AT-ST vs kinetic weapons

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-03-09 09:12am

Ok, an AT-ST seemed to have a good defence vs energy based weapons but in ROTJ they got broken when hit the ground or being smached by 2 timber logs.

So how would it perform against modern day earth weaponry?

(im talking tank rounds, AP-bullets, AT-cannon, missiles...)

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-03-09 10:03am

We don't know the mass of those logs, and they hit the grenade mag. http://h4h.com/louis/atst.html

But its just a scout vehicle. It's probably vulnerable to anything above small arms, such as .50 and above. That's not shabby compared to jeeps and the like.

Edit - changed "warthog" to "jeep" for clarification.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-03-09 10:24am

AT-STs would be probobly be very vulenerable to modern day weapons since they are weak against kinetic energy attacks.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-03-09 10:30am

evilcat4000 wrote:AT-STs would be probobly be very vulenerable to modern day weapons since they are weak against kinetic energy attacks.

It would be nice to back up said statements with proof.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-03-09 10:52am

Ghost Rider wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:AT-STs would be probobly be very vulenerable to modern day weapons since they are weak against kinetic energy attacks.
It would be nice to back up said statements with proof.

Have you seen Return of the Jedi?

*cough*logs*cough*

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-03-09 11:00am

Super-Gagme wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:AT-STs would be probobly be very vulenerable to modern day weapons since they are weak against kinetic energy attacks.
It would be nice to back up said statements with proof.
Have you seen Return of the Jedi?

*cough*logs*cough*

Actually, Ghost is refering to a habit of Evilcat's, where he makes general statements and assumptions like the above without providing any proof.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-03-09 11:51am

AT-STs have damned pathetic armor. Assuming they even have armor as opposed to an ordinary metal chasis, of course. That's why I'm sick of them being portrayed as operating in the MBT role. They're more like mine-proof humvees than anything.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-03-09 01:49pm

Lazy Raptor wrote:AT-STs have damned pathetic armor. Assuming they even have armor as opposed to an ordinary metal chasis, of course. That's why I'm sick of them being portrayed as operating in the MBT role. They're more like mine-proof humvees than anything.

I agree. The AT-ST name implies its perpose! All Terrain Scout Transport. It is a recon vehicle with some armor. It is well armed but it is not MBT. It only appears to have light antipersonel armor and its main weapon appears to only be able to take out another AT-ST(Takes more than one shot too!). Its weapons (Light grenade launcher, Light Blaster, Medium Blaster) are mainly anti-personel weapons as well. So it is more like a HUM-VEE than even the lightest Armored Fighting Vehicle.

airBiscuit · Post by **airBiscuit** » 2004-03-09 01:55pm

wautd wrote:Ok, an AT-ST seemed to have a good defence vs energy based weapons but in ROTJ they got broken when hit the ground or being smached by 2 timber logs.
So how would it perform against modern day earth weaponry?
(im talking tank rounds, AP-bullets, AT-cannon, missiles...)

I would say that the armor is probably about as thick as what you'd find on your modern-day armored personnel carrier. This would be necessary to keep the weight down to allow for scout-like maneuverability and maintain stability over rough terrain. It probably has some enhancements for heat ablation, so that blaster fire would have less effect on it, kind of like our modern-day ceramic armor sandwich. (Mmmmmmm, saaaaaaandwich....). We also have to assume that their metallurgy and composite technology is far ahead of the analogues of our modern-day armor.

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.

As to why the logs smashed an AT-ST on Endor. Did you see the size of those logs? One rule of thumb for armor penetration is to look at the ratio of the diameter of the round versus the thickness of the armor. A ratio of round to armor greater than 1.0 means you have a much better chance of penetrating. I can say that those logs were moving with sufficient velocity and were of such a high diameter ratio as to simply overwhelm the armor's ability to resist. It basically crumpled, instead of just penetrated.

As for falling over and crunching, well this is simply due to the AT-ST collapsing under its own weight. It's designed to fend off smaller arms fire, not to resist falling. This represents a general structural implosion. The Ewoks were not dumb, let me tell you.

airBiscuit · Post by **airBiscuit** » 2004-03-09 01:57pm

Good point on the AT-ST shooting another. This would definitely settle the issue on how large a Star Wars weapon would need to be to penetrate. Their man blaster is probably on the order of an E-Web in firepower, or slightly less.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-03-09 02:07pm

airBiscuit wrote:Good point on the AT-ST shooting another. This would definitely settle the issue on how large a Star Wars weapon would need to be to penetrate. Their man blaster is probably on the order of an E-Web in firepower, or slightly less.

Justed looked over the scene where Chewie shot the At-ST. It looked like it took three hits from the main gun to kill the other vehicle.

Blaster appears to be close to two E-webs in tandum.

So about 4-6 E-Web hits should be able to take the vehicle out if they hit all the same area of the armor.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-03-09 02:13pm

Also those logs are almost 1/4 the size of the entire cab of the AT-ST! That has to add to its ability to penetrate the armor. What would happen to a HUM-VEE if it got smacked by two objest at that size at the same reletive speed?

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2004-03-09 02:59pm

those were bigass logs. With points, IIRC. I'm not sure an Abrams would hold up to logs like that. If they caught it in the turret, shit would break. if it hit the hull, it would screw up the wheels/track. A humvee would be unrecognizable.

*edit* I spell good! fixed.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2004-03-09 04:00pm

Isolder74 wrote:Also those logs are almost 1/4 the size of the entire cab of the AT-ST! That has to add to its ability to penetrate the armor. What would happen to a HUM-VEE if it got smacked by two objest at that size at the same reletive speed?

I'm not doubting you, but how the feck did the ewoks get those logs cut down and prepared? Those wee guys are way too small to have been lugging those logs arround/

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-03-09 04:09pm

Who knows in large work teams perhaps? They have devices similer to pulleys on their catapults. They could work in the dark perhapes? They have the numbers and may have set those traps up for other purposes and they conveniently fit in killing AT-ST's.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-09 04:11pm

pulleys, ropes, levers, and alot of numbers, i would imagine.

airBiscuit · Post by **airBiscuit** » 2004-03-09 04:17pm

Lord Pounder wrote:I'm not doubting you, but how the feck did the ewoks get those logs cut down and prepared? Those wee guys are way too small to have been lugging those logs arround/

That's similar to asking how the ancient Egyptians built the great pyramids.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-03-09 05:12pm

Probably with enough they could I'd imagine. Hell, they were throwing around good sized boulders like it was nothing, IIRC (I know they threw the boulders, not sure as to the size of them).

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-03-09 05:33pm

Super-Gagme wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:AT-STs would be probobly be very vulenerable to modern day weapons since they are weak against kinetic energy attacks.
It would be nice to back up said statements with proof.
Have you seen Return of the Jedi?

*cough*logs*cough*

How nice. No numbers at all. You know how dense those trees could very well be (especially given how massive they and other Endor trees appear to be? And do you know how projectile impacts differ from energy beams?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-03-09 05:55pm

Lord Pounder wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:Also those logs are almost 1/4 the size of the entire cab of the AT-ST! That has to add to its ability to penetrate the armor. What would happen to a HUM-VEE if it got smacked by two objest at that size at the same reletive speed?
I'm not doubting you, but how the feck did the ewoks get those logs cut down and prepared? Those wee guys are way too small to have been lugging those logs arround/

Those log traps and others weapons were designed to repel an attack of giant Gorax, which are bipedal humanoid creatures that stand about 50 feet tall. Trip wires and logs would be just the thing to send them packing.

Also, in the book I believe it said the logs were somewhere on the order of 2 tons each. 4000 pounds of wood moving 10 or 20 meters per second is just too much force for that weak armor to stop.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-03-09 06:06pm

werent there spinoff movies made with Ewoks?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-03-09 06:08pm

They weren't spinoffs. They were two TV movies.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2004-03-09 11:22pm

AT-ST's are weak verses K.E. attacks. The fact that the logs hit the grenade launchers is not significant: if the logs would not have damaged the AT-ST without a hit to explosive materials, then the logs would have been thrown back after hitting. e.g. if X is mom. of log and Y is mom. imparted to the AT-ST by explosion then X and Y must add up to Z, the amount needed to massively deform the hull. If X will not cause damage but Z will maim the target then Y is very likely larger than X--logical, I hope? Then of course if Y is larger than X, then Y is applied to the log--mom. in an explosion is conserved, what the AT-ST takes the log takes--and overcomes X. This means the logs would strike the AT-ST, causing a massive explosion which both deforms the hull and sends both logs packing the way they came. This didn't happen, the logs met in the middle and kinda swung around a bit, the explosion did not affect their motion at all, so X was very much larger than Y. The logs killed the AT-ST, not the grenade launchers.

Also Connor, I find it unlikely the large size of those trees is a good indication of high density--the wood would have to be exceptionally strong just to bear its own weight. Less dense wood makes more sense to me.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-10 12:48am

Larger trees have higher-density wood.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-03-10 08:43am

The Silence and I wrote:AT-ST's are weak verses K.E. attacks. The fact that the logs hit the grenade launchers is not significant: if the logs would not have damaged the AT-ST without a hit to explosive materials, then the logs would have been thrown back after hitting. e.g. if X is mom. of log and Y is mom. imparted to the AT-ST by explosion then X and Y must add up to Z, the amount needed to massively deform the hull. If X will not cause damage but Z will maim the target then Y is very likely larger than X--logical, I hope? Then of course if Y is larger than X, then Y is applied to the log--mom. in an explosion is conserved, what the AT-ST takes the log takes--and overcomes X. This means the logs would strike the AT-ST, causing a massive explosion which both deforms the hull and sends both logs packing the way they came. This didn't happen, the logs met in the middle and kinda swung around a bit, the explosion did not affect their motion at all, so X was very much larger than Y. The logs killed the AT-ST, not the grenade launchers.

The log impact wasn't affected by the explosion. That means that either a) The explosion was almost totally directed inward, or b) Didn't have sufficient power to affect the logs, which means they had very significant momentum. Since the logs weren't damaged in the process, the answer must be a). 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

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.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

AT-ST vs kinetic weapons

AT-ST vs kinetic weapons

Re: AT-ST vs kinetic weapons

Good point

Re: Good point