ATSTs- Thin armor, or....?
Posted: 2003-01-31 12:36am
StarDestroyer.Net BBS
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
ATSTs- Thin armor, or....?
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11674
Page 1 of 1
Posted: 2003-01-31 01:17am
Once again, excellent work, Poe.
Posted: 2003-01-31 01:20am
As good as the page is, this makes me wonder about a design flaw...how hard would it be to penetrate the tibanna gas chamber with a weapon?
Also, alternate theory on the second one (though I can't see it well, my comp sucks)...could the tibanna gas tank have ruptured and the sparks from the leg set it off? Just an alternate theory, I dunno if evidence either way can be found to support/disprove the theory (and it probably violates Occam's Razor, necessitating the spark, but I just finished an academic competition and don't feel like thinking that hard tonight).
Also, alternate theory on the second one (though I can't see it well, my comp sucks)...could the tibanna gas tank have ruptured and the sparks from the leg set it off? Just an alternate theory, I dunno if evidence either way can be found to support/disprove the theory (and it probably violates Occam's Razor, necessitating the spark, but I just finished an academic competition and don't feel like thinking that hard tonight).
Posted: 2003-01-31 01:26am
It is just a theory. We know that the blasters require ammo; the popular theory is that tibanna gas is that ammo. And you need to have the ammo somewhere near the weapon...The Dark wrote:As good as the page is, this makes me wonder about a design flaw...how hard would it be to penetrate the tibanna gas chamber with a weapon?
I don't think it's a design flaw as much as a design necessity. The AT-ST's armor has been shown to deflect sidearm fire, and as it's in an anti-personnel role (like the HMMVV) it's not a weakness.
Posted: 2003-01-31 01:31am
Oh...yeah...forgot what the S stands for 
.
I agree completely on the tibanna gas being ammunition; I think the ICS and EU novels have fairly well established that (heck, it may even be in the ESB novelization...haven't read the Cloud City part in a while). I was just wondering how thick the armor there is, since the bulge shape is fairly prominent on a slab-sided vehicle.
.I agree completely on the tibanna gas being ammunition; I think the ICS and EU novels have fairly well established that (heck, it may even be in the ESB novelization...haven't read the Cloud City part in a while). I was just wondering how thick the armor there is, since the bulge shape is fairly prominent on a slab-sided vehicle.
Posted: 2003-01-31 05:24am
Wayne: One nitpick - the right side-mounted weapon emplacement on an AT-ST is a concussion grenade launcher.
Also, to support your claim regarding blaster gas:
"A laser cannon is supplied by a power generator or fed from a ship's main reactor, while volatile blaster gas must be stored and carried in supercooled, puncture-proof chambers."
Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, page 80.
Obviously there is something to your theory. The gas is clearly volatile, and storing it in a puncture proof container is obviously considered a neccessary precaution. Enough pressure could cause ruptures, which could lead to destruction.
You can just credit me normally this time for saving your ass
However, I believe Mike has repeatedly mentioned this - why are you not making any mention of the fact those logs obviously have some very high mass and momentum, and that can contribute to the effects? For one thing, you can't blame the fact the walker's head was crushed in on the tibanna gas - its rather required for your explanation to work to some degree (I am uncertain whether the blaster gas would be stored externally in the turret, or internally. In the case of the concussion grenades, same th ing.) At the very worst, its a useful "so what" scenario.
Also, to support your claim regarding blaster gas:
"A laser cannon is supplied by a power generator or fed from a ship's main reactor, while volatile blaster gas must be stored and carried in supercooled, puncture-proof chambers."
Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, page 80.
Obviously there is something to your theory. The gas is clearly volatile, and storing it in a puncture proof container is obviously considered a neccessary precaution. Enough pressure could cause ruptures, which could lead to destruction.
You can just credit me normally this time for saving your ass
However, I believe Mike has repeatedly mentioned this - why are you not making any mention of the fact those logs obviously have some very high mass and momentum, and that can contribute to the effects? For one thing, you can't blame the fact the walker's head was crushed in on the tibanna gas - its rather required for your explanation to work to some degree (I am uncertain whether the blaster gas would be stored externally in the turret, or internally. In the case of the concussion grenades, same th ing.) At the very worst, its a useful "so what" scenario.