StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2004-07-19 09:57pm**

Okay. This question has been nagging me for quite a while. So I got bored and wrote a short essay as seen below. But basically, I'm just trying to ask why the Empire has not emulated the design philosophy or tactical role of the LAAT/i in other vehicles.

Hardy wrote:The LAAT/i was a critical component in the operations of the Grand Army of the Republic. It mimicked the role of the Vietnam Era Huey by providing speedy and flexible transport of troops, cargo and other personnel to specified locations. This insured that troops could get on and off the battlefield quickly and easily. The LAAT/i also had the role of a gunship. In AOTC, they led low altitude assaults on Separatist ground targets using rockets and lasers. In essence, the LAAT/i held both the role of an attack vehicle and an assault vehicle. It was among the best military vehicles featured in Star Wars, IMO.
Unfortunately, in the canon Star Wars films we do not see any vehicles with this role used by either side. Almost nothing comes close. Most aerial vehicles in the Old Trilogy were fighters, not assault/attack gunships. But, the canon films can be rendered moot since there was actually no need for this role. In ANH, there was virtually no need to get soldiers from place to place so quickly. The Tatooine troops were fairly patient and most of the other combat took place shipboard or in space. In ESB, there may have been no way to get an aircraft under the shield generator. The AT-ATs and AT-STs sufficed. On Bespin, there was really no need at all. On Endor, this role would have been slightly more plausible, but the purely defensive mindset of the Imperial Troops wouldn’t require a vehicle like this. The closest thing the Empire has to this type of vehicle is a Lambada class shuttle, but this vehicle appears to require a fairly clear landing zone and doesn’t really offer fast debarkation of troops.
We can also turn to the expanded universe for answers, but according to my searches through the Starwars.com databank, no such thing exists. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I’m really wondering why the Empire would abandon the role of the assault/attack ship. Wouldn’t it need to get stormtroopers in and out of tight locations and combat zones or perform similar tasks? Has the role of this vehicle been made obsolete, or what? It’s a mystery as to what happened to the design philosophy/tactical role.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:09pm**

The reason they worked for the Grand Army of the Republic is that no one had fought a serious war in so long, that a number of capabilities were lost and had to be rediscovered. Aircraft the size of the LAATs would be meat offered on a platter to a SW tech force designed with competent Air Defense Artillery. They are to slow to evade fire, to large to avoid notice, and not tough enough to withstand heavy ground fire. Remember what the AT-ATs did to the much faster and more manueverable snowspeeders in ESB.

And AotC is canon, so your essay needs tyo be reworded at the very least.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:14pm**

The LAAT is a hell of a lot more powerful then the Snowspeeders. Just a half dozen LAATs would have been more then sufficent to knock out the AT-ATs at Hoth. The concept of the LAAT is not a dead one and it should be used. Even today with heavy SAM enviroments the helicopter remains a viable platform. The LAAT would also be highly valuable in SW.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:18pm**

Alyeska wrote:The LAAT is a hell of a lot more powerful then the Snowspeeders. Just a half dozen LAATs would have been more then sufficent to knock out the AT-ATs at Hoth. The concept of the LAAT is not a dead one and it should be used. Even today with heavy SAM enviroments the helicopter remains a viable platform. The LAAT would also be highly valuable in SW.

Um, Proof, especially of the LAATs ability to take down very heavy armor? Heavy energy weapons should pretty much kill the viability of any platform not manueverable enough to evade the tracking system.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:19pm**

Frankly, I don't think we've seen enough ground combat to know whether the LAAT/i or a reasonable analgoues vanished or not. Most of the operation we've seen have been either smaller or a larger armoured mission.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:20pm**

consequences wrote:And AotC is canon, so your essay needs tyo be reworded at the very least.

I'm fully aware of that. I was referring to the OT when I mentioned that. I'll be sure to reword that.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:28pm**

consequences wrote:
Alyeska wrote:The LAAT is a hell of a lot more powerful then the Snowspeeders. Just a half dozen LAATs would have been more then sufficent to knock out the AT-ATs at Hoth. The concept of the LAAT is not a dead one and it should be used. Even today with heavy SAM enviroments the helicopter remains a viable platform. The LAAT would also be highly valuable in SW.
Um, Proof, especially of the LAATs ability to take down very heavy armor? Heavy energy weapons should pretty much kill the viability of any platform not manueverable enough to evade the tracking system.

Thats whats so wonderful about MISSILES.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:29pm**

The Empire still used the AT-TE and variants. Its possible, especially on the Outer Rim that the LAAT/i and other Grand Army equipment was in Imperial use.

The Empire uses XG-1 Assault Gunboats in support of heavy armor. Stormtrooper transports and Sentinel Landing Craft occupy the LAAT/i's and LAAT/c's troop-carrying and light armor-carrying roles (heavier craft like Landing Barges occupy the heavy armor carrier role), respectively. It seems the Empire wants more versatility out of their attack craft and opted for hyperdrive- and ion engine-equipped spacecraft capable of a large variety of roles rather than specialized aircraft. Additionally, rather than go the Russian Mi-24 HIND attack-chopper-and-troop-carrier-in-one route, the Imperial Army and Marines seems to have opted for seperating the roles, much like the U.S. and the AH-64 Apache and the UH-60L Blackhawk.

Personally, I'd rather have a support group of XG-1 Assault Gunboats than the LAAT/i's in the attack role.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:31pm**

consequences wrote: Um, Proof, especially of the LAATs ability to take down very heavy armor?

I think he's talking about the micro-superlasers mounted on the gunship. They certainly have a great deal of power. Is there an established upper limit to what they can take out? It may help determine whether or not it can affact AT-AT armor.

Heavy energy weapons should pretty much kill the viability of any platform not manueverable enough to evade the tracking system.

It's all dependent on the accuracy of the tracking system and whether or not the target is using ECM, chaff, flares or some other countermeasure.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:33pm**

Wouldn't the Sentinel-Class Landing craft be the LAAT's replacement? I mean is there any thing the LAAT can do that the Sentinel can't?

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:35pm**

Hardy wrote:I think he's talking about the micro-superlasers mounted on the gunship. They certainly have a great deal of power. Is there an established upper limit to what they can take out? It may help determine whether or not it can affact AT-AT armor.

Those are hardly the most powerful weapons aboard. The mass driver missiles are.

They're more analogous to helicopter-mounted HMGs or miniguns than an anti-armor cannon.

Hardy wrote:It's all dependent on the accuracy of the tracking system and whether or not the target is using ECM, chaff, flares or some other countermeasure.

I'm skeptical about the missiles. They're canonical range didn't much exceed even ten kilometers, while the heaviest armor target destroyed was a skeletal Hailfire Droid. The AT-AT is well-armored against even the most intense energy beams and likely a slew of warheads. And it has a main weapon range at least nearly twenty kilometers on flat terrain.

Posted: **2004-07-19 10:56pm**

Okay. I've Googled the search term "Sentinel-Class Landing" and found a few web pages and specs on it. Apparently, it was featured in ANH.

Star Wars Technical Commentaries

I also seem to have overlooked it in the SW.com databank.

Some RPG site

Some other RPG site

The Sentinel can hold 54 troops. The LAAT/i can hold roughly 30 troops. The LAAT/i is 17.4 meters long, while the Seninel is 20 meters. I'd say that the Sentinel is more efficient so far. I'm aware that I'm ignoring some other considerations, though.
[/url]

Posted: **2004-07-19 11:13pm**

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Those are hardly the most powerful weapons aboard. The mass driver missiles are.

They're more analogous to helicopter-mounted HMGs or miniguns than an anti-armor cannon.

Ah. I see your point here. And there was very little evidence to suggest that they are useful against armored targets.

Hardy wrote:It's all dependent on the accuracy of the tracking system and whether or not the target is using ECM, chaff, flares or some other countermeasure.

I'm skeptical about the missiles. They're canonical range didn't much exceed even ten kilometers, while the heaviest armor target destroyed was a skeletal Hailfire Droid. The AT-AT is well-armored against even the most intense energy beams and likely a slew of warheads. And it has a main weapon range at least nearly twenty kilometers on flat terrain.

Actually, the AT-AT guns only have a range of 16 kilometers, but that's beside the point. ; )
But we really can't say whether or not the AT-AT can withstand intense energy beams. We don't exactly know what turbolasers or blaster cannons are made up of. There is enough evidence to suggest that the "lasers" are matter based, but we can't be sure. We can assume that a superlaser is more like a laser than a turbolaser or blaster is. A superlaser may be composed of more energy than a turbolaser. Again, we can't be sure.

But for one, we have observed that blaster shots are easily ablated by AT-AT armor. We haven't observed the effects of a superlaser on this armor though. We do know that there is a difference in the nature of these "beams" though.

It is disputable whether or not the mass-drivers can have any effect on the AT-AT armor either.

Forgive my bad typing. It's a bit late, which means I'm out for the night.

Posted: **2004-07-19 11:55pm**

Hardy wrote:But we really can't say whether or not the AT-AT can withstand intense energy beams. We don't exactly know what turbolasers or blaster cannons are made up of. There is enough evidence to suggest that the "lasers" are matter based, but we can't be sure. We can assume that a superlaser is more like a laser than a turbolaser or blaster is. A superlaser may be composed of more energy than a turbolaser. Again, we can't be sure.

I'm counting most "blaster"-type weapons as "energy weapons." Superlaser-type beam weapons and the c-propogating brand of bolt weapons are based on the same technology and fire beams at lightspeed.

The AT-AT ablated c-propogating blaster bolts (the Snowspeeder's guns; they move with the aircraft). The Rebel small arms and crew-served weapons are almost certainly the sublight-gravity-defying-Tibanna-blob-firing bolt weapons due to the fact they're aimed by humans and its doubtful they stay fixed on target until the bolt arrived on the aimpoint and the beam ramps up to full power. So the current theories and observation point to the fact that the AT-AT ablates both the sublight and c-propogating brand of energy weapons.

That leaves the blaster-bolt-lookalike projectile weapons like the AT-TE's main gun and Chewie's bowcaster. But I never defended those.

Hardy wrote:But for one, we have observed that blaster shots are easily ablated by AT-AT armor. We haven't observed the effects of a superlaser on this armor though. We do know that there is a difference in the nature of these "beams" though.

See above.

Hardy wrote:It is disputable whether or not the mass-drivers can have any effect on the AT-AT armor either.

Agreed, but also outside the scope of what I was talking about.

Posted: **2004-07-20 12:24am**

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:Wouldn't the Sentinel-Class Landing craft be the LAAT's replacement? I mean is there any thing the LAAT can do that the Sentinel can't?

The LAAT seems to have more firepower, and has better coverage, but the Sentinel is hyperspace capable and has a number of other features. The hyperspace capability is by far the most important, though, since it means that the ships can join in a ground campaign without requiring a larger mothership--a tremendous advantage in combat.

Posted: **2004-07-20 06:11am**

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The Empire still used the AT-TE and variants.

Not to derail the thread, but has this ever been verified, outside of the cargo-variant seen in Empire #16? (I´m a bit of a trivia buff and want to know wether the AT-TE really IS being used as a combat vehicle by the Empire...)

On topic, I can see how the Sentinel would eventually replace the duties of the LAAT, maybe pushing it into service on less important/poorer worlds.

Posted: **2004-07-20 11:46am**

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Those are hardly the most powerful weapons aboard. The mass driver missiles are.

Mass driver missiles? That sounds like an oxymoron to me...

Posted: **2004-07-20 01:53pm**

AT-AT armor is durable enough to stand up to sustained fire by fighter-grade weaponry (X-wing lasers as in Isard's Revenge) - at least for a short period of time (I'd estimate several salvos.. maybe a second or two of sustained fire at best.) high end LAAT missiles should be sufficiently powerful to penetrate, therefore.

Posted: **2004-07-20 04:16pm**

Many combat scenarios will proclude the use of high-kiloton warheads in an atmosphere, however.

I mean one can easily knock out aircraft formations with proximity hits with a nuclear missile in modern day, but often times you cannot do that.

The tactical flexibility of something like an LAAT/i against an AT-AT could be rather limited.

Posted: **2004-07-20 04:20pm**

Slartibartfast wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Those are hardly the most powerful weapons aboard. The mass driver missiles are.
Mass driver missiles? That sounds like an oxymoron to me...

The LAAT/i launchers are mass drivers; they shoot the missiles which ignite while passing through the muzzle. They're probably optomized as penetration weapons, and acquire high velocities even at low range.

Posted: **2004-07-20 04:43pm**

Illuminatus Primus wrote: I'm counting most "blaster"-type weapons as "energy weapons." Superlaser-type beam weapons and the c-propogating brand of bolt weapons are based on the same technology and fire beams at lightspeed.

The AT-AT ablated c-propogating blaster bolts (the Snowspeeder's guns; they move with the aircraft). The Rebel small arms and crew-served weapons are almost certainly the sublight-gravity-defying-Tibanna-blob-firing bolt weapons due to the fact they're aimed by humans and its doubtful they stay fixed on target until the bolt arrived on the aimpoint and the beam ramps up to full power. So the current theories and observation point to the fact that the AT-AT ablates both the sublight and c-propogating brand of energy weapons.

Ah. I get your point there. I also have no grounds for disagreement as of yet. You seem to have proven that AT-AT armor can withstand all c-propogating weapons. (I'm not going into the "lasers can't penetrate the shields" fallacy. Of course there is an upper limit to what the AT-AT can take.) But now because of your point there is no canon (non-canon is welcome) evidence of the AT-ATs being able to withstand sublight/projectile weapons.

On the main site, it was stressed that the AT-AT could easily be tipped over by a blast to the side. Mike also mentioned that an artillery shell would have to be the size of a tank to do such. So, I'll go with the conservative assumption that each mass-driver missile wieghs 50 kilograms, or about as much as an AGM-114 Hellfire. Based on Mike's assumption, I'll assume that the lower limit for knocking over an AT-AT is a force equal to 1 176 000 N, or the force required to get an Abrams up to 20 meters in the air.(I used the GPE equation. The force of a falling ballistic object is the same force required to get the object in the air.) I'll just say that this is a lower limit for knocking over the AT-AT.
Now, it was mentioned that the mass drivers travel at hypersonic speeds (correct me if I'm wrong). This implies that the 50 kilogram missile is moving at least at 1 700 m/s when finished accelerating. At this speed, the missile has a force of 85 000 Newtons. That's just ignoring the warhead. Accoring to that it should take a salvo of at least thirteen mass drivers to knock over an AT-AT. Whether or not it could penetrate the armor is unknown.

Some considerations were ignored, I know and my math could be flawed. Feel free to correct me.

Posted: **2004-07-20 04:58pm**

Hardy wrote:But now because of your point there is no canon (non-canon is welcome) evidence of the AT-ATs being able to withstand sublight/projectile weapons.

Crew-served weapons are almost certainly sublight for reasons given above.

Hardy wrote:Based on Mike's assumption, I'll assume that the lower limit for knocking over an AT-AT is a force equal to 1 176 000 N, or the force required to get an Abrams up to 20 meters in the air.(I used the GPE equation. The force of a falling ballistic object is the same force required to get the object in the air.) I'll just say that this is a lower limit for knocking over the AT-AT.

Mike's comment means the Abrams would be flying horizontally into the side of the AT-AT akin to an artillery shell. The GPE is not a legitimate way to calculate the side-impact lower limit threshold for toppling the AT-AT.

Hardy wrote:Now, it was mentioned that the mass drivers travel at hypersonic speeds (correct me if I'm wrong).

Did the missiles fired in AOTC glow like meteors for air ablation or appear to move many kilometers per second?

Hardy wrote:This implies that the 50 kilogram missile is moving at least at 1 700 m/s when finished accelerating. At this speed, the missile has a force of 85 000 Newtons. That's just ignoring the warhead. Accoring to that it should take a salvo of at least thirteen mass drivers to knock over an AT-AT. Whether or not it could penetrate the armor is unknown.

They'd all have to hit simultaneously and like I said, assuming Mike is right, your calculations' premise is wrong.

Posted: **2004-07-20 05:34pm**

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Hardy wrote:Based on Mike's assumption, I'll assume that the lower limit for knocking over an AT-AT is a force equal to 1 176 000 N, or the force required to get an Abrams up to 20 meters in the air.(I used the GPE equation. The force of a falling ballistic object is the same force required to get the object in the air.) I'll just say that this is a lower limit for knocking over the AT-AT.
Mike's comment means the Abrams would be flying horizontally into the side of the AT-AT akin to an artillery shell. The GPE is not a legitimate way to calculate the side-impact lower limit threshold for toppling the AT-AT.

Okay. I'll try this again. The mass of an Abrams is about 60 000 kilograms. The speed that an artillery shell leaves the barrel could be anywhere from 500 m/s to 1 500 m/s. For now, I'll assume that it'our shell is travelling at 1 000 m/s when it hits the side of the AT-AT. So our shell will be hitting with a force of 60 000 000 N. It's a remarkable figure.

Still assuming that our mass driver missiles have a mass of 50 kilograms and they are hypersonic (which as you pointed out may be incorrect), it would take a salvo of at least 705 mass drivers to knock over an AT-AT. Again, we ignore the warheads.

Against an AT-AT, we would need an overwhelming number of LAAT/i ships to knock it over.

Hardy wrote:Now, it was mentioned that the mass drivers travel at hypersonic speeds (correct me if I'm wrong).
Did the missiles fired in AOTC glow like meteors for air ablation or appear to move many kilometers per second?

No. But I doubt there was any need for it. The range of the engagements were at very short range. A hypersonic speed would have just meant that it would have been nearly impossible to correct the trajectory of a missile to follow a moving target at the ranges they were used. Hitting a tank from 30 kilometers away would have been a more valid use for it. It's either that or I can ignore suspension of disbelief, which I won't.

Hardy wrote:This implies that the 50 kilogram missile is moving at least at 1 700 m/s when finished accelerating. At this speed, the missile has a force of 85 000 Newtons. That's just ignoring the warhead. Accoring to that it should take a salvo of at least thirteen mass drivers to knock over an AT-AT. Whether or not it could penetrate the armor is unknown.
They'd all have to hit simultaneously and like I said, assuming Mike is right, your calculations' premise is wrong.

Of course. My updated calculations say that the force required to topple one is equivilant to a hydrogen bomb. I doubt any army would try to use that amount of force.

Posted: **2004-07-21 12:05am**

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Many combat scenarios will proclude the use of high-kiloton warheads in an atmosphere, however.

Why? They're focused explosives. It would be no more dangerous than the AT-AT firing its guns at max power in the atmosphere (or an X-wing firing its guns at full power, for that matter.)

I mean one can easily knock out aircraft formations with proximity hits with a nuclear missile in modern day, but often times you cannot do that.

They're not omnidirectional. Try rereading the AOTC ICS if you don't believe me.

The tactical flexibility of something like an LAAT/i against an AT-AT could be rather limited.

Not really. Their missile loadouts are highly diversified (again this is discussed in detail in the AOTC ICS.) There's no reason an LAAT could not be capable of taking out an AT-AT.

Posted: **2004-07-21 12:36am**

Connor MacLeod wrote:Why? They're focused explosives. It would be no more dangerous than the AT-AT firing its guns at max power in the atmosphere (or an X-wing firing its guns at full power, for that matter.)

Those hundreds of kilotons of energy have to go somewhere; and the AT-AT gun bit is a red herring. The bolt is not interactive with the atmosphere; but warhead explosions are. Not to mention the intensity of the explosion from the AT-AT's guns was a kiloton-range event.

The same point was raised in the last AOTC "missiles were kiloton range" argument, and Mike as well as others asserted that you simply were not going to release kilotons of energy, focused or omnidirectional without larger blast effects than observed and therefore possible collateral damage.

Believe me, I'm not just being an asshole about this. I argued the exact same point you did in that thread. Basically, without extremely penetrative energy transfer (ie. some sort of rays which are totally noninteractive with rock, air, and organics, but completely with SW armor and metal alloys) and extreme specific heats would you be able to contain hundred kiloton yield directed blasts without extreme levels of energy release inconsistent with a nearby civilian population center akin to Geonosis.

Connor MacLeod wrote:They're not omnidirectional. Try rereading the AOTC ICS if you don't believe me.

Yup, I know. Two degree cones. I remember.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Not really. Their missile loadouts are highly diversified (again this is discussed in detail in the AOTC ICS.) There's no reason an LAAT could not be capable of taking out an AT-AT.

That's not the point. The point is, if AT-ATs are ever deployed in a context with a threat of politically unacceptable collateral damage, and requires such high-yield weapons, the LAAT/i could be rather constrained against that heavy armor.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why does the Empire not use LAAT/i or similar vehicles?

Why does the Empire not use LAAT/i or similar vehicles?