StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A while ago, when some people were calling the AT-OT a retarded design, WW2 half-tracks were brought up as a real-life example of military vehicles with exposed tops. It was said that if we could find the purpose of open tops on those half-tracks, we may come to a better understanding of the AT-OT.

Yesterday morning, I was channel surfing when I came across a documentary about APCs on the Military Channel. The documentary briefly covered WW2 half-tracks, and claimed that their tops were left open because an armored covering would have been too great a burden for the vehicles.

Why would the AT-OT have such a problem?

The databank at starwars.com offers its own explanation for the open top, stating that "the open nature of its flatbed can allow for more troops to pile in should missions require it." However, I don't think that makes any sense. Why would a top prevent the carrying of more troops? Isn't area, not height the key factor in whether or not the vehicle can carry more troops than it has seats for?

The only reason I could think of is that the AT-OT is supposed to be cheap, and an armored top was left out to cut costs. This wouldn't be a huge problem, since the AT-OT is only supposed to be used behind friendly lines.

The same measure was taken with an AT-TE cargo variant from the SW: Empire comics, but this carried cargo as well as people, and stacked it up high. It´s possible the AT-OT could have its seats easily removed and do the same thing. Easier to do if there´s no roof to begin with.

I'm a little surprised it doesn't have the ability to project a bubble shield over the open part, if needed.

Jim Raynor wrote:A while ago, when some people were calling the AT-OT a retarded design, WW2 half-tracks were brought up as a real-life example of military vehicles with exposed tops. It was said that if we could find the purpose of open tops on those half-tracks, we may come to a better understanding of the AT-OT.

The purpose was to save money and weight, nothing more. It left the vehicles highly vulnerable to artillery airbursts, grenades and anything fired from an elevated position. Though the armor was pretty damn thin in the first place. Even during WW2 much effort was made, at least by the US to field fully enclosed APCs. Postwar, the opened topped vehicles quickly faded from the scene in major armies, though lesser powers like Israel kept using them into the 1970's for lack of anything else. The Soviets where the exception, in its original form the BTR-60 was open topped as was the BTR-50, but the Soviets on the other hand fielded no APC's at all in WW2, there infantry road totally exposed on the back of tanks. So even partial protection was a big step up, though they kept installing handrails on tanks for infantry riders into the 1960's.

Yesterday morning, I was channel surfing when I came across a documentary about APCs on the Military Channel. The documentary briefly covered WW2 half-tracks, and claimed that their tops were left open because an armored covering would have been too great a burden for the vehicles.

Pretty much, fit an armored top and your cutting into the payload, which wasn't that great. Bigger half tracks would have been more expensive and numbers counted above all else when it came to the reequipping and massively expanding US Army.

Why would the AT-OT have such a problem?

The databank at starwars.com offers its own explanation for the open top, stating that "the open nature of its flatbed can allow for more troops to pile in should missions require it." However, I don't think that makes any sense. Why would a top prevent the carrying of more troops? Isn't area, not height the key factor in whether or not the vehicle can carry more troops than it has seats for?

The only reason I could think of is that the AT-OT is supposed to be cheap, and an armored top was left out to cut costs. This wouldn't be a huge problem, since the AT-OT is only supposed to be used behind friendly lines.

The fact that the AT-OT uses a horrendously complex walking system to move totally destroys even the suggestion that it could be an economy vehicle. Meanwhile, if it operates well behind enemy lines then artillery fire and air attacks would be the biggest threats. An armored roof is vital for protecting against such attacks. The fact that it has forward firing laser cannons also don't support the idea of it being a rear area only vehicle. If it only ever sat behind the lines, then its weapons should be oriented against air attacks

It's a stupid vehicle leave it at that. Sometimes really bad designs get into service in real life; the clone troopers seem to have had some bad luck in the procurement department.

True, the AT-OT has a glaring weakness, but judging from the impact of Separatist artillery (Hailfire droids on AT-TEs and Tri-droids on UT-ATs) having armor over your head seems like it wouldn´t matter much anyway. Why waste the extra-material?

VT-16 wrote:True, the AT-OT has a glaring weakness, but judging from the impact of Separatist artillery (Hailfire droids on AT-TEs and Tri-droids on UT-ATs) having armor over your head seems like it wouldn´t matter much anyway. Why waste the extra-material?

Artillery isn't the only threat, note the Separatist gunships strafing the wookies and clone troopers on Kashyyk. Then there is the simple issue of the enemy throwing a grenade in the open top, that destroyed countless halftracks and open topped tank destroyers in WW2. Its stupid, and a box of armor grade steel proof against light fire and fragments should cost little in the Star Wars universe, it sure wouldn't cost much today. A row of providing ports could be provided of course. Even a slight level of protection would be infinitely superior to nothing and they don't have it. The USMC LVTP5 can carry the same number of infantry, with all around armor and its much smaller. Though it also has gasoline fuel tanks in the floor.

Hey I know, maybe it was a ground-based launch platform for Jetpack troops?


Thank you Star Wars Battlefront for that inspiration for rationalization!

It's the equivalent of a truck. If this thing was better than an AT-AT, why would they switch it out later? Not that I find that it was necessary to put in a new, worse, walker for the same function. It's not terrible if you assume it's meant to operate under a shield where the troops are protected from the ground and there's no threat of air attacks, though it's hardly good either.

I'm also not fond of these centipede walkers. Even though I get the impression from the movies that it's actually easier to smack independantly functioning droid legs on something than wheels for some strange reason, I would prefer tracks on the SPHA like it was originally meant, and the new AT-UT practically screams for tracks as well.

nightmare wrote:It's the equivalent of a truck.

That's an absurd comparison. A truck has the benefit of simplicity and economy compared to armored vehicles. This vehicle is neither of those things and has a horrendously small capacity for its size. The large laser cannons also suggest some level of contact with the enemy is fully expected.

If this thing was better than an AT-AT, why would they switch it out later?

No one until now has mentioned the AT-AT so i fail to see why you have brought it up.

Not that I find that it was necessary to put in a new, worse, walker for the same function. It's not terrible if you assume it's meant to operate under a shield where the troops are protected from the ground and there's no threat of air attacks, though it's hardly good either.

A shield would help, but its still no excuse in view of the monstrous size of the thing. Its bad for combat and it makes a crappy transport. Thus it is a bad vehicle

I'm also not fond of these centipede walkers. Even though I get the impression from the movies that it's actually easier to smack independantly functioning droid legs on something than wheels for some strange reason, I would prefer tracks on the SPHA like it was originally meant, and the new AT-UT practically screams for tracks as well.

There is simply no justification for walkers. Even the need for height to mount LOS only blaster type weapons doesn't cut it. It would make far more sense to have the large bodies on the ground propelled by tracks or wheels, and instead of long legs you could simply build an armored tower topped by a turret on the back of the thing. Stability would be maintained by the vast majority of the weight being low in the hull. This arrangement would provide an all around field of fire to the main armament among other things.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

nightmare wrote:It's the equivalent of a truck.

That's an absurd comparison. A truck has the benefit of simplicity and economy compared to armored vehicles. This vehicle is neither of those things and has a horrendously small capacity for its size. The large laser cannons also suggest some level of contact with the enemy is fully expected.

Is it absurd? It transports people on an open bed, capacity isn't fixed. What more do you want? We have no idea what it costs, and even though it should be cheaper to make it wheeled, it isn't wheeled or tracked. Obviously that's not a concern. Heck, they use droid rickshaws on Tatooine. Apparently, advanced robotics is cheaper than wheels. You don't need to tell me it doesn't make sense. Find a way to explain it instead.

If this thing was better than an AT-AT, why would they switch it out later?

Sea Skimmer wrote:No one until now has mentioned the AT-AT so i fail to see why you have brought it up.

I thought that was pretty clear. If Venators were overall better than ISDs, why invent ISDs? If AT-OTs are better than AT-ATs, why invent AT-ATs? Clone War stuff can't be as good as OT stuff and make sense. When there's no prior vehicle presented in the same category, there isn't the same limitation for proper continuity.

I thought that was pretty clear. If Venators were overall better than ISDs, why invent ISDs? If AT-OTs are better than AT-ATs, why invent AT-ATs? Clone War stuff can't be as good as OT stuff and make sense. When there's no prior vehicle presented in the same category, there isn't the same limitation for proper continuity.

ISDs and VenSDs were contemporaries, as were the AT-OT and the AT-AT. Both the ISD and the AT-AT were manufactured during the Clone Wars. Niether was invented to replace the other.

The AT-OT and AT-AT were contemporaries. The ISD is just a little bit newer than the Venator, but replaced it because it was far tougher.

We really dont know if the Venstar was completly replaced. As a front line warship sure, but its fighter capacity still out classes anything a ISD could possibly feild. I always thought that it would be used as a support ship for fleet actions.

If this thing was better than an AT-AT, why would they switch it out later?

If anything, the Empire never learned to avoid these designs, judging from their open-top AT-TE transport. (And, yes, the AT-AT was a CW-era vehicle.)

Now, from the profile, it was said to be used behind the front-lines, where the chances of encountering enemy units was minimal. The weapons, big as they are, were just for defense.

I know that the AT-AT was really from the same era, but it's clearly a superior design over the AT-OT, which so far has no appearance later on. Logically, the AT-OT was either an inspiration for AT-ATs (there's no direct engineering lineage obviously), or the AT-OT must have been phased out in favour of a much better vehicle. Unless the imperial army suddenly went completely braindead for some unknown reason.

Venators doesn't fill the exact same role of ISDs; I just drew a parallell. "If Venators..."

Venators are a lot more of carriers and a lot less of cruiser. If it was replaced, it was probably so by another ship.

Better bring this up befor it turns to necromancy, the official profile states:

Kuat Drive Yards developed the All Terrain Open Transport as a basic overland troop carrier. Though the other vehicles in their AT-series are still considered transports, they trade armor and offensive capability for troop capacity. The AT-OT, conversely, is not recommended for direct combat. Although armed, it is better suited for behind-friendly-lines battlefield replenishment. It can carry 34 clone troopers in standard configuration, but the open nature of its flatbed can allow for more troops to pile in should missions require it.

That´s it, less armor and no roof just so they could pile in more troops. Yes, it´s stupid and dangerous, but we have plenty of examples of that in RL warfare, so the Republic/Empire can be allowed to make mistakes.

EDIT: As an additional note, perhaps the abundance of walker-based land vehicles stems from a history of using and manufacturing walking droids of various shapes and sizes? That the galactic community just got more used to making things that walk rather than roll or crawl?

nightmare wrote: Is it absurd? It transports people on an open bed, capacity isn't fixed. What more do you want? We have no idea what it costs, and even though it should be cheaper to make it wheeled, it isn't wheeled or tracked. Obviously that's not a concern. Heck, they use droid rickshaws on Tatooine. Apparently, advanced robotics is cheaper than wheels. You don't need to tell me it doesn't make sense. Find a way to explain it instead.

My explanation is incompetent procurement, something we witness of a regular basis in real life militaries.

I thought that was pretty clear. If Venators were overall better than ISDs, why invent ISDs?

You know, simply based on the massive size disparity between the two vessels, no comparison can be made. Different ships for different jobs. Just because we only see a limited number of vehicles and ships in the movies doesn't mean they are all direct linear replacements for each other.

If AT-OTs are better than AT-ATs, why invent AT-ATs?

That once more makes the totally unsupported leap of logic that the AT-AT replaced the AT-OT, which is once more a stupid assumption since the AT-AT is far larger.

Clone War stuff can't be as good as OT stuff and make sense.

Yeah it can be, you know one of the themes in Star Wars is very long term technological stagnation.

When there's no prior vehicle presented in the same category, there isn't the same limitation for proper continuity.

You're arguing that the AT-OT is a truck, and yet you're trying to place it in the same category as the AT-AT, which is quite clearly a very heavy assault vehicle. Does that make sense? No it doesn't. If the AT-OT is meant for rear area transport then there's in fact no reason why it couldn't be serving right alongside the AT-AT. We know the Empire has a very wide range of walkers of all sizes, witness the walker page on Star Wars Technical Commentaries.

The clear explanation for the AT-OT is that it's a heavy logistical vehicle meant to traverse rough terrain.

Sea Skimmer wrote:My explanation is incompetent procurement, something we witness of a regular basis in real life militaries.

For EVERY walker? How.. interesting.

Sea Skimmer wrote:You know, simply based on the massive size disparity between the two vessels, no comparison can be made. Different ships for different jobs. Just because we only see a limited number of vehicles and ships in the movies doesn't mean they are all direct linear replacements for each other. I thought that was pretty clear.

Thanks for totally missing the point.

Sea Skimmer wrote:That once more makes the totally unsupported leap of logic that the AT-AT replaced the AT-OT, which is once more a stupid assumption since the AT-AT is far larger. /quote]

You *may* notice that I drew a double parallell because there obviously isn't a direct one. They do, however, fill a similar function, regardless of your claims; transport troopers and fire weapons. We don't see the AT-OT fire, so we can't draw much conclusions about the purpose of its guns. We have seen AT-AT guns is use for anti-personnel, anti low altitude aircraft, and the heavy ones as artillery.

Clone War stuff can't be as good as OT stuff and make sense.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Yeah it can be, you know one of the themes in Star Wars is very long term technological stagnation.

When something is discontinued there should be a reason for it, comprende?

Sea Skimmer wrote:When there's no prior vehicle presented in the same category, there isn't the same limitation for proper continuity.

Sea Skimmer wrote:You're arguing that the AT-OT is a truck, and yet you're trying to place it in the same category as the AT-AT, which is quite clearly a very heavy assault vehicle. Does that make sense? No it doesn't. If the AT-OT is meant for rear area transport then there's in fact no reason why it couldn't be serving right alongside the AT-AT. We know the Empire has a very wide range of walkers of all sizes, witness the walker page on Star Wars Technical Commentaries.

The text says it's used for rear area transportation because it sucks. Is there any one thing the AT-OT can do that the AT-AT can't do better? The answer is no. Is the AT-AT vastle more expensive? Sure it's considerably larger, but it doesn't have eight legs.

So let's see if we can sum it up rather than doing these break-aways. You are arguing that the AT-OT is an "incompetent procurement", which works just fine as an explanation for the AT-OT but hardly explains the massive use of a wide range of walkers for decades.

You also argue that the AT-OT and the AT-AT are completely different vehicles, because of size difference, and, presumably because the AT-OT is used for rear area deployment. Implying that it was in fact meant for such all the time, rather than the Republic realizing it sucked and relegating it to rear area duty. I shouldn't need to tell you the weakness of this argumentation.

I'm not going to touch the whole Ventator thing because it was taken out of context and the spirit of argument ignored.

Did I get that right? I don't see much point in continuing this argument, however...

When something is discontinued there should be a reason for it, comprende?

*Sigh* "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The movie came out three months ago, give the EU time to decide if it´s gonna keep showing it or not. And we still have this on the Imperial side:

For EVERY walker? How.. interesting.

That’s a strawman of his argument.

They do, however, fill a similar function, regardless of your claims; transport troopers and fire weapons.

You’re clouding the issue. In reality, an open-topped walker doesn’t fulfill the same function as an armored transport. The AT-AT is clearly meant to enter the battlefield.

You also argue that the AT-OT and the AT-AT are completely different vehicles, because of size difference, and, presumably because the AT-OT is used for rear area deployment. Implying that it was in fact meant for such all the time, rather than the Republic realizing it sucked and relegating it to rear area duty. I shouldn't need to tell you the weakness of this argumentation.

Maybe you should.

Contemporary militaries have developed vehicles for that purpose. The Bren gun carrier, forerunner of modern tracked transports, was designed solely for rear area logistical use.