StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Watching my SW DVD set, I wondered about a tactic the Rebels didn't use against the AT-AT's at the battle of Hoth.

The AT-AT's were slow moving targets capable of being knocked over. They presumeably started towards the Rebel base from many kilometers away. Why didn't the Rebels just launch and detonate a nuclear warhead near the center of the group? Like this. The energy release might not have destroyed them, but the atmospheric shockwave should knock them over, easily. Given the diffculty which the AT-ATs had shooting down the large fighter craft heading towards them, you'd think a much smaller and faster missile/projectile package armed with a nuclear payload would have a excellent chance of getting through. AT-AT's knocked over by enormous pressure wave, problem solved.

Or am I missing something?

Robert Walper wrote:Or am I missing something?

Yeah. The Rebel troopers in the ground would have been killed by the shockwave (AT-ATs were too close all ready).

I don't know. By the end of the battle, the AT-ATs were still 17 kilometers away (according to the targetting guy). If they had evacuated their troops, they might have been able to use some sort of large explosion that would be enough to knock over the AT-ATs but not kill the troops. Maybe a quarter of the Hiroshima blast would do it?

I think you might be missing the fact that they might not have had any extra missiles to spare.

Lord Revan wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:Or am I missing something?

Yeah. The Rebel troopers in the ground would have been killed by the shockwave (AT-ATs were too close all ready).

Wouldnt they be protected by the shield?

Lord Revan wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:Or am I missing something?

Yeah. The Rebel troopers in the ground would have been killed by the shockwave (AT-ATs were too close all ready).

Is there some reason the troops need to be outside if you're going to deploy a nuclear shell at the enemy that will effectively immobilze them? I seem to recall a huge ass blast door for the Rebel base...

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I think you might be missing the fact that they might not have had any extra missiles to spare.

Rebels forces capable of fighting a Galactic Empire that tosses around gigaton yield weaponry without a second thought can't find a spare kiloton yield shell or missile?

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I don't know. By the end of the battle, the AT-ATs were still 17 kilometers away (according to the targetting guy). If they had evacuated their troops, they might have been able to use some sort of large explosion that would be enough to knock over the AT-ATs but not kill the troops. Maybe a quarter of the Hiroshima blast would do it?

I suggest you people research the blast effects of explosions (nuclear or otherwise). You'll be surprised.

Gustav32Vasa wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:Or am I missing something?

Yeah. The Rebel troopers in the ground would have been killed by the shockwave (AT-ATs were too close all ready).

Wouldnt they be protected by the shield?

Nope the AT-AT were all ready under the shield

Robert Walper wrote:Is there some reason the troops need to be outside if you're going to deploy a nuclear shell at the enemy that will effectively immobilze them? I seem to recall a huge ass blast door for the Rebel base...

The Rebels didn't know what coming. After all the Imp attack could have been something you can defeat with conventinal weapons.

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I don't know. By the end of the battle, the AT-ATs were still 17 kilometers away (according to the targetting guy). If they had evacuated their troops, they might have been able to use some sort of large explosion that would be enough to knock over the AT-ATs but not kill the troops. Maybe a quarter of the Hiroshima blast would do it?

We don't how far the Shield generator was from frontlines, but no of Rebeltroopers killed by it's destruction so it was probaly quite far away.

Batman wrote:

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I don't know. By the end of the battle, the AT-ATs were still 17 kilometers away (according to the targetting guy). If they had evacuated their troops, they might have been able to use some sort of large explosion that would be enough to knock over the AT-ATs but not kill the troops. Maybe a quarter of the Hiroshima blast would do it?

I suggest you people research the blast effects of explosions (nuclear or otherwise). You'll be surprised.

Care to elaborate? Do we have reason to believe the AT-AT's would not have been knocked over by such a tactic?

Lord Revan wrote:

Gustav32Vasa wrote: Wouldnt they be protected by the shield?

Nope the AT-AT were all ready under the shield

A moot point, since you can keep your troops inside the well shielded base (ie: huge blast doors).

Robert Walper wrote:Is there some reason the troops need to be outside if you're going to deploy a nuclear shell at the enemy that will effectively immobilze them? I seem to recall a huge ass blast door for the Rebel base...

The Rebels didn't know what coming. After all the Imp attack could have been something you can defeat with conventinal weapons.

The Rebel General knew damn well the Empire was going to send a ground assault. He knew before the empire even deployed one.

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I don't know. By the end of the battle, the AT-ATs were still 17 kilometers away (according to the targetting guy). If they had evacuated their troops, they might have been able to use some sort of large explosion that would be enough to knock over the AT-ATs but not kill the troops. Maybe a quarter of the Hiroshima blast would do it?

We don't how far the Shield generator was from frontlines, but no of Rebeltroopers killed by it's destruction so it was probaly quite far away.

I don't see why troops would've been needed to be deployed at all.

The Rebel General knew damn well the Empire was going to send a ground assault. He knew before the empire even deployed one.

Because the Empire has more then one type of APCs, the defencive blaster batteries could defeated an attack that had other APCs then AT-AT(which is a heavy APC), so he wouldn't need to use his all ready small supply warheads.

I don't see why troops would've been needed to be deployed at all.

and with what are you gonna stop the surviving Snowtroopers?

Lord Revan wrote:

The Rebel General knew damn well the Empire was going to send a ground assault. He knew before the empire even deployed one.

Because the Empire has more then one type of APCs, the defencive blaster batteries could defeated an attack that other APCs then AT-AT(which is a heavy APC), so he wouldn't need to use his all ready small supply warheads.

The Rebel's primary base of operations is under heavy assault, and they can't spare one little nuclear warhead that is pitiful next to the type of firepower they have available otherwise?

I don't see why troops would've been needed to be deployed at all.

and with what are you gonna stop the surviving Snowtroopers?

Deploy your troops after the AT-AT's are knocked out of commision. This is hardly diffcult reasoning. Hell, you probably still wouldn't need to deploy troops. Take them out with available air power and vehicles afterwards. Reducing the Empire's assault to Stormtroopers kilometers away is already a great tactical advantage.

I once wondered why the Rebels just didn't plant a few command detonated nuclear mines around the base, then I realized that setting a few nukes off would have brought the base down from the shockwaves. The AT-ATs were causing minor damage from just their weight moving across the plain, and I imagine a couple of kilotons of righteous nuclear explosions would have shaken the base apart.

Deathstalker wrote:I once wondered why the Rebels just didn't plant a few command detonated nuclear mines around the base, then I realized that setting a few nukes off would have brought the base down from the shockwaves. The AT-ATs were causing minor damage from just their weight moving across the plain, and I imagine a couple of kilotons of righteous nuclear explosions would have shaken the base apart.

I find it a bit hard to believe the Rebel base would be so unstable that a kiloton surface blast kilometers away is going to bring down the walls and kill everyone. The impact tremors caused by the AT-AT's didn't do much else then bring down some loose snow and ice in the base IIRC.

Robert Walper wrote:The AT-AT's were slow moving targets capable of being knocked over.

Clearly there exists a need here to determine just how easy it is to knock an AT-AT on its side when its legs aren't bound with a tow cable. Now, it's been a couple months since I last saw ESB, but I don't remember that happening, so I'm pretty sure we haven't got movie evidence. I guess that means it's off to the novels, and I don't have any relevent quotes off the top of my head.

Do we have reason to believe the AT-AT's would not have been knocked over by such a tactic?

Given that, so far, outside the unjustified claim that they had no such warheads to spare, we have no reason to believe that the Rebels would not launch such a warhead if it was a viable tactic. Therefore, it is my opinion that the burden of proof rests on you to show that a blast capable of knocking over the AT-ATs would not have to be so large as to critically damage Echo Base and/or the preperations to evacuate, which were already underway and demonstrably occured, at least in part, outside the base.

Robert Walper wrote:I find it a bit hard to believe the Rebel base would be so unstable that a kiloton surface blast kilometers away is going to bring down the walls and kill everyone. The impact tremors caused by the AT-AT's didn't do much else then bring down some loose snow and ice in the base IIRC.

We're not talking Cheyenne mountain here. Echo base was tunneled out of ice, snow and some rock with not a lot of reinforcement. I wouldn't want to be around when a nuke goes off. The fact that ice and snow was falling because of the AT-ATs indicates to me that the base couldn't handle much shaking.

Reason one: As seen in the scene when Luke gets in his fighter, the transports are too big to fit inside the base and as such were brought in to facilitate the evacuation. Any use of a high yeild explosion would stand the chance of damaging or destroying the transports and make loading them impossible while weapons are in use. Better to move out as fast as possible rather than to risk this.

Reason two: There are several Star Destroyers in orbit able to deploy troops and units to the surface. the object it to slow them down not cause as much damage as possible. This base was almost brand new with barely enough time to have set up major defenses. The base was intended to not be notice rather then being a fortress. Detroying this wave of AT-At would be a waste of preacious torpedos.

Reason three: The Base is not built as a atrificial structure but incoperated into a series of natural snow cave in the ice of the planet Hoth. As such they can't possible be ready to take the shock wave of such and defensive measure. The doors you mention are blast doors but would only protect the hanger. This area is the only are of the base that appears to have been reinforced at the time of the battle.

Reason four: The base has been found. There in no chance of holding the base now. Why waste your most expensive weapons on a useless defense measure .

The point is the holding action as staged in the movie worked. The Rebels were able to get most of their equiptment and personell onto the transports and off the planet. After that the General's job is done. Veers may have taken out the power generators, but the reason to attack was a failure. Rebel personell had ecsaped.

Doesn't anyone remember that they expected their artillery and snowspeeders backed up with troops to be able to handle the attack?

The AT-ATs were supported by dedicated AAW platforms: AT-AAs. They simply are "off-screen" in the film.

Alan Bolte wrote: Clearly there exists a need here to determine just how easy it is to knock an AT-AT on its side when its legs aren't bound with a tow cable. Now, it's been a couple months since I last saw ESB, but I don't remember that happening, so I'm pretty sure we haven't got movie evidence. I guess that means it's off to the novels, and I don't have any relevent quotes off the top of my head.

Given the height of AT-AT's (high center of gravity), and surface area of such vehicles (upper body would absorb alot more force over a larger area), I don't see any reason why the AT-AT's couldn't have been knocked over by such a blast.

Furthermore, we see what happens when a AT-AT takes internal damage caused by a hand held explosive device tossed into it. It falls over on it's side on own accord. That suggests the vehicles require some control in order to maintain balanced state.

Given that, so far, outside the unjustified claim that they had no such warheads to spare, we have no reason to believe that the Rebels would not launch such a warhead if it was a viable tactic. Therefore, it is my opinion that the burden of proof rests on you to show that a blast capable of knocking over the AT-ATs would not have to be so large as to critically damage Echo Base and/or the preperations to evacuate, which were already underway and demonstrably occured, at least in part, outside the base.

Given that the AT-AT's were still over 17 kilometers away from the main base before destryoing the main power generator, it stands to reason the Rebels could've launched such an attack when they were even further away. Distance alone should reduce the effects of such a blast by several orders of magnitude.

Also, we see that the Rebel power generator explodes violently very near or directly over the Rebel base, and the damage caused by such a blast isn't as extensive as you'd suggest it should be.

And in regards to this absurd claim of "precious" torpedoes the Rebels won't use even when their primary base of operations is under attack, is there some reason they cannot just fire off a ship mounted TL set for a flak burst in the kiloton range?

From what? Their unarmed transports?

Wasn't the Flak setting disproven, anyway?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The AT-ATs were supported by dedicated AAW platforms: AT-AAs. They simply are "off-screen" in the film.

So "off-screen" that they failed to engage the Rebel Snowspeeders which destroyed several AT-ATs.

Robert Walper wrote:Watching my SW DVD set, I wondered about a tactic the Rebels didn't use against the AT-AT's at the battle of Hoth.

The AT-AT's were slow moving targets capable of being knocked over. They presumeably started towards the Rebel base from many kilometers away. Why didn't the Rebels just launch and detonate a nuclear warhead near the center of the group? Like this. The energy release might not have destroyed them, but the atmospheric shockwave should knock them over, easily. Given the diffculty which the AT-ATs had shooting down the large fighter craft heading towards them, you'd think a much smaller and faster missile/projectile package armed with a nuclear payload would have a excellent chance of getting through. AT-AT's knocked over by enormous pressure wave, problem solved.

Or am I missing something?

Have you actually done any calcs to determine just how much of a blast wave is needed to knock over an AT-AT? Before discussing the validity of the tactic one needs to know just what kind of yield is neccesary to accomplish this. Parrticularly since given the size of the AT-AT it could easily mass as much as a tank if not more (WOTC for example suggests an AT-AT might mass as much as 200 tons)

It looks from me you either need to do some homework on this, or present your evidence as to the requirements for knocking over said AT-AT.