Imperial Walker versus 40K Anti-Armor Weapons

[Black Admiral]

The problem with 40k is that the power of the titan in question is dependent on the plot. In the Eisenhorn trilogy a deamonhost crushes a Titan in a couple seconds with minimal effort, in the Titanicus Novels Titans are nigh indestructible.

Given the company Cherubael gets mentioned in in Grey Knights - N'Kari and Doombreed - he's not exactly on the list of minor daemons.

[Simon_Jester]

Easier to kill, yes, but built and armored to the same scale- more than capable of shrugging off all but the heaviest Imperium man-portable antitank weapons, if it can handle snowspeeder blaster cannon. I really think that in 40k it would be a superheavy with structure points, just not with shielding. It might not be a really powerful superheavy, but it'd be up in that range.

And yes, the Imperium certainly has weapons to take care of such problems. It's just outside the province of the 40k equivalent of infantry with bazookas.

I could easily see the ATAT as an armor 13, 13, 12 superheavy with two structure points. But honestly I don't see its weaponry as being substantially better than two twin-linked lascannons with co-axial mounted multi-lasers.

EDIT: Now that I think about it they probably should be S 9 AP 2 Blast versions of a lascannon.

Interesting, but my intuition keeps telling me that the snowspeeder guns were lascannon-equivalent weapons, or at least fairly close. Lascannon-armed tank hunting aircraft are known in 40k; the Imperial Guard has them.

If I had to stat an AT-AT I'd give it AV 14 for that reason- give it more resistance to what was (I think) supposed to be heavy energy weapon fire.

[Pictures Hoth suddenly getting fwoomped into 40k tabletop rules]

"Glancing hits... that armor's too strong for blasters! Use your harpoons and tow cables, make them pass a Dangerous Terrain test!"

And yes, I know, that kind of stat line doesn't convey much about the unit's capabilities- but it does slot the unit into a reasonable frame of reference for 40k, which is useful if we want to talk about it in qualitative terms.

Hmmm. Thinking about it further, though, I'd want to give them some kind of special rule that penalizes them in close-range combat, to reflect the ability of nearby units to fire up into the walker's underside and its lack of close-in defensive weapons. Something like "units within 12" of an AT-AT get a +1 (+2?) to armor penetration rolls against it."

I think you all missed one major thing. The same major thing the rebells missed.
AT-AT walkers are huge freaking walkers. Just attack the ground beneath them. Detonate an earthshaker round between their legs and even if they don't get blown up they will still fall into the resulting pit quite nicely. And Emperor knows the IOM has more than enough HE rounds to go around.

Artillery shells don't reliably create big enough craters to stop AT-ATs. AT-ATs have surprising flexibility in the leg joints; they can't scale cliffs and I doubt they handle a steep slope well, but I wouldn't expect them to be stopped by any crater that wasn't a large fraction of their own volume.

Trying to stop them by shelling the ground around them is going to take a while.

[Connor MacLeod]

Fuck this thread exploded in my absence. I'm too lazy to do separate posts.

Flavorwise, I would expect some of the heavier Imperium infantry antitank weapons to at least scratch an AT-AT, and maybe do cumulative damage that was worth something from sufficient concentrated fire; massed lascannon and krak missile fire can do significant damage to Titan-class ground units. But it takes a shitload of that kind of fire. Melta weapons are classically what the Imperium uses for dealing with really big armor, but as noted they have serious range limitations.

The only such case I can recall offhand is Dark Apostle, and that was large numbers of word bearers. Ususally "conventional" forces require large numbers (a company or more) of tanks getting under the void shields and blasting the titan at close range. even then, they take massive casualties in doing so and aren't guaranteed a hit. You also need something like a Vanquisher cannon (minimum) to penetrate Titan armour with projectile weapons, but even then it's not guaranteed (as shown in Titanicus.)
That said, AT-ATs are unlikely to be as durable as Titans. They're more like a super-heavy tank than a Titan.
***************************************************************************

That's 40 miles an hour?

No, but what's your point? surely you aren't arguing that AT-ATs are limited to ONE SPEED ONLY?

They have the firepower and armor edge over the rebels, slowing down to bombard them before invasion makes sense. remember they are less like tanks in this regard and more like an assault gun/artillery gun.

***************************************************************************

Connor I'm not going crazy in saying that the weapons on the front of the ATAT seem to be lascannon comparable am I?

you do realize that like many 40K weapons "lascannon" can range from "man portable' variants used in anti tank duties by space Marines and the Guard to upwards of the kinds mounted on Land Raiders, Fighters, and sometimes serving as point defence on Capital ships, right? The man portable ones are likely to be megajoule to gigajoule range, and that is a pretty wide range considering it depends on the damage mechanism involved and other factors (model/quality, number of shots gotten out of the power pack, whether it simply melts/vaporizes in a pure thermal damage mechanism, or it uses explosive mechanical damage effects, etc.) On the higher end of the scale is probably GW-TW, depending on what is mounting it and what its powerplant is. It overlaps with Titan grade turbolasers and the low end of defence lasers at that point.

Name a single IG legion that does not have access to a mechanized transport.

Many actually. Infantry regiments are more common than fully mechanised, although that's referencing purely organic transport. If circumstances require it and the logistics allow it, they can and do receive transports from Munitorum stockpiles, or they may requisition it from a planet. Especially garrison forces. Some regiments may be partially mechanized though. Anyhow, stop being a fanboy.
******************************************************************************

There is some evidence to suggest that an AT-AT does have shields, though they may be extremely close to the hull.

They also can't stand up to X-wing fire, as Isard's REvenge demonstrates, shields or no shields. You're probably talking kilotons in a matter of seconds at best.

So explain the fact that it isn't an uncommon sight to see Leman Russes running on things other than the fuel they were designed for, with some companies lacking things like powered turret traverse or gun stabilizers?

Leman Russ run on different sorts of powerplants, depending on who builds them and the situation warranting them. Their equipment also varies like that. Frankly I want to know what source you're basing this all on, since it runs contrary to what I am aware of.

Or the guard having such differing levels of tech that what would be something one unit would consider junk would be a godsend to many guard legions? They have durable tech, but it is very uneven and often not working at full steam due to age, repair, or simply a lack of the needed technology in the first place.

Again I want to know what source you're pulling this from. And that may include up to quotes if I don't know what the hell you are referencing, just so we're clear on this.

Where as every GE force will be mechanized if the mission demands it, the IoM might not be able to field a mechanized legion if they had to.

And you're basing this on what? AS I recall the Imperial military, which includes the imperial Army, the Navy, etc. are not mechanized (ISB, the stuff put out by WOTC, etc.) Hell, they apparently can't even ensure that all Imperial Army squads have at least one light repeater, nevermind other support weapons.

While one unit of guard might have tanks centuries old the GE will have equipment younger than they are.

This is a huge factor and it wouldn't be unexpected if things as ancient as Titans had their own ticks and quirks and that even with care not all of them should be expected to be at full strength.

You do realize the Imperium is constantly losing and making new tanks right? They have older tanks, but the age never seems to affect quality if its built right, which means the "old" tanks tend to be higher-level tech. It's that whole IMPERIUM'S TECHNOLOGY IS DYING grimdark meme. I'd frankly like to see something more substantial than "vague, qualitative allusion" if you're going ot make an argument.

**********************************************************************************

60 kph is the canon speed since back I-have-no-idea-when. (I would bet it derives from some early WEG book, though; probably the original Star Wars Sourcebook, if not the basic RPG book itself.) It was reprinted in the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, the original trilogy ICS, and numerous other books.

It's not in the 1st edition SWSB, since I have tat in hardback (the stats were much sparser back then.) It likely comes from 2nd edition, as that was about when the stat block we're more familir with came into being (EG space units, consumables, etc.)

AT-ATs upgraded with superior firepower, at least, were operable as of Dark Empire II (in Imperial service). About shielding, I have no idea.

You do realize that "turbolaser" can encompass a wide scale and variety of weapons right? I mean for fuck's sake, some sources have fighters using turbolasers. Are you going to tell me that X-wings can suddenly shoot out gigatons of energy?

Somewhat on topic, some of the wankier EU armoured vehicles and 'droids can supposedly be equipped with firepower equivalent to capital ship-grade turbolasers (explicitly stated for the X-1 Viper from Dark Empire II; source would be the original Essential Guide to Droids). Presumably those would be the very lightest kind, but that should still mean walkers substantially smaller than AT-ATs can wield multi-megatons if we take that seriously. So there is at least no theoretical reason why an upgunned AT-AT or dedicated artillery platform should not be able to dish out figures in that ballpark. Which should be equal or superior to what I understand to be the higher-end Titan figures. (I might be wrong, though, not having read many/most of the Titans-related books and basing substantial parts of my knowledge of them off what is posted on this board.)

They aren't capital ship-kililng turbolasers, since the recoil of such would be impossible to control without extensive force field anchoring and bracing. EG you couldn't move and fire. Nevermind the enviromental effects of unleashing such firepower.

Besides, most other sources (SPHA-T, the MAS-2xB repulsor TL, etc.) are fucking huge, sluggish platforms the size of a fucking HTL battery, which a viper is not. I suppose SW made a massive orders of magnitude technological leap in a matter of years?

[Simon_Jester]

That said, AT-ATs are unlikely to be as durable as Titans. They're more like a super-heavy tank than a Titan.

Yes, but their armor protection is quite good- I'd expect something Vanquisher-class to be pretty much necessary too; krak missiles and the standard HE rounds from a Leman Russ probably aren't going to cut it if snowspeeder blaster cannon won't.

What AT-ATs lack is integral shielding and the sheer physical size of the larger Titans, both of which reduce their durability. A dedicated Titan-hunter unit like a Shadowblade would probably do a very good job as an AT-AT killer.

Connor I'm not going crazy in saying that the weapons on the front of the ATAT seem to be lascannon comparable am I?

you do realize that like many 40K weapons "lascannon" can range from "man portable' variants used in anti tank duties by space Marines and the Guard to upwards of the kinds mounted on Land Raiders, Fighters, and sometimes serving as point defence on Capital ships, right? The man portable ones are likely to be megajoule to gigajoule range, and that is a pretty wide range considering it depends on the damage mechanism involved and other factors (model/quality, number of shots gotten out of the power pack, whether it simply melts/vaporizes in a pure thermal damage mechanism, or it uses explosive mechanical damage effects, etc.) On the higher end of the scale is probably GW-TW, depending on what is mounting it and what its powerplant is. It overlaps with Titan grade turbolasers and the low end of defence lasers at that point.

I think Todeswind is referring to something a bit heavier than man-portable lascannon, but lighter than the big weapons mounted on Titan-class units. His suggested tabletop description for AT-AT main guns was a lascannon with a blast template- quite effective against anything less than superheavy armor, though a bit light for taking on rival superheavies.

I know tabletop isn't a guide to fluff reliably, but that should at least give you a frame of reference for what kind of weapons he's trying to compare AT-AT main guns to: something that packs broadly the same kind of punch as large-caliber artillery shells, but more tightly focused and direct-fire. As opposed to the kind of catastrophic firepower you get from a volcano cannon or something.

[Todeswind]

Name a single IG legion that does not have access to a mechanized transport.

Many actually. Infantry regiments are more common than fully mechanised, although that's referencing purely organic transport. If circumstances require it and the logistics allow it, they can and do receive transports from Munitorum stockpiles, or they may requisition it from a planet. Especially garrison forces. Some regiments may be partially mechanized though

Connor I was referring to legions that have not access to transports what so ever for any reason. While there are numerous examples of IG legions that are traditionally infantry armies, for any number of reasons, I cannot think of any specific legion that hasn't got any access to tanks at all. They may not have the entirety of their forces mounted inside of transports, but I'm honestly hard pressed to name an IG legion that does not have access to at least a couple of transports.

The people for whom IG tanks and technology are a "Godsend" in the way Norade is referring to it are usually backwater PDF on worlds fighting the Bloodpact or something like that.

Connor I'm not going crazy in saying that the weapons on the front of the ATAT seem to be lascannon comparable am I?

you do realize that like many 40K weapons "lascannon" can range from "man portable' variants used in anti tank duties by space Marines and the Guard to upwards of the kinds mounted on Land Raiders, Fighters, and sometimes serving as point defence on Capital ships, right? The man portable ones are likely to be megajoule to gigajoule range, and that is a pretty wide range considering it depends on the damage mechanism involved and other factors (model/quality, number of shots gotten out of the power pack, whether it simply melts/vaporizes in a pure thermal damage mechanism, or it uses explosive mechanical damage effects, etc.) On the higher end of the scale is probably GW-TW, depending on what is mounting it and what its powerplant is. It overlaps with Titan grade turbolasers and the low end of defence lasers at that point.

I think Todeswind is referring to something a bit heavier than man-portable lascannon, but lighter than the big weapons mounted on Titan-class units. His suggested tabletop description for AT-AT main guns was a lascannon with a blast template- quite effective against anything less than superheavy armor, though a bit light for taking on rival superheavies.

I know tabletop isn't a guide to fluff reliably, but that should at least give you a frame of reference for what kind of weapons he's trying to compare AT-AT main guns to: something that packs broadly the same kind of punch as large-caliber artillery shells, but more tightly focused and direct-fire. As opposed to the kind of catastrophic firepower you get from a volcano cannon or something.

Yes this is exactly what I was referring to.

[Darth Hoth]

60 kph is the canon speed since back I-have-no-idea-when. (I would bet it derives from some early WEG book, though; probably the original Star Wars Sourcebook, if not the basic RPG book itself.) It was reprinted in the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, the original trilogy ICS, and numerous other books.

It's not in the 1st edition SWSB, since I have tat in hardback (the stats were much sparser back then.) It likely comes from 2nd edition, as that was about when the stat block we're more familir with came into being (EG space units, consumables, etc.)

Ah. That sounds about right.

AT-ATs upgraded with superior firepower, at least, were operable as of Dark Empire II (in Imperial service). About shielding, I have no idea.

You do realize that "turbolaser" can encompass a wide scale and variety of weapons right? I mean for fuck's sake, some sources have fighters using turbolasers. Are you going to tell me that X-wings can suddenly shoot out gigatons of energy?

You mean the K-wing? I believe that was retconned (sensibly, for once) that it did not sport "real" turbolasers, but rather it was a brand name or something.

And while I generally prefer turbolaser to mean heavier weapons (in excess of most blaster/laser cannons) . . . no, I am not arguing for gigatons, here. All I said was that, on the topic of possibly upgraded AT-ATs, there have been upgraded variants around with boosted firepower. By how much it was boosted is unspecified. Though as you note, their main weapons were indeed called turbolasers in the comic.

On topic of fighters, the Utapauan Porax-38 was outfitted with a hypermatter power plant that could generate multi-megatons per second on maximum load. So theoretically, at least, it should be possible to outfit fighters with energy weapons quite a bit heavier than the usual single-digit kilotons (though still not gigatons). Although, as usual, there are probably trade-offs; the Porax was quite big, and also a fairly high-end fighter from what I understood of its entry in the RotS:ICS.

Somewhat on topic, some of the wankier EU armoured vehicles and 'droids can supposedly be equipped with firepower equivalent to capital ship-grade turbolasers (explicitly stated for the X-1 Viper from Dark Empire II; source would be the original Essential Guide to Droids). Presumably those would be the very lightest kind, but that should still mean walkers substantially smaller than AT-ATs can wield multi-megatons if we take that seriously. So there is at least no theoretical reason why an upgunned AT-AT or dedicated artillery platform should not be able to dish out figures in that ballpark. Which should be equal or superior to what I understand to be the higher-end Titan figures. (I might be wrong, though, not having read many/most of the Titans-related books and basing substantial parts of my knowledge of them off what is posted on this board.)

They aren't capital ship-kililng turbolasers, since the recoil of such would be impossible to control without extensive force field anchoring and bracing. EG you couldn't move and fire. Nevermind the enviromental effects of unleashing such firepower.

Besides, most other sources (SPHA-T, the MAS-2xB repulsor TL, etc.) are fucking huge, sluggish platforms the size of a fucking HTL battery, which a viper is not. I suppose SW made a massive orders of magnitude technological leap in a matter of years?

I never argued for heavy capship killers in the giga/teraton range. There are any number of reasons for why that is unreasonable, and you point out a few good ones. I would, as I said, rather imagine that they would be on par with the weakest of light turbolasers - somewhere towards the lower megaton range, or thereabouts. Nor do they (obviously) necessarily use this max firepower all the time; in the comic, I believe they never did.

The original source goes like this, quote unquote:

The Vipers' six-limbed construction allowed them to stand bipedally on their rear legs while hosing down the immediate vicinity with a withering spray of fire. The middle set of appendages ended with advanced blaster cannons, each packing the knockout punch of a Capital ship turbolaser; two smaller laser cannons were concealed beneath the chin. The heavy front pincers had the lightning reflexes to snare a low-flying airspeeder, and the tensile strength to maintain their grip while steering the unfortunate craft straight into the ground.

"Knockout punch" might refer to some kind of burst-fire mode with charge-up that is not sustainable over any length of time, and probably does. And "capital ship turbolaser" is also somewhat open to interpretation, but should still mean that its peak firepower is substantially heavier than starfighter weapons in most cases.

As for the SPHA-T, I thought that was supposed to carry a heavier starship-grade weapon? Which should make it another class than the Viper (which is a combat 'droid, not an artillery platform), and orders of magnitude more powerful at its peak. Apart from the differences in firepower (and the necessary power generation, bracing, and so on), most of the size and mass differential would probably be in cost and trade-offs; from what I recall, Balmorra (the Viper's manufacturer) was known for building high-end "elite" systems that were not necessarily cost-effective. Although it did supposedly use some new, revolutionary technology for its shields, at least.

(The MAS-2xB I presently lack reliable data on, so I cannot comment on it. What is it; is Wookieepedia's write-up on it essentially correct?)

[Eternal_Freedom]

The SPHA-T was meant to be a capital-ship scale weapon. This is lent a lot of credence by ROTS and the ROTS:ICS, which states that some Open Circle Fleet Venators had SPHA-T's mounted in their ventral hangers for added punch. In the film itself, we see one of these weapons blow a Munificent frigate in half.

Plus as Darth Wong wrote on the main site, "they carve up Federation Core ships like Christmas turkeys." So, yeah, SPHA-T's are comparable to capital ship weapons, but lacking the power generation for long-term combat (as in, they ahve a certain charge, use that and withdraw, just like modern ammo limitations.)

[Sarevok]

The number of AT-ATs should not be ignored as well. There are over 25000 ISDs in the Imperial starfleet. Each carries 20-40 AT-ATs. Then there are hundreds of thousands of other ships like the strike cruiser which also carries the AT-AT in smaller numbers. That's over a million AT-AT vehicles assigned to the navy alone. The Imperial army which garrisions planets probably has far more.

Does the IoM have several million Titans ?

[Todeswind]

The number of AT-ATs should not be ignored as well. There are over 25000 ISDs in the Imperial starfleet. Each carries 20-40 AT-ATs. Then there are hundreds of thousands of other ships like the strike cruiser which also carries the AT-AT in smaller numbers. That's over a million AT-AT vehicles assigned to the navy alone. The Imperial army which garrisions planets probably has far more.

Does the IoM have several million Titans ?

No, they do not. A titan legion is typically in the range of 40-100 titans if memory serves, though at any one time it will be closer to fifty in operation at any one moment. Of those legions a majority of the titans will be warlord titans. Larger titans like the Imperator or larger will not commonly be deployed, though they aren't unheard of. The "psy-titans" of the Divisio Telepathica probably won't be on the battlefield unless the Eye of Terror or Earth are about to be overrun.

Moreover titans aren't generally deployed at all, while it is common for them to be garrisoned on forge world or other crucial locations (there are a number of legions around the eye of terror) their deployment and ease of movement from planet to planet is nowhere near the simplicity of the AT-AT. The number of titans within the Imperium is probably somewhere in the realm of hundreds of thousands spread out across the galaxy but it is most likely not millions. So while the Empire would likely be able to field hundreds of AT-AT's in any one engagement the IoM would probably not have access to more than a handful of titans, if that, unless the Empire attacked a tactically important world.

The Titan is a vastly superior warmachine to the AT-AT, however the rate at which the Empire would be able to deploy AT-AT's outstrips the rate at which the Imperium can create Titans. Luckily for them there are numerous other weapons in the Imperium's arsenal that ought to be more than sufficient to destroy the AT-AT.

[Shroom Man 777]

Do all ISDs have uniformly the same exact AT-AT contingents? That's like saying that just because Nimitz-class carriers have a capacity for 90 planes, then all Nimitz-class carriers will undoubtedly have 90 planes, when in fact some of them today are quite underloaded with only 60 planes or something like that.

And as we have already seen, AT-ATs are far more vulnerable to fucking rope tricks, and saboteurs can easily get under them. Simple pintle-mounted guns on the underbelly could've mowed Luke down, but the AT-AT doesn't seem to have any other weapons except for those fixed on its head.

What would an AT-AT do if a threat suddenly popped up at its flanks? How long would it take to turn around to engage them? If it was anti-tank infantry, like Luke, coming up from the sides or from the rear to either launch missiles or grappling hook/lightsaber hatch/grenade chuck, or enemy vehicles somehow getting around them, what would it do?

[Panzersharkcat]

Nothing. That's what its escorts are for.

[Sea Skimmer]

Do all ISDs have uniformly the same exact AT-AT contingents? That's like saying that just because Nimitz-class carriers have a capacity for 90 planes, then all Nimitz-class carriers will undoubtedly have 90 planes, when in fact some of them today are quite underloaded with only 60 planes or something like that.

Indeed its rather unlikely that all ISDs move around with a full force of ground troops. Ones assigned to defensive duties would simply have no need of such forces, while others would have ended up unloading in action and then not recovered the forces because they must remain as a garrison. On the other hand the Empire may well have thousands or even millions of walkers which are permanently assigned to ground garrisons or held in strategic reserves for movement by dedicated troop transports and Death Star type craft.

And as we have already seen, AT-ATs are far more vulnerable to fucking rope tricks, and saboteurs can easily get under them. Simple pintle-mounted guns on the underbelly could've mowed Luke down, but the AT-AT doesn't seem to have any other weapons except for those fixed on its head.

The AT-AT is very dumb design wise, but any armored vehicle is going to be exposed to very close range infantry attacks unless it has flamethrowers on all sides (tested by the US Army 1944ish) as well as a means of detecting personal around it. That's why they need to work in groups to protect each other. The Imperials should have dismounted infantry as a covering force and an AT-AT has enough men to dismount 2 squads as fire support while holding onto the other couple squads as an assault force to deliver onto the objective. Attacking mounted is suicide, first rule of mechanized infantry. One would assume they were more then slightly overconfident since the rebels had no heavy weapons.

[Shroom Man 777]

That's pretty fucking dumb. Imagine what people would say if an M1 Abrams could do nothing against flank infantry attacks if it wasn't baby sitted by a bunch of Doomvees or Badley fighting vehicles or Strikeout LAVs or whatever.

[Bluewolf]

Though quite meager, didn't the Empire deploy AT-ST's along with the AT-AT's as a sort of escort? I mean it probably wouldn't be suitable escort but if you go by the mindset that the rag tag Rebellion has no real heavy weapon capabilities, it makes sense to have a light escort. If I remember correctly AT-ST's typically have those twin laser cannons and two grenade launchers.

[Shroom Man 777]

Yes, they did. But the fact is, if I said my main battle tank equivalent requires constant escorts because it otherwise lacks the capability to defend itself from flank attacks/attacks not directly in front of its head-cannon coverage due to a profound deficiency of defensive weapons, you would have all manner of peoples jumping on how dumb it would be and how other vehicles that can fly off dirt runways from the 1860s with pacemakers are superior than such a stupid war machine.

I mean, if I said my Objective Interim Heavy Armor Thunder Thigh Quadrupedial Combat Vehicle had a limited coverage for its weapons, and outside of this coverage it can't engage enemies. It has to turn its entire body around, slowly and ponderously with its legs. So it needs to be constantly guarded by Humvees or IFVs or soldiers, or else it will not be able to stop by itself any shmuck from striking from its flanks with anti-tank weapons or grapling-hook/lightsaber/grenade combos, what would people say? You won't need to be a Robert Strange Space Satan Merkatrig McNamara to say BALLS! to this kind of shitty piece of shit.

But apparently if it's an AT-AT from Star Wars, nobody minds. Maybe there were mitigating circumstances that made the AT-AT unable to casually bat away such a threat that, perhaps in the extroverted universe novels, it would've casually disposed of. Maybe that particular AT-AT was a victim of the shroud of the dark side (the same reason why Jango Fett can punch a Jedi in the face when, otherwise, a Jedi could simply use his precog to defeat superfast enemies like the Flash by using TK to squeeze the blood vessels in their brains to give them a stroke!). Maybe Luke Skywalker had extensive jamming, which was why he was able to approach the AT-AT at WW2 dogfighting footsoldier speeds.

Apparently the AT-ATs shields don't extend to its soft underbelly, or is otherwise not a particle shield and only deflects energy weapons, since Luke's grapple was able to latch on. If it's legs were shielded, then those would have to be shields specialized against energy weapons and not physical weapons, or maybe the rope they used to tangle the AT-AT was ingrained with neutronium radiators so it could withstand interacting with shields capable of withstanding kilotons of SW-grade firepower. Maybe the cable they used could refract shield energies into subspace, or something-something tachyons.

They should make a special EU article about special shield-bypassing AT-AT-tripping cables with an interesting backstory. Maybe Alderaan manufactured it, and there was a COMPNOR/ISB/Dark Jedi/Sith Acolyte plot to stop it, but Greedo or some other minor shit-character we only see for a split second was hired by the Rebel Alliance to save their secrets, and he was able to make off with the design of the cables before the Imperials got there. Maybe one of those alien bands in Mos Eisley hid the blueprints in his trombone. This insignificant story later on plays an important role in delaying the Imperial attack at Hoth, thus saving our main characters from the Empire!

[Darksider]

Shroom, if anyone here were saying that the AT-AT was the super bestest armored vehicle ever your mindless prattle might have a legitimate point behind it. Everyone here is well aware of the flaws of the AT-AT's design, (at least the reasonable ones are) and no one is trying to make it out as better than it is. The question posed was whether 40K anti-armor weapons could destroy it. Yes, a 40k rocket launcher or Melta Bomb could certainly punch through the bottom hatch and take it out, but as many people have pointed out, in a normal combat situation, that isn't going to be the easiest shot to make as a Walker will have all kinds of support.

As Connor said, they're either troop transports that someone inexplicably tried to turn into mobile artillery or assault guns or vice versa. They aren't MBTs. The Empire has other vehicles for that.

[Purple]

Something strikes me thou about the AT-AT design. Looking at the kind of warfare we saw in the clone wars it actually makes a lot of sense. Think about it, large field battles with Napoleonic infantry advances and no indirect fire artillery. This thing is the equivalent of a huge field gun or even a siege gun.

It sort of makes perfect sense if you imagine it being used to drop off infantry who than advance on each other in neat order shooting while the AT-AT stands back and acts as fire support. And while that makes no sense in any reasonable conflict I can't help but think that experience from the clone wars would have effected the mindset of the designers.

[Shroom Man 777]

Explosive devices that detonate below vehicles to strike at their vulnerabilities are not common in normal combat situations? I guess the whole paradigm of armored vehicle defense was formulated by a bunch of hypochondriacs then.

By itself, the AT-AT is limited in countering anti-armor weapons because of its tiny engagement envelope or whatever (can only shoot ahead of it, must turn its whole body around to hit things beside/behind it). If it could actually shoot back more effectively, like turreted vehicles or vehicles with pintle-mounted weapons or something, it would actually be able to survive more anti-armor weapons by being able to kill the enemy before they could shoot at it. Its deficiencies make it easier to kill for anti-armor weapons. The only thing it has for it is its ridiculously thick armor, as in all other aspects, it sucks total donkey balls.

As a stand alone system, I'd think the AT-TE would fare better against anti-armor weapons. It's less visible by being not as ridiculously huge, and it can turn its main gun around to kill anyone trying to shoot at it from the sides.

If we go with the Extrauterine Universe, the All-Terrain Armored Heavy Transport would be way more resistant to anti-armor weapons, primarily because it has more guns to defend itself with.

Anyway, in the case of MBT-equivalents like M1 Abrams tanks up to AT-ATs, aren't man-portable weapons already insufficient to score total kills in general? You don't see RPGs blowing up entire tanks, and assuming that 40k weapons yields are competitive, any infantry anti-armor weapon won't be totally killing AT-ATs anytime soon. What infantry anti-armor weapons do, most of the time, is strike mobility kills. M1s get disabled because their treads get busted, or their engines got blown up, but the crews inside them are otherwise alive and their main armor is still intact. AT-ATs getting tripped on dumb ropes because they suck. That kind of stuff.

So... while the AT-ATs main armor may be impregnable for man-portable anti-armor weapons, be it SW or 40k, how well would its more vulnerable components be? Its leg joints? We saw in ESB that a laser/blaster of some sort was able to one-shot a fallen AT-AT when the bolt struck the weaker armor on top of its head. What would a mobility kill take?

What Star Wars infantry weapons can down an AT-AT, for that matter? If there are any, you can try comparing that man-portable system with any equivalent it may have in 40k to get the minimum requirements of killing AT-ATs.

Other walkers are not as important. We know all it takes to kill an AT-ST is a couple of logs.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, they did. But the fact is, if I said my main battle tank equivalent requires constant escorts because it otherwise lacks the capability to defend itself from flank attacks/attacks not directly in front of its head-cannon coverage due to a profound deficiency of defensive weapons, you would have all manner of peoples jumping on how dumb it would be and how other vehicles that can fly off dirt runways from the 1860s with pacemakers are superior than such a stupid war machine.

[grits teeth] Here we go again...

The AT-AT is a fucked up design. Yes, we know. The one thing it's relatively good at (which is, I know, NOT its stated mission) is long range heavy beam-weapon duels, where its size is less of a disadvantage, its armor and guns are more useful, and its utter lack of close in defenses is less important.

Using it in other roles is asking for trouble- like looking at a self-propelled howitzer and deciding it must be a tank, and then using it like a tank, and watching it get cut to bits by antitank weapons because it doesn't have the armor protection and auxiliary weapons of a tank.

And yes, EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS THIS, not just you. OK? Jesus Christ, is there some compulsion that forces you to bring up this same spiel every time anyone anywhere mentions an AT-AT?



Now, on the actual topic, there's not a lot of evidence for 40k antitank missiles being good at arcing over/under a target to exploit weak spots. At least not the usual kind of AT missile; there are no doubt high-end exceptions but they're not typical. We know this because a lot of 40k vehicles have such weaknesses. They have walkers with knees, they have open-topped armored cars, they have some really ridiculous shit like the Penitent Engine. AT-ATs would not be all that out of place on the 40k battlefield in terms of their design.

Since most of these vehicles manage to charge around without getting totally murderized by smart antitank missiles exploiting structural weaknesses, it's a fair bet that AT-ATs don't have to worry too much about the problem either.

So it's fair to say that while the AT-AT's unusual vulnerability to antitank weapons fired from close range, or to close-combat troops (say, a Space Marine assault squad using jetpacks to fly up to the belly of an AT-AT with antitank grenades)... they would still be quite resistant to long range antitank fire, except from the heaviest Imperium weapons such as massed lascannon fire, dedicated AT guns mounted on vehicles like the Vanquisher and Medusa (think bastion-breacher variant), or Titan-scale weaponry.

[Purple]

I still stand by the conclusion that the AT-AT would have worked out perfectly on the kind of battlefield we saw in the prequels. Flat open field with a huge line of sight where it's main guns can take long range shots at the enemy and said enemy advancing at you like Napoleonic infantry in perfect order of battle are perfect for such a vehicle.

[Sarevok]

Do all ISDs have uniformly the same exact AT-AT contingents? That's like saying that just because Nimitz-class carriers have a capacity for 90 planes, then all Nimitz-class carriers will undoubtedly have 90 planes, when in fact some of them today are quite underloaded with only 60 planes or something like that.

It's more or less standardized in every Star Wars source I read. The bog standard ISD always carries a Stormtrooper landing force and their armor with it. Variations can be found but those ships are not baseline Imperators anymore, for example the Dominator class which is a modified ISD hull with gravity well generator. It brings the Interdictor cruisers capability with an ISD hulls durability but sacrifices weaponry and fighter complement.

And as we have already seen, AT-ATs are far more vulnerable to fucking rope tricks, and saboteurs can easily get under them. Simple pintle-mounted guns on the underbelly could've mowed Luke down, but the AT-AT doesn't seem to have any other weapons except for those fixed on its head.

Meh, Titans are way more vulnerable to tripping than AT-ATs which have four legs.

As for anti-air ordinary AT-ATs are designed as ground combat vehicle. That they can engage fast moving aircraft at all is amazing.

If the AT-ATs come under real attack they have their own dedicated anti air support vehicle based on a AT-AT chassis. Sort of like how the Russian ZSU-23 was based on a PT-76 light tank.



This is a very dangerous vehicle. It is equipped with same kiloton level laser cannons that can one shot shielded fighters. As well missiles that reach into megaton range. Anything foolish enough to overfly an Imperial armored force protected by AT-AAs is dying a fast, painless death.

What would an AT-AT do if a threat suddenly popped up at its flanks? How long would it take to turn around to engage them? If it was anti-tank infantry, like Luke, coming up from the sides or from the rear to either launch missiles or grappling hook/lightsaber hatch/grenade chuck, or enemy vehicles somehow getting around them, what would it do?

IoM tanks are slower than WW 2 tanks. AT-ATs make mincemeat out of SW hovertanks and repulsorcraft which can reach upto 500 kilometers/hour. Suffice to say AT-ATs are not getting flanked by anything the IoM has.

On the other hand the speederbikes AT-ATs carry are going to flank any IoM tanks with ease. Heck with PLX-1M missiles issued they could wipe out large number of tanks all by themselves.

[Sarevok]

Anyway I can't believe Shroom is attacking the AT-AT on aesthetic grounds

Just take a look at how stupid Titans look


And compare them to AT-ATs


There is a reason why AT-ATs are an icon of science fiction while Titans are doomed to remain an obscure vehicle known only to some geeks.

[Balrog]

I still stand by the conclusion that the AT-AT would have worked out perfectly on the kind of battlefield we saw in the prequels. Flat open field with a huge line of sight where it's main guns can take long range shots at the enemy and said enemy advancing at you like Napoleonic infantry in perfect order of battle are perfect for such a vehicle.

Can we please stop with the whole "Napoleonic infantry" stuff that gets bandied about? Yes they were advancing out in the open across a wide plain, but they were not standing shoulder-to-shoulder in giant flying columns. Indeed in many scenes were we get a since wide shot, we see them either advancing with or behind the AT-TEs, or behind the protective screen of a Jedi's lightsaber. Remember that their goal was to engage the Separatists as quickly as possible, both to try and capture the leadership and to prevent their overwhelming numbers from being activated. Arguably AT-TE should have been split into dedicated tank and APC designs, with the clones riding along in the latter instead of being exposed the way they were, but what we saw in that movie would be nowhere close to what the Duke of Wellington or any other period commander would recognize.

[Whiskey144]

IoM tanks are slower than WW 2 tanks.

I do hope you've got an actual source for this statement. Because otherwise we'll just laugh at you.

Meh, Titans are way more vulnerable to tripping than AT-ATs which have four legs.

Evidently this is not the case, since no one has GODDAMNED TRIED to trip a Titan of ANY kind.

Just take a look at how stupid Titans look

Titans look way more awesome than AT-ATs. It's a classic case of "we are so badass we can ride around in a goddamn walking church", instead of being "we are so badass we can ride around in a goddamn mass-produced dog-tank".

There is a reason why AT-ATs are an icon of science fiction while Titans are doomed to remain an obscure vehicle known only to some geeks.

Yes, because Star Wars happens to have George Lucas, and Industrial Light and Magic to make AAA-budget movies and numerous television CGI/animated series about it, while 40K is stuck with shit like the Ultramarines movie (which was barely passable as 40K) and a healthy but somewhat unknown number of novels.

It's not the fact that 40K Titans are "st00pid" and AT-ATs are not. I also have to say that the AT-AT picture you posted really hurts your statement more than it helps, as the AT-ATs look like fucking boxes on spindly legs. At least 40K Titans don't have goddamn stability issues.

[Srelex]

Something strikes me thou about the AT-AT design. Looking at the kind of warfare we saw in the clone wars it actually makes a lot of sense. Think about it, large field battles with Napoleonic infantry advances and no indirect fire artillery. This thing is the equivalent of a huge field gun or even a siege gun.

Actually we do see indirect artillery in quite a bit of CW media. Hell, both the cartoon series made a deal of it at a few points--in the latter one we even had an AT-TE fire at a target out of LOS.

I do hope you've got an actual source for this statement. Because otherwise we'll just laugh at you.

He's probably referring to the Imperial Armor books.

Keep in mind that the speed of IOM tanks is going to vary a bit depending on where they're manufactured.

Titans look way more awesome than AT-ATs. It's a classic case of "we are so badass we can ride around in a goddamn walking church", instead of being "we are so badass we can ride around in a goddamn mass-produced dog-tank".

Sorry, I have to side with Sav here. While I do think, say, the Warhound looks cool, the one he cites is clearly a result of the designer going overboard with the 'gothic' theme, hence it looks retarded.