StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why have we never seen shields on SW ground vehicles and by that I mean things like Walkers?

Imagine how much nastier the AT-AT's would be if they had shields on top of their heavy armor. Thinking back to the battle of Geonosis where AT-TE's were being brought down by single missles from Hailfire droids you have to wonder why ground vehicles are not shielded. Far smaller vessels like Anakin's Nubian fighter in TPM was shielded against small arms fire and the LAATs repelled a high volume of fire as well but for some reason Walkers and lighter ground craft do not seem to be shielded.

Is this a function of the fact that the Walker's armor makes shielding them redundent? Is it a powerplant issue?

There´s shields on a type of Rebel tank in Force Commander, outside of that I´ve never seen any examples (unless you count Destroyer Droids as 'ground vehicles'). I guess it has to do with power issue for shields vs. power issue for guns + troop transport capability. (At least for the AT-TE and AT-ATs)

It might be that many militaries simply consider it superflous and expensive to mount shields on a heavily armored vehicle, let alone groups.

Some ground vehicles have shields, but none that I recall in the movies. I can't think of any good reason why they don't. Even if say, they didn't want shield-shield interactions when passing through a ground shield, you could just switch your vehicle shield off while passing it.

The AT-ATs actually look like they might have some kind of ray-shielding when you watch TESB. There are a lot of bright flashes slightly away from the hull, and it's not as if an AT-AT is such a small or fast-moving target that you would go for a flakburst rather than aiming for a direct hit, even assuming that SW weapons really can delay-fuse flakburst (an issue of some contention).

Yeah, weapon impacts on the AT-AT did seem rather odd, almost as if it had some sort of shielding. Seems a logical addition to protect the vulnerable design and keep the troopers inside safer.

I thought that you couldn't move while using ground-based shields, ref. the Gungans and the Droidekas.

Darth Wong wrote:The AT-ATs actually look like they might have some kind of ray-shielding when you watch TESB.

There's a particular instance where Rebel blaster artillery (one of the dish guns) hits an AT-AT in a knee joint (front right, IIRC). The knee starts to glow, the glow spreads across the leg, and then it dissipates. The impact was very similar in appearance to when the Star Destroyer (which we know has shields) was hit by the base's ion cannon.

The bit with the AT-AT is somewhat difficult. As was already pointed out, several of the flashes shown was away from the armor itself, yet on the other hand, Luke has said something along the lines of "that armor is too thick for our blasters" (I can't remember it exactly) and no mention of shields was brought up. I was thinking that maybe Rebel intel wasn't aware of the capability, but that didn't seem too likely. Not sure myself.

As far as the ion cannon, I thought the shot penetrated the shields and spread along the hull?

apocolypse wrote:The bit with the AT-AT is somewhat difficult. As was already pointed out, several of the flashes shown was away from the armor itself, yet on the other hand, Luke has said something along the lines of "that armor is too thick for our blasters" (I can't remember it exactly) and no mention of shields was brought up. I was thinking that maybe Rebel intel wasn't aware of the capability, but that didn't seem too likely. Not sure myself.

Whose to say by armor, they didnt mean both the actual metal and the shield covering it? After all, many SW shielding systems generate skin tight fields, thus making them effectively "armor."

Noble Ire wrote:Whose to say by armor, they didnt mean both the actual metal and the shield covering it? After all, many SW shielding systems generate skin tight fields, thus making them effectively "armor."

It's not impossible that it was meant as you said, but the wording would be a bit odd since you'd think it'd be mentioned. Something more along the lines of "the shields are blocking our blasters" as opposed to "the armor is too thick". *shrugs shoulders*

It might be that not every rebel flying the SnowSpeeders knows AT-AT technical specs and Luke just couldn't be fucked being that specific?

apocolypse wrote:

Noble Ire wrote:Whose to say by armor, they didnt mean both the actual metal and the shield covering it? After all, many SW shielding systems generate skin tight fields, thus making them effectively "armor."

It's not impossible that it was meant as you said, but the wording would be a bit odd since you'd think it'd be mentioned. Something more along the lines of "the shields are blocking our blasters" as opposed to "the armor is too thick". *shrugs shoulders*

The AT-TEs in the AOTC:ICS have "powered armor". And there are plenty of EU examples of starships that have armor that is enhanced by ray shields (eg. slave-1).

As an interesting side-note, ,according to the ANH novel, stormtrooper armor has "shielding" of some sort as well. (which fits with the OT VD descriptions listing belt-mounted "energy/heat sinks" on the armor uniform. The OT VD also lists TIE fighter pilot suits as being "energy shielded" as well.

Connor MacLeod wrote:The OT VD also lists TIE fighter pilot suits as being "energy shielded" as well.

Rebel pilot suits are also shielded, particularly around the face in order to maintain atmosphere and air pressure if the pilot has to eject.

As a side issue, is there an in-universe theory for the Clone and Rebel Pilot's open facemasks? I know that OOC they do it so we can see the character's expressions, but in-universe it seems a waste to equip the helmets with forcefields instead of, say, a thin piece of transparisteel.

Yeah, AT-ATs definately have shielding of some sort... Given their assault role it would be stupid for the Empire NOT to install shielding.

weemadando wrote:Yeah, AT-ATs definately have shielding of some sort... Given their assault role it would be stupid for the Empire NOT to install shielding.

Also, I seem to remember after the Rebel's tripped an AT-AT up they strafed the head and blew it up. Or am I being delusional?

They were firing at a vulnerability in the neck that had been exposed, I believe.

Ford Prefect wrote:

weemadando wrote:Yeah, AT-ATs definately have shielding of some sort... Given their assault role it would be stupid for the Empire NOT to install shielding.

Also, I seem to remember after the Rebel's tripped an AT-AT up they strafed the head and blew it up. Or am I being delusional?

No, that happened, although it may have been more of a matter of attacking the then-vounerable neck section. The shield theory makes more sense though, or a combination of the two.

Firefox wrote:They were firing at a vulnerability in the neck that had been exposed, I believe.

If the neck was always vulnerable then they could have simply dive down and shot at it in the first place. It makes more sense that the walkers had shields, but when the walker collapsed it lost them and that left some areas like the neck without sufficient passive protection to be safe

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Firefox wrote:They were firing at a vulnerability in the neck that had been exposed, I believe.

If the neck was always vulnerable then they could have simply dive down and shot at it in the first place. It makes more sense that the walkers had shields, but when the walker collapsed it lost them and that left some areas like the neck without sufficient passive protection to be safe

Yeah, that was what I was suggesting. I'll tell you what, life would have been easier if the Rebel's could have used X-Wings, let me tell you.

Ford Prefect wrote: Yeah, that was what I was suggesting. I'll tell you what, life would have been easier if the Rebel's could have used X-Wings, let me tell you.

A suitable heavy anti tank missile would have worked just as well, and as we see from the Hailfire driod in AOTC, such missiles exist. Air attacks have always been a good way of countering armored vehicles, but if your going to be attacked by heavy armor, you really want a defence, which is ground based.

Sea Skimmer wrote: A suitable heavy anti tank missile would have worked just as well, and as we see from the Hailfire driod in AOTC, such missiles exist. Air attacks have always been a good way of countering armored vehicles, but if your going to be attacked by heavy armor, you really want a defence, which is ground based.

I bow before your knowledge of military tactics. I just mentioned it because Antilles and a couple of his fly-boys take on a couple of AT-ATs and defeat them quite easily. However, they only attacked the head and neck. One of the pilots comments that it could have been easier (One proton torp for each AT-AT) but is rebutted with the idea that that would have been overkill.

A suitable heavy anti tank missile would have worked just as well, and as we see from the Hailfire driod in AOTC, such missiles exist. Air attacks have always been a good way of countering armored vehicles, but if your going to be attacked by heavy armor, you really want a defence, which is ground based.

The armor on an AT-AT may be significantly heavy to stop any ground based missle that most could practically throw at it (after all, AT-TEs were maded to be mobile and easily carried by LAAT/ts from point to point.)
And even of there are missiles that are heavy enough (probable), the Rebels were hardly as well equipt as the CIS, they threw together their defenses from a variety of abandoned, stolen, and black market machinery, hardly top of the line. The speeder were the best they had at their disposal for the time being.

In a previous discussion of the Battle of Hoth, it was suggested that even if the rebels could afford to use their torpedoes against the AT-ATs, the blast could have collapsed Echo Base, since even far-off AT-AT footfalls caused snow to fall from the walls and ceiling, and the low-kt explosion of the shield generator collapsed a few tunnels.

apocolypse wrote:

Noble Ire wrote:Whose to say by armor, they didnt mean both the actual metal and the shield covering it? After all, many SW shielding systems generate skin tight fields, thus making them effectively "armor."

It's not impossible that it was meant as you said, but the wording would be a bit odd since you'd think it'd be mentioned. Something more along the lines of "the shields are blocking our blasters" as opposed to "the armor is too thick". *shrugs shoulders*

Armor may also be refeering to the vehicle its self as Armor as the army version of the word