-25 09:05pm

Straha wrote:
Flaw less. Lets go through a list of design flaws.

A. No one in the brilliant imperial design core thought, HMM... maybe someone will try to trip or big gangly walker, we should try to stop that.

Every large armored vehicle ever created is venerable to close in attacks. The AT-AT needs support. THIS IS NOT SOME FUCKING HUGE DESIGN FLAW. This is the reality of military equipment.

B. The thing has the center of balance of a cow, you could knock it over from the side if you gave it a small push.

And your going to push it how? Whats your plan, come up along side it with another giant walker and shove with giant robotic hands?

C. The thing has no clear cut role, and instead takes a chameleon series of conflicting roles. Unlike an APC it is a big target and is supposed to be hit, unlike Artillery it is designed to fight in relativley face to face combat considering the Ranges of the various weapons of the galaxy. Unlike a tank it has a horrible movement range.

Heavy Infantry Fighting Vechical. I direct you to this, a modfied tank which can carry infantry for assaults against heavy defences that would slaughter normal APC's and IFV's.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/btmp.html

D. THE DAMN THING CAN'T TURN! We have never seen it turn on screen, and it does not have the movable joints in the body section that would allow it to turn.

Lift one of the rear legs, and walk forward with the two on the other side. This will turn the walker, using the fourth leg as a piviot point.

E. Finally they put the Cockpit in the front of the vehicle, the part that was taking the most hits, and the part that is the most vulnerable. If you want to protect the most vital part of the machine you put it in the center of the craft.

You claim that as perfect?

Fucking hell, god forbid they should place the crew in a position to see anything! This is the Ratal, a South African APC. Notice the large forward windows to give the driver a good view of where the fuck he is driving. Very useful for the rough broken terrain of Southern Africa. Might the Empire have had rough terrain in mind when it designed its ALL TERRIAN armored transport?

I guess the South African's know less about building armored vehicles then you do though?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-25 09:07pm

Straha wrote:Why do they need to have ground contact? Your saying that a bird would be fried even if it was only flying half a foot above ground? That obviously doesn't make sense.

And to use one of the things you said, bring me the quotes. I am not going out to buy the book for this alone, quote it, the burden of proof is on you.

Episode II Incredible Cross Sections wrote:AT-TEs are effective at pentrating powerful energy shields. Walker movement uses simple surface traction, whereas the high-velocity exhausts that drive a speeder or starship are stifled by particle shields. Furthermore, flying craft can be damaged by energy discharges leaping from the ground at shield interfaces, but a walker's natural grounding provides invulnerability against this affect.

Episode II Incredible Cross Sections wrote:In years to come, the success of the AT-TE will lead to heavier designs, such as the towering AT-AT and the AT-HE (All-Terrain Heavy Enforcer) walkers. These craft will incorperate hulls raised above the reach of exploding mines, and greater vantage for their energy weapons.

Ideally, a cross between the AT-TE and the AT-AT would be best, but the AT-AT does a VERY GOOD JOB at the SPECIAL ROLE it is assigned to.

Straha wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:A repulsorlift tank would be disabled by shields and certain interference devices. A treaded APC would be too small and not heavily armored enough and couldn't transport as much.
I have yet to see proof of this. By Stardust show me proof or STFU! Id did the same for you, now do the same for me.

Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels wrote:Walkers were designed to fill the need for a nonrepulsorlift heavy vehicle for armoed platoons. While the Empire had countless repulsorlift vehicles, drive systems could be foiled by gravity fluctuations, unusual planetary magnetic fields, and other special conditions; the Empire needed a vehicle which could be used on any terrain on millions of different worlds.

Now shut the fuck up.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-01-25 09:15pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Straha wrote:
Flaw less. Lets go through a list of design flaws.

A. No one in the brilliant imperial design core thought, HMM... maybe someone will try to trip or big gangly walker, we should try to stop that.
Every large armored vehicle ever created is venerable to close in attacks. The AT-AT needs support. THIS IS NOT SOME FUCKING HUGE DESIGN FLAW. This is the reality of military equipment.

Alright, but could you have put saws on the legs? Made the legs angled so that they have a blade to cut the rope if that ever comes into being.

B. The thing has the center of balance of a cow, you could knock it over from the side if you gave it a small push.
And your going to push it how? Whats your plan, come up along side it with another giant walker and shove with giant robotic hands?

Try crashing a vehicle into the side, that gives enough of a push, and BOOM it's on its side and crippled.

C. The thing has no clear cut role, and instead takes a chameleon series of conflicting roles. Unlike an APC it is a big target and is supposed to be hit, unlike Artillery it is designed to fight in relativley face to face combat considering the Ranges of the various weapons of the galaxy. Unlike a tank it has a horrible movement range.
Heavy Infantry Fighting Vechical. I direct you to this, a tank which can carry infantry for heavy assaults.
http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/btmp.html

I know of that, the thing is you can't combine artillery, designed to stay behind the line to kill at long range, with a tank, designed to get to the front line and fight in LOS combat.

D. THE DAMN THING CAN'T TURN! We have never seen it turn on screen, and it does not have the movable joints in the body section that would allow it to turn.
Lift one of the rear legs, and walk forward with the two on the other side. This will turn the walker, using the fourth leg as a piviot point.

Let's do this yourself, I did, get on the ground and do that. If you can't move the right/left front hand that is supposed to stay put the entire thing topples to the side.

E. Finally they put the Cockpit in the front of the vehicle, the part that was taking the most hits, and the part that is the most vulnerable. If you want to protect the most vital part of the machine you put it in the center of the craft.

You claim that as perfect?
Fucking hell, god forbid they should place the crew in a position to see anything! This is the Ratal, a South African APC. Notice the large forward windows to give the driver a good view of where the fuck he is driving. Very useful for the rough broken terrain of Southern Africa. Might the Empire have had rough terrain in mind when it designed it ALL TERRIAN armored transport?

I guess the South African's know less about building armored vehicles then you do though?

No, the south african APC is small, but the AT-AT is a behemoth. You've got something with so much room, and the ability to video link cameras in the front of the craft to the cockpit. Look at the U.S. modern ships of war. Every ship I have seen that is relativley new had the bridge moved to the center of the craft, and inside a well armoured container. That's smart, and is what the empire should of done.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-25 09:22pm

Straha wrote:Alright, but could you have put saws on the legs? Made the legs angled so that they have a blade to cut the rope if that ever comes into being.

The harpoon cables are probably exotic metals. The only appropriate defense are point-defense turrets to shoot down near-flying craft and kill nearby infantry.

Straha wrote:Try crashing a vehicle into the side, that gives enough of a push, and BOOM it's on its side and crippled.

A snowspeeder rammed an AT-AT in the novel and it did not fall over.

Straha wrote:I know of that, the thing is you can't combine artillery, designed to stay behind the line to kill at long range, with a tank, designed to get to the front line and fight in LOS combat.

17 km is hardly artillery for a military who's infantry rifles have a range of 10 km when mounted on a light tripod.

It is not designed to be a tank in any way, shape, or form. The fact it's guns can take apart most vehicles doesn't give it a tank role.

It isn't designed to fight on the front-lines. Blasters mean the ONLY fighting it can do is LOS.

Straha wrote:Let's do this yourself, I did, get on the ground and do that. If you can't move the right/left front hand that is supposed to stay put the entire thing topples to the side.

This is absurd. There's no way it is designed w/out an ability to turn.

Straha wrote:No, the south african APC is small, but the AT-AT is a behemoth. You've got something with so much room, and the ability to video link cameras in the front of the craft to the cockpit. Look at the U.S. modern ships of war. Every ship I have seen that is relativley new had the bridge moved to the center of the craft, and inside a well armoured container. That's smart, and is what the empire should of done.

POST PROOF OR RETRACT. When does the AT-AT encounter fire that makes its head especially vulnerable then the rest of its body?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-01-25 09:23pm

Straha wrote: I understand they couldn't land troops inside the shield perimiter. But If they can walk AT-ATs underneath the shield barrier they can repulsor/hover ties underneath. Simple logic, I don't see why your making the leap in logic to say "if ties weren't there they couldn't possibly bring ties down there"

Here's why:

Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections wrote: pg28
Walker movement uses simple surface traction whereas the high-velocity exhausts that drive a speeder or a starship are stifled by particle shields. Furthermore, flying craft can be damaged by energy discharges leaping from the ground at shield interfaces...

Its not inside the shield but rather the shield boundry that prevents TIEs from being deployed. They can't cross the shield boundry (thus the reason why the shield is lowered to allow the Medium Transport and X-Wings to escape).

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-25 09:27pm

Straha wrote:
And your going to push it how? Whats your plan, come up along side it with another giant walker and shove with giant robotic hands?

Try crashing a vehicle into the side, that gives enough of a push, and BOOM it's on its side and crippled.[/quote]

Aircraft of sufficent size would very likely be shoot down, and the size requirments would make them expensive. Crashing an F-16 into a T-80 will leave the T-80 very dead, but that doesnt mean its a viabul tactic.

I know of that, the thing is you can't combine artillery, designed to stay behind the line to kill at long range, with a tank, designed to get to the front line and fight in LOS combat.

Know what an assault gun is? Keep in mind Imperial artillery is LOS anyway, blaster weapons down seem to follow ballistic arcs and projectiles would be easy enough to deal with using whatever Starwar's equvilent of a THEL firing unit is.

Let's do this yourself, I did, get on the ground and do that. If you can't move the right/left front hand that is supposed to stay put the entire thing topples to the side.

Acutally, I managed to do it just now. Of course humans have nothing like the proportions of a walker.

No, the south african APC is small, but the AT-AT is a behemoth. You've got something with so much room, and the ability to video link cameras in the front of the craft to the cockpit. Look at the U.S. modern ships of war. Every ship I have seen that is relativley new had the bridge moved to the center of the craft, and inside a well armoured container. That's smart, and is what the empire should of done.

The AT-AT also has shields, which make size its friend. Surface area rises slower then volume, so the bigger you build theb etter the shielding.

Modern warships are designed for BVR combat, the AT-AT clearly is not, and we've always seen walkers engaging targets within vinsual range.

Notice WW2 vesssels design to fight with guns, which required LOS for fire control, had control positions mounted externally, as high up as possibul with minimal protection.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-01-25 09:28pm

Straha wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote: Bullshit. It can turn. Don't make bullshit claims.
Have you ever seen it turn? Have you even seen the ability for it to turn? The back section is all armor, meaning it can't rotate the front section relative to the backsection, meaning the thing can't turn.

So you're saying an elephant can't turn? Both are built the same way (tough exteriors with four legs and a head forward with twin protrusions). Furthermore we saw the forward half of a walker twist to shoot at a speeder on an off-axis shot so we know the forward half can twist the body if properly manipulated...in other words it can turn.