WTF is it with the At-AT?

[Darth Wong]

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.

SAWS ON ITS LEGS? Oh my god, that's the funniest thing I've seen since one of Darkstar's arguments. You still don't seem to get the fact that a single vehicle cannot be ideally defended against any and all possible avenues of attack. Does the term "combined-arms" have any meaning at all to you?

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.

Ram it with what, pray tell? This thing weighs thousands of tons!

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.

Oh, for fuck's sake. I can't believe you're seriously arguing that the Empire would field a military vehicle which is incapable of turning. Suck this down:

This is Veers' walker.

That's the same walker a couple of seconds later; notice how it's clearly turned to the left in the second shot?

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 head took hits from snowspeeder fire without a problem; it's not as much of a weakness as you think.

And frankly, while the AT-AT is not perfect, you have failed utterly in your attempt to claim the opposite: that it's shit. You're just too stubborn to admit it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wong's right. You've just moved from item to item and backtracked from your original position because you were wrong and you refuse to admit it. You're asking for a VI.

Concede now bitch.

[Clone Sergeant]

This is the AT-TE.

go here to read about it.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicl ... index.html

[Sea Skimmer]

DO NOT POST OVER SIZED IMAGES TO DISCUSSION THREADS!!

Anything that will force formatting should be posted as a link only. Read the announcements page!

[Clone Sergeant]

I'm sorry:oops:

Could a mod remove the pic, please?

[Sea Skimmer]

Editing is enabled in this forum.

[Vympel]

Yes, I do. But that's exactly what brings it down. Lets use an analogy, a cow weighs around 1400 pounds, more or less 5-7 times what an average human weighs. However it is quite easy to "tip" a cow. All you do is walk up to the cow, nudge it from the side, and poof it's on its side. Similar principal with the AT-AT.

Are you on crack? Great, now all we need is a massive mecha to walk up to the side of the AT-AT and push it over

Fair enough, my problem with the shield explanation is that if the T-47s were able to work under the shield the X-wings should of worked as well.

You have been consistently smacked around on this point. The T-47s and X-Wings are different. T-47s are speeders. X-Wings are spacecraft.

look, IF you know the thing has ray shielding, and you know that most blasters are going to be innefective against the shield, much less the armor, why should you bother using blaster weapons? It would be a lot more effective to use particle shells(i.e. artillery), or just slugs to work against that armor.

You just completely dodged the question. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT SLUGS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE? YOU DON'T.

No, but then again I am not the same height as trees. Look, unless you just want to knock over all the trees, and face the possibility of causing damage to your walker, your just not going to go through a heavily wooded area. Secondly the terrain of the battle on Endor's moon was hilly. How can one balance a 100ft tall walker over much hilly terrain, where evewn AT-STs were having trouble?

I see, now you're contending a 23m tall walker that weighs thousands of tons is going to be damaged by trees. AT-STs were NOT having trouble, stop lying goddamit. Please show where an AT-ST had trouble with the NATURAL terrain.

No, but it would be if they lost the tank trying to pacify a bunch of palestinian kids, who disabled the tank by jamming the drive train. Because that's basically what happened to the Empire in Hoth.

Palestinian kids= Rebel troops huh?

No, but they aren't fighting the Palestinians they're fighting the entire middle east. But my point is this pretty much. You're putting over kill armor on a weapon that should never face kill level enrergy with proper support. The Armor makes it slower, and more likley to fall over if you get any momentum going to either side on it, thus why should you over lay it with armor that it frankly doesn't need? Though I will admit I am probably being a bit to over critical on this point.

Yes, you are. You don't design such a vehicle to be easily killed, unless you're stupid.

[The Dark]

Just as a side note, but I have it from very...reliable sources that cow tipping does not work. Thank you. This has been a public service announcement from the guy who grew up next to cattle farms.

BTW, I agree that the AT-AT works well, but I also feel that a conventional vehicle would work better in all ways except intimidation, for reasons which have been posted in many mecha vs. tanks threads before. I'm curious as to why we haven't seen any Imperial tanks designs in canon material (I know the TIE tank exists, but that's really a crappy design anyway).

[CmdrWilkens]

Just as a side note, but I have it from very...reliable sources that cow tipping does not work. Thank you. This has been a public service announcement from the guy who grew up next to cattle farms.

BTW, I agree that the AT-AT works well, but I also feel that a conventional vehicle would work better in all ways except intimidation, for reasons which have been posted in many mecha vs. tanks threads before. I'm curious as to why we haven't seen any Imperial tanks designs in canon material (I know the TIE tank exists, but that's really a crappy design anyway).

My guess would be the same reason why they switched to the AT-AT instead of upgrading the AT-TE: mines. While the walker eliminates the vulnerability to shield interfaces it makes it hguely vulnerable to fixed defenses and anti-vehicle mines. In fact the height of the AT-AT is at least partially explained, in the official literature, as being designed to avoid blast damage affecting the vehicle. To me this suggests that a low riding tank vehicle is very vulnerable to having its engine blown out from underneath it and thus the Emprie decided to go for the simplest defense...keep the engine way off the ground.

[Sea Skimmer]

Just as a side note, but I have it from very...reliable sources that cow tipping does not work. Thank you. This has been a public service announcement from the guy who grew up next to cattle farms.

BTW, I agree that the AT-AT works well, but I also feel that a conventional vehicle would work better in all ways except intimidation, for reasons which have been posted in many mecha vs. tanks threads before. I'm curious as to why we haven't seen any Imperial tanks designs in canon material (I know the TIE tank exists, but that's really a crappy design anyway).

A shit load exist in EU sources. Take a look at the links in the "Imperials have Hovertanks" thread right below this one.

[Vympel]

Also go to swclonewars.com to see an Old Republic hovertank that fights alongside AT-TEs

[The Dark]

Just as a side note, but I have it from very...reliable sources that cow tipping does not work. Thank you. This has been a public service announcement from the guy who grew up next to cattle farms.

BTW, I agree that the AT-AT works well, but I also feel that a conventional vehicle would work better in all ways except intimidation, for reasons which have been posted in many mecha vs. tanks threads before. I'm curious as to why we haven't seen any Imperial tanks designs in canon material (I know the TIE tank exists, but that's really a crappy design anyway).

My guess would be the same reason why they switched to the AT-AT instead of upgrading the AT-TE: mines. While the walker eliminates the vulnerability to shield interfaces it makes it hguely vulnerable to fixed defenses and anti-vehicle mines. In fact the height of the AT-AT is at least partially explained, in the official literature, as being designed to avoid blast damage affecting the vehicle. To me this suggests that a low riding tank vehicle is very vulnerable to having its engine blown out from underneath it and thus the Emprie decided to go for the simplest defense...keep the engine way off the ground.

I suppose...I would think the extra weight of the transmission and legs for a walker could be used to armor the bottom, though. Something like anti-torpedo bulges on WWII battleships would seem reasonable. Place chambers on the bottom with vacuum/gases/fluids to absorb explosive force. It's just not the solution I would have sought to stop mines from being effective. As the tech site points out, the AT-AT is limited to certain terrain types. If the Empire ever invaded, I wouldn't have to worry about AT-ATs. They'd sink in the wetlands first. Ground pressure is their main weakness, IMHO. They're just lucky Hoth apparently had very little true snow on the ground. It appears to be no more than a few inches, seeing how little their feet sink. It's either ice or rock.

[Sea Skimmer]

Just as a side note, but I have it from very...reliable sources that cow tipping does not work. Thank you. This has been a public service announcement from the guy who grew up next to cattle farms.

BTW, I agree that the AT-AT works well, but I also feel that a conventional vehicle would work better in all ways except intimidation, for reasons which have been posted in many mecha vs. tanks threads before. I'm curious as to why we haven't seen any Imperial tanks designs in canon material (I know the TIE tank exists, but that's really a crappy design anyway).

My guess would be the same reason why they switched to the AT-AT instead of upgrading the AT-TE: mines. While the walker eliminates the vulnerability to shield interfaces it makes it hguely vulnerable to fixed defenses and anti-vehicle mines. In fact the height of the AT-AT is at least partially explained, in the official literature, as being designed to avoid blast damage affecting the vehicle. To me this suggests that a low riding tank vehicle is very vulnerable to having its engine blown out from underneath it and thus the Emprie decided to go for the simplest defense...keep the engine way off the ground.

I suppose...I would think the extra weight of the transmission and legs for a walker could be used to armor the bottom, though. Something like anti-torpedo bulges on WWII battleships would seem reasonable. Place chambers on the bottom with vacuum/gases/fluids to absorb explosive force. It's just not the solution I would have sought to stop mines from being effective. As the tech site points out, the AT-AT is limited to certain terrain types. If the Empire ever invaded, I wouldn't have to worry about AT-ATs. They'd sink in the wetlands first. Ground pressure is their main weakness, IMHO. They're just lucky Hoth apparently had very little true snow on the ground. It appears to be no more than a few inches, seeing how little their feet sink. It's either ice or rock.

Buldges are basically worthless aginst explosions under a ship, they protect against side hits.

However a far better anti mine soultion is just to use a mine plow to bulldoze a path through them. Though off route WAM style miles make that impossibul. But height wont save you from them either.

The only most likely reason for the walkers size is to support a shield generator big enough to protect against light and heavy anti vechical weapons, and to provide longer range fire for the LOS weapondry.

[The Dark]

Buldges are basically worthless aginst explosions under a ship, they protect against side hits.

Rereading my post, I worded that poorly. I meant put something similar to torpedo bulges on the bottom of the tank (yes, it would raise height, though I think it would still be far smaller than an AT-AT...at least it should be).

However a far better anti mine soultion is just to use a mine plow to bulldoze a path through them. Though off route WAM style miles make that impossibul. But height wont save you from them either.

I forgot about plows and crabs. Of course, the blast radius of the mines might be larger than a reasonable plows or crab assembly. *shrug*

The only most likely reason for the walkers size is to support a shield generator big enough to protect against light and heavy anti vechical weapons,

I don't see why a conventional IFV couldn't be built of roughly the same main hull size and carry a shield generator, so I don't consider that to really be a compelling argument for the walker design.

and to provide longer range fire for the LOS weapondry.

That's really the only reason I can see for using the AT-AT design. Whether or not it outweighs the potential drawbacks, I'm not sure.

[Admiral Drason]

Straha you where talking about the rebel artillery. The radar dish artillery that hit the At ATs leg is anti vehicle not anti personal. Your thinkingof the turrets those are the anti personel guns.

[Straha]

Alright. I just went off and vented... this is what I am trying to say succinctly:

The AT-AT is a walker that could be replaced, and have its job done much more effectivley by more conventional vehicles. By points are that it has the center of balance of a bovine, and by the way I have friends who grew up on farms who say Cow Tipping does work.

I will however admit this, the AT-AT does work, it is partially effective despite its design flaws, and it gets the Job done. The main reason I think the Empire uses the AT-AT over other more conventional vehicles like the Juggernat is because seeing a big wheeled thing coming at you at 400KM an hour and shrugging off all shots isn't as frightening as seeing a big lumbering walker coming towards you shruging off all shots. And as the empire values fear very highly I think that was enough of a reason for the emporer.

I am not elaborating, and I will try to cool down, personal life has gotten harder recently and I think I am venting it here, sorry over that. Do whatever you want. And if you decide to give me a Village Idiot title for this, so be it. Enjoy.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Eh.

It's ok. Just take your peace and leave...and next time....

....don't leave with the Edam-excuse.

[Darth Wong]

You know, it would be good if he was willing to admit it was stupid to say the walker can't turn at all, instead of merely saying that he overstated his point.

[CmdrWilkens]

Buldges are basically worthless aginst explosions under a ship, they protect against side hits.

However a far better anti mine soultion is just to use a mine plow to bulldoze a path through them. Though off route WAM style miles make that impossibul. But height wont save you from them either.

The only most likely reason for the walkers size is to support a shield generator big enough to protect against light and heavy anti vechical weapons, and to provide longer range fire for the LOS weapondry.

Sea Skimmer the reason I quoted height as a defense against mines is because that is one of two reasons directly quoted by the ICS. The other is increased LOS but defending against mines is the first reason given for the height of the AT-AT.

[Cal Wright]

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

This should be a short list.

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.

Mind you, the speeders had just been equiped with the harpoons in order to help play the part of 'tug boat' for Echo Base. Which, if I can go back and find the source, mentions they were adapted as such. No one could have forseen that manuever. That wouldn't be a design flaw anyways. A tank can't take an atomic bomb right on it's door, can it? Does that mean it's a design flaw?

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.

A small push eh? So all the rebels had to do was fly in concerto towards each walker and either ram them until they gave up, or started blasting away. We know there's KE coming from the shots. The walker head is rocked everytime blasts hit one or flak is around. There fore, a 'little' push from concentrated fire would 'knock' it over. Bullshit.

C. The thing has no clear cut role,

What part of 'ALL TERRIAN ARMORED TRANSPORT' do you not understand. It's clear fucking cut role is to be an armored transport that, *gasps* can cover all terrain. Holy fucking shit. Someone's a god damned genius. Now if we can only combat that imaginary design flaw, we'll have a working idea.

and instead takes a chameleon series of conflicting roles

.

Where the fuck did you get that from. It covered all terrain, it's armor was too strong for blasters, and it transported. WTF!!!

Unlike an APC it is a big target

Does stating the obvious make you think you are getting a foothold in this one? Go make another one of your shit faced polls Straha.

and is supposed to be hit,

??? You've lost it pal. Nothing is supposed to be hit. AT-ATs are built so if they are hit, they can take the punishment.

unlike Artillery it is designed to fight in relativley face to face combat

17.28km is not face to face. Which is quite strange, because the shit faced EU sources say that the weapon emplacements used at Hoth by the Rebels had a maximum of 10km. Yet they were still striking the AT-ATs. Regardless, the AT-AT has one hell of a range.

considering the Ranges of the various weapons of the galaxy.

That's like a red herring or something there pal. Either way, your fishy post smells like shit. When considering all the ranges of the various weapons of the galaxy. So because starfighters and stardestroyers can toss broadsides from across a system, we're supposed to consider ground weaponary along with this. It can have the range it wants, who says that AT-AT shots had to stop? However, they ain't curving over the horizon line. So why the fuck does it need to shoot clear across the planet?

Unlike a tank it has a horrible movement range.

I'm starting to wish I hadn't split your post apart like this. Even if I didn't though, I think most of our denizens would still be utterly lost trying to follow you through the woods on this one.

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.

So you know for a fucking fact fucktard, that they landed dead on to the shield generator. Oh wait, here's something you missed asshat. The ESB novelisation mentions one turning to engage the ground troops and meeting snow speeders head on. If it can't turn what would be the point? How could it possible cover ALL TERRAIN?!? I reiterate, General Veers AT-AT pivoted to shoot a moving speeder. That son of a bitch was a three frame blur and still got hit!!! Yet magically it can't turn. You must have a big gulp on your stand Straha, cuz your just grasping for straws now.

E. Finally they put the Cockpit in the front of the vehicle,

Maybe so the drivers could SEE WERE THE FUCK THEY WERE GOING!!!

the part that was taking the most hits,

...and didn't even fucking flinch like a little bitch unlike yourself.

and the part that is the most vulnerable.

Bull fucking shit ass spelunker. It took the most hits of anything. It was taking the brunt of all artillary shots, snow speedershots and drive bys. Prove were the head is shown to be vulnerable? I dare you. I double dare you. I double dogg dare you. I double god damned dogg fucking dare your sorry little ass to prove just once, that the head is fucking vulnerable.

If you want to protect the most vital part of the machine you put it in the center of the craft.

Unless it's an armored bitch armed to the teeth with weapons THAT WILL BLOW THE SHIT OUT OF ANYTHING THAT MOVES. EVEN WHEN IT'S MOVING FAST AS FUCK AND HOT AS HELL!!!

You claim that as perfect?

Yes I do asshat.

[Cal Wright]

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, you are a stupid fuck. While you were away, did you gain tuetilage under Darkstar himself?


Listen to Obi Wong, mind what you have been flamed, save you from VI title it can.

The upper portion is not solid. It's hollowed the fuck out to pack in troops and equipment. You know why Straha? I'll say it slowly for your 486 processor mind to comprehend this 166mhz concept.

ALL TERRAIN ARMORED TRANSPORT



It's very easy to see the legs are fucking solid. Not only that, they took one hell of a blast without flinching. Your thinking it's top heavy like a cow. A cow is packing a lot of shit up top, but has nothing for legs. Reverse that for the AT-AT. If it was top heavy, like you seem to believe, then it couldn't be ALL TERRAIN. Because if it was top heavy then when it gets to uneven ground or anything to shake it up, then obviously it could become unbalanced.

Now go call hooked on phonics. I'm tired of your lack of reading comprehension dragging out and beating a dead horse.

[CmdrWilkens]

17.28km is not face to face. Which is quite strange, because the shit faced EU sources say that the weapon emplacements used at Hoth by the Rebels had a maximum of 10km. Yet they were still striking the AT-ATs. Regardless, the AT-AT has one hell of a range.

For the record the ESB novelistion mentions that the AT-ATs opened fire on the Rebels while they were still unable to respond so the range differential (and I think the longer range weapons were about 12 Km) makes sense with that in evidence.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I'd much rather have an AT-AT than a stupid hovertank.

[Vympel]

I'd much rather have an AT-AT than a stupid hovertank.

Depends on what you're using it for. hovertanks couldn't pass through the shields. But I'd take them over an AT-AT for straight combat.

[Coaan]

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.

Just because we don't see it turn(kinda..).....does that mean it can't? bullshit! just because I can take a computer apart and back together again...does that mean I Have to? No. The Walkers obviously did not need to turn to fire upon their targets so why bother trying...ever heard of Kiss? it applies