StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Wookieepedia page about the At-At's says that they first used during the clone wars, and the overwhelmed Confederacy forces were annihilated to begin with, until the large walkers gradually got stuck in the muddy surface on the planet Then it says that during the battle of Hoth Due to their weight, and the unstable terrain they were traversing, a few were lost before the battle even began. And those walkers certainly have very high ground pressure.

Well, what does the first AT stand for then?

Yay for Wookiepedia? lol

Yeah its like those ATV four-wheeler bikes - they can't go through snow or on a swamp or anything. What does the AT stand for then????? we should sue or something srsly

What the fuck? That's fucking hilarious. Earth would so pwn the Empire.

Omeganian wrote:The Wookieepedia page about the At-At's says that they first used during the clone wars, and the overwhelmed Confederacy forces were annihilated to begin with, until the large walkers gradually got stuck in the muddy surface on the planet Then it says that during the battle of Hoth Due to their weight, and the unstable terrain they were traversing, a few were lost before the battle even began. And those walkers certainly have very high ground pressure.

Well, what does the first AT stand for then?

Okay, so

a) clearly those were extreme situations less likely to be found on the vast majority of planets
b) The losses are acceptable to the Imperials, especially considering that the walkers did their job.

General Maximillian Veers seems to have been something of an enthusiast for the type; is it possible that he simply pushed them beyond their limits on Hoth?

In order to prove their capabilities, he led them into a situation that was actually marginal, and did in fact lose an acceptable proportion along the way?

Couple of further ruminations; picture a planet worth taking, a moderately civilised world, that has had to have one node of the planetary shields blown in to create an approach corridor for an assault landing.

Is it just me, or are we looking at post volcanic conditions from a bombardment that, although limited in extent, has to be pretty intense to get that result? No summer, spectacular sunsets, ash everywhere, more extreme weather than usual- the AT-AT has to be at least as much an all conditions, all weather vehicle as it does all terrain.

Second thing, it seems to be designed around a set piece battle, giving and taking heavy punishment much more important than moving quickly. There are about two dozen other walker types mentioned in the comics and as names dropped in the EU, so I reckon it plays that specific frontal- direct role within a diverse order of battle.

It's not a hunter, it's not a fast offroader, it isn't really designed to scale mountains; there are other units that do those jobs. It's as capable as it needs to be on extreme terrain and in extreme conditions to do it's job.

I'm starting to think there's an element of the charge of the elephant brigade here, that Veers put his units through extreme strain and took unnecessary losses proving they were capable of exceeding the design spec, and were in fact the best thing since lightsaber-sliced bread.

Other query; where do they actually fit within the org chart? Is an AT-AT a platoon level unit? Considering that they carry a platoon of infantry in their own right, they could be more than that.
The vehicle and it's speeder bikes a platoon in their own right, two AT-ATs, two infantry platoons and the ten bikes constitute a heavy mechanised infantry company? Batallion composed of two heavy companies, one company of AT-TE mediums or updated equivalent, one company of AT-ST scout/escorts?

Thanas wrote:Okay, so

a) clearly those were extreme situations less likely to be found on the vast majority of planets

Snow and mud aren't likely to be found on other planets?
I get what you are saying, but it just sounds silly.

That's an awful lot of bollocks. The AT-AT's feet are exceedingly well designed to operate on snow--which required broad weight distribution--and on mud, which requires similarly broad weight distribution but also air pockets and the ability to break the suction. The AT-AT's foot not only has a ring of sorts connected to the internal ground-scanning sensors, but it also has some natural pocketing. These variations on the bottom would give it a cleat-like ability to extricate itself from mud, which is not bad footing, but good footing. I'm willing to say the AT-AT was a lumbering waste of materials if it were true, but of all the things on it that were poorly designed the whole foot-and-leg mechanism seems pretty good for how complex those elements really are.

AT-AT

Omeganian wrote:The Wookieepedia page about the At-At's says that they first used during the clone wars, and the overwhelmed Confederacy forces were annihilated to begin with, until the large walkers gradually got stuck in the muddy surface on the planet Then it says that during the battle of Hoth Due to their weight, and the unstable terrain they were traversing, a few were lost before the battle even began. And those walkers certainly have very high ground pressure.

Well, what does the first AT stand for then?

I don't know what the first example is from, but the second comes from the ITW:OT book by Luceno (and yes, consulted on by Curtis.) What the book describes is that one of the AT-AT group leaders (Blizzard 4) decides to take a more "direct but treacherous" route to impress Vader. He ends up losing 3 AT-ATs to "crevasses of eastern ice flow". It doesn't sound like it was a typical situation.

The Mud example, as I said, I have no clue on, but I imagine if the mud is thick enough, an AT AT coudl probably get its legs wedged in pretty deep - its got fuckoff-huge ground pressure after all (hundreds, if not more likely thousands of tons of mass on four relatively tiny legs, yeah.) so there are going to be certain terrains an AT AT could have problems with. "All Terrain" doesn't automatically mean "can adapt to any situation" - or do you think AT-ATs could also ford gigantic flows of lava without problem?

Edit: To hell with it, the ground pressure thing probably applies in both cases. As I said, an AT-AT is going to be fuckoff massive, imrpboably huge, and probably not practically so for a war machine. The ground pressure alone is going to hamper its "all-terrain" ability, so you have to take that term in a relative sense. Its all terrain, for a fuckoff huge vehicle that probably masses as much as a small starship.

Also, this assumes its meant to be treated as a practical ground weapon, which it isn't. Its about as practical as a Bolo. What it is, is powerful and terrifying: Its big, its got long ranged guns, and it looks scary to a tiny footslogger, especially if they migth get crushed. Its not a replacemnt for a tank (tahts why they still have repulsor tanks and stuff like the Juggernaut.)

I worked on that article, trying to make the Clone Wars section make more sense. The thing was, they were on a mud planet ( ) in one of the comics, and the AT-ATs were deployed there. Too much inaction on a rainy, muddy surface, and they eventually ground themselves into the soil, becoming easier to target.

VT-16 wrote:I worked on that article, trying to make the Clone Wars section make more sense. The thing was, they were on a mud planet ( ) in one of the comics, and the AT-ATs were deployed there. Too much inaction on a rainy, muddy surface, and they eventually ground themselves into the soil, becoming easier to target.

Well then that probably is more attributable to the stupidity of the commander. Mud is NOT solid ground, and AT-ATs have many times the ground pressure of a tank (no bloody surprise, given how AT-ATs shake teh ground. So they probably will sink into something soft and yielding like mud.

More to the point, the ability to lift itself out of the mud will depend on if the AT-AT has anyy stability in the parts presumably NOT deeply stuck in. IF the entire AT-AT is buried in mud, then lifting one part of its body up will just sink the other part deeper (its taking pressure off some of its feet and putting it on the rest.)

Incidentally, how far into the ground did they sink?

Isn't the AT-AT basically a combined APC and assault gun? It's not the end-all, be-all of combat walkers.



As for all-terrain, I'm going to point out that tanks, APC's, and other tracked vehicles, which are all very suitable to off-road terrain, get stuck or bogged down a LOT.

Swindle wrote:]Isn't the AT-AT basically a combined APC and assault gun? It's not the end-all, be-all of combat walkers.

Well, that doesn't stop the EU from treating them like Imperial Tiger Tanks. What's that? Another case of the EU just making shit up again?

The EU also came up with the idea to "replace" the AT-TE with the AT-AT. Even though they seem to have been designed with two different roles in mind.

They are all terrain, all terrain except for the ones they sink in

By 'sink in' you mean 'fall down giant iceplanet crevasses' and 'stand still in mud until they sink far enough to move more slowly', right?

Having heard the actual references that article is talking about, it's a hilarious line of bullshit. No context, just LOL WALKERS FUCK UP (because remember, these are the kind of nerds who think walkers get difficult terrain bonuses) when in context it makes much more sense and nobody said AT-ATs were very practical ANYWAY.

What's that? Wookiepedia fucking sucks?

GET AWAY!

Oh fuck off, Stark, can't we Wookieepedians be a little lazy once in a while?

I'm busting my balls trying to source dozens of articles as is, this one just ended up on the backburner.
Reading the comic again, can't find any serious pictures of them sinking into the ground, more moving slowly or getting stuck. Didn't have that much of an impact overall, I think. Will try to meet your high standard somehow.

This Wookiepedia entry shouldn't really be that unbelievable. AT-AT's may simply be better at fighting in certain terrain than others.

Real world example: The First Battle of Grozny
Russia sent an armored column supported by poorly trained and motivated infantry, helicopters, and aircraft into the heart of a modern city. Not surprisingly, once the supporting Russian infantry was pinned down by Chechen fighters, they tanks and armored vehicles were picked off in significant numbers.

The results of this battle don't suggest that tanks and armored vehicles are easily destroyed by infantry in ALL situations, merely that when poorly used and unsupported, in a densely packed urban center, tanks and armored vehicles are at a disadvantage against defending infantry.

Yeah, it was apparantly their first deployment and some matter of prestige, I think. Not the first time a new weapon has been used for the wrong purpose in military history.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

VT-16 wrote:I worked on that article, trying to make the Clone Wars section make more sense. The thing was, they were on a mud planet ( ) in one of the comics, and the AT-ATs were deployed there. Too much inaction on a rainy, muddy surface, and they eventually ground themselves into the soil, becoming easier to target.

Well then that probably is more attributable to the stupidity of the commander. Mud is NOT solid ground, and AT-ATs have many times the ground pressure of a tank (no bloody surprise, given how AT-ATs shake teh ground. So they probably will sink into something soft and yielding like mud.

More to the point, the ability to lift itself out of the mud will depend on if the AT-AT has anyy stability in the parts presumably NOT deeply stuck in. IF the entire AT-AT is buried in mud, then lifting one part of its body up will just sink the other part deeper (its taking pressure off some of its feet and putting it on the rest.)

Incidentally, how far into the ground did they sink?

It was n AT-TE that had problems, not an AT-AT, and it sank in to its "knees" on the back legs, requiring assistance to get it out. That was the only one we saw. As for the rest, walkers seemed to work to their usual effect.

I'm more impressed with the resilience of SW materials as demonstrated by Luke's snowspeeder. It's supposed to be light vehicle, and it only got the cockpit caved in from 1/4 weight of an AT-AT on it. I mean a modern day MBT would go through a car or F-16 like so much paper. Hell, it's a modified civilian cargo transport, for crying out loud.

I think I recall where this came from. It was from a battle for some Separatist planet that led to Republic defeat and even the capture of Obi-Wan Kenobi. Yeah, the mud killed the vehicles apparently.

Of course, that kind of contradicts the Battle of Hoth. The AT-ATs at that battle didn't really resemble the ones at Hoth however.

The Battle of Jabiim is the mud-battle.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:This Wookiepedia entry shouldn't really be that unbelievable. AT-AT's may simply be better at fighting in certain terrain than others.

Real world example: The First Battle of Grozny
Russia sent an armored column supported by poorly trained and motivated infantry, helicopters, and aircraft into the heart of a modern city. Not surprisingly, once the supporting Russian infantry was pinned down by Chechen fighters, they tanks and armored vehicles were picked off in significant numbers.

The results of this battle don't suggest that tanks and armored vehicles are easily destroyed by infantry in ALL situations, merely that when poorly used and unsupported, in a densely packed urban center, tanks and armored vehicles are at a disadvantage against defending infantry.

The vehicles were blasted to shit by Chechen's firing Soviet era RPG's at them from upper story windows so that they impacted on the roof which has the thinnest armor.

If I remember right the Russians cleared the building using close range AS guns. Really cuts down on the resistance in a building when you blast it with several thousands of rounds of 20 or 30 mm rounds.

In regards to a walker getting stuck in the mud...
Sure, tanks get stuck in mud, but walkers are much, much bigger than modern tanks. It's not like the walker will keep sinking indefinitely. How deep does mud go? Shouldn't it hit more solid earth at some point? You'd need several meters of mud to get an AT-AT stuck, I'd think.