M1 A2 Abrahams Main Battle Tank VS ATST

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-02-23 09:05pm

The name says just about everything. 4 M1 A2s meet an ATST. Who wins. The terrain is flat and the tanks are in an ideal position to circle around but aren't there yet. Do the blasters turn the tanks to slag or do the tanks take out the weak points on the ATST such as Eyes, Knees, Pelvic region or sides (make the little bugger flip over).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-23 09:31pm

Considering the AT-ST is a light scout vehicle and obviously not heavily armoured, I'd say the Abrams take it, especially since they have a numerical advantage.

But a lot depends on how the scenario unfolds. On open terrain, the AT-ST probably outranges the Abrams by a considerable margin. But if it's cluttered terrain and the Abrams get the first shot off, I figure they can probably take an AT-ST down with little difficulty.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-02-23 09:34pm

M1s blow the fuck out of the poor AT-HMMWV.

ay tee es tee = ay tee hum vee? Pretty clever if you ask me.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-23 09:42pm

The M1A2 platoon would send the AT-ST to mecha hell.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-02-23 11:50pm

Darth Wong wrote:Considering the AT-ST is a light scout vehicle and obviously not heavily armoured, I'd say the Abrams take it, especially since they have a numerical advantage.

But a lot depends on how the scenario unfolds. On open terrain, the AT-ST probably outranges the Abrams by a considerable margin. But if it's cluttered terrain and the Abrams get the first shot off, I figure they can probably take an AT-ST down with little difficulty.

Good point. I tried explaining to Darkstar that the AT-ST was a lightly-armored scout vehicle (not unlike an uparmored HMWWV in the US Army), so it was not designed to take on armored forces, but instead act in a scouting or possibly a screening role on the battlefield...

Now ask the same scenario vs. an AT-AT or even on of those hovertanks we saw, and the scenario could turn out quite differently...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-23 11:55pm

The M1's would easily destroy such a comparatively weak scouting vehicle.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-24 12:03am

4 Abrams. They could all move around and flank it easily. In the end you'll likely have atleast 2 smoking abrams, but you'll have a dead AT-ST.

meNNis · Post by **meNNis** » 2003-02-24 01:47am

i think youre wrong wong... heh.. Abrams tanks shoot much further than the eye can see...

in Desert Storm U.S. m1a1 Abrams killed 95% of enemy tanks way out of visual range... the Iraqi tanks actually thought they were being bombed from planes most of the time. and needless to say, the m1a2 is roughly 2x as good of a tank...

i think personally the most it would take would be two Abrams vs a ATST. the ATST is a scout after all...

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-02-24 04:42am

I have no doubt that the weaponry on an AT-ST is capable of taking out an Abrams. However, its armor isn't capable of withstanding a shot from an Abrams... so, unless the Abrams' crews are very unlucky or really lousy, the AT-ST gets blown up.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-02-24 04:51am

200GT AT-ST's!

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2003-02-24 06:06am

meNNis wrote:i think youre wrong wong... heh.. Abrams tanks shoot much further than the eye can see...

in Desert Storm U.S. m1a1 Abrams killed 95% of enemy tanks way out of visual range... the Iraqi tanks actually thought they were being bombed from planes most of the time. and needless to say, the m1a2 is roughly 2x as good of a tank...

i think personally the most it would take would be two Abrams vs a ATST. the ATST is a scout after all...

Beyond visual range, yes. Further than the eye can see, yes. But do they shoot further than AT-ST?

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-24 08:55am

Beyond visual range, yes. Further than the eye can see, yes. But do they shoot further than AT-ST?

The main weapon of the AT-ST is a blaster cannon, isn't it? So far I have seen blaster bolts moving on a straight line only. So blasters canot fire beyond visual range. (While the visual range of an AT-ST is higher than the visual range of an M1.) The grenade (missile?) launcher of the AT-ST could but I do not think that the secondary weapons range is higher than that of the primary.
An AT-ST has no chance against more than one M1 on an open battlefield.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-02-24 09:01am

The Ewoks busted an ATST using tree trunk so i think even a WW1 tank can destroy one.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 09:34am

vakundok wrote:
Beyond visual range, yes. Further than the eye can see, yes. But do they shoot further than AT-ST?
The main weapon of the AT-ST is a blaster cannon, isn't it? So far I have seen blaster bolts moving on a straight line only. So blasters canot fire beyond visual range. (While the visual range of an AT-ST is higher than the visual range of an M1.)

Are you actually suggesting that M-1's are combat-effective over the horizon? Yes, they can theoretically lob a shell that far, but they won't hit anything at that range. Let's say an AT-ST's guns are 4 metres off the ground; it would have a LOS over flat ground of more than 7 km.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-24 01:41pm

Since I am not an expert I accepted that meNNis wrote.
There is no LOS advantage when the AT-ST and an Abrams fight each other. It matters only when they target the same thing.
Since the AT-ST is higher and has a large surface at that height it can be spotted (and targeted) from farther. So in this case there is no LOS advantage. If you see your enemy it will see you as well.

Soulman · Post by **Soulman** » 2003-02-24 01:44pm

Darth Wong wrote: Are you actually suggesting that M-1's are combat-effective over the horizon? Yes, they can theoretically lob a shell that far, but they won't hit anything at that range. Let's say an AT-ST's guns are 4 metres off the ground; it would have a LOS over flat ground of more than 7 km.

IIRC the longest range confirmed tank kill was 4.5km (a Challenger during the Gulf War). LOS that distant is, however, very rare. I'd say that the AT-ST would have the range advantage (assuming very high velocity blaster bolts) however that lack of a turret and the height of the vehicle would count against it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 01:59pm

vakundok wrote:Since I am not an expert I accepted that meNNis wrote.
There is no LOS advantage when the AT-ST and an Abrams fight each other. It matters only when they target the same thing.
Since the AT-ST is higher and has a large surface at that height it can be spotted (and targeted) from farther. So in this case there is no LOS advantage. If you see your enemy it will see you as well.

So? An AT-ST does not have to worry about ballistics or wind, and as we've seen in the movies, they seem to be able to increase the apparent velocity of their visible "bolt" depending on the range (look at how quickly the AT-AT max-firepower shot reached target from 17.28km away in TESB). It probably has greater accuracy at that range, which means it's more likely to hit, which means it's more likely to kill. As I said, the biggest problem is the unlikelihood of such a long-range confrontation.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-24 02:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:So? An AT-ST does not have to worry about ballistics or wind, and as we've seen in the movies, they seem to be able to increase the apparent velocity of their visible "bolt" depending on the range (look at how quickly the AT-AT max-firepower shot reached target from 17.28km away in TESB). It probably has greater accuracy at that range, which means it's more likely to hit, which means it's more likely to kill. As I said, the biggest problem is the unlikelihood of such a long-range confrontation.

1. You mentioned an AT-AT as an example which has far larger guns positioned far higher.
2. Hitting a huge building does not mean accuracy. A 152 mm artllery could do it from more than 24 kms. While the main gun of the M1A2 is only 120 mm it could do it from the ~18km range as well.

I meant that the Abrams can fire on the AT-ST before they could see each other. Self-guiding projectiles are already existing and are continiously developed. Using them or accidentaly the Abrams can hit the AT-ST. When they are in visual contact the chances are approximately 50-50%. Against more tanks the AT-ST has no chance on an open terrain.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-24 08:38pm

Guys, the Abram's ability to target an enemy tank is dependent on LOS. It MUST use a targeting laser to help aim its main cannon, and while it could theoretically lob a shell for a considerable distance, it has no ability to do so against an even marginally mobile target. While self-guiding projectiles do exist in some form, the Abram does not employ such shells to the best of my knowledge.

In addition to the AT-ST's main blaster cannons, it has a grenade launcher of indeterminate range, but which is presumably significantly more powerful than its main cannons.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-24 11:34pm

vakundok wrote:1. You mentioned an AT-AT as an example which has far larger guns positioned far higher.

2. Hitting a huge building does not mean accuracy. A 152 mm artllery could do it from more than 24 kms. While the main gun of the M1A2 is only 120 mm it could do it from the ~18km range as well.

Are you too fucking stupid to read? I used it as an example of high-velocity bolts, not as proof that an AT-ST can hit an M1 at 17km!

I meant that the Abrams can fire on the AT-ST before they could see each other. Self-guiding projectiles are already existing and are continiously developed. Using them or accidentaly the Abrams can hit the AT-ST. When they are in visual contact the chances are approximately 50-50%. Against more tanks the AT-ST has no chance on an open terrain.

Thank you for proving that you're not above simply distorting the facts in order to protest your point.

In TESB, we saw walkers and the Rebel front-lines exchanging fire at enough range that they needed binoculars just to see the AT-AT's (and those are pretty big objects). And the Rebels, using inferior equipment, could hit a target as narrow as an AT-AT's knee joint! I reiterate that an AT-ST probably outranges an M1 so the M1's probably have to get in fairly close to take it out.

meNNis · Post by **meNNis** » 2003-02-25 01:53am

okay, well, either way, i dont think it really matters. its going to depend on who gets their shot off first really. one shot from either will destroy or at the very least disable and badly damage the other.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-25 02:34am

Darth Wong wrote:So? An AT-ST does not have to worry about ballistics or wind, and as we've seen in the movies, they seem to be able to increase the apparent velocity of their visible "bolt" depending on the range (look at how quickly the AT-AT max-firepower shot reached target from 17.28km away in TESB). It probably has greater accuracy at that range, which means it's more likely to hit, which means it's more likely to kill. As I said, the biggest problem is the unlikelihood of such a long-range confrontation.

"It probably has greater accuracy at that range ..."- It seemed that you wrote that because the AT-AT was able to fire ranges up to 17.28 km the AT-ST could do it as well. (Since the AT-AT was mentioned in brackets.)But now it seems that I am "really fucking stupid to read".

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-25 02:45am

vakundok wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:So? An AT-ST does not have to worry about ballistics or wind, and as we've seen in the movies, they seem to be able to increase the apparent velocity of their visible "bolt" depending on the range (look at how quickly the AT-AT max-firepower shot reached target from 17.28km away in TESB). It probably has greater accuracy at that range, which means it's more likely to hit, which means it's more likely to kill. As I said, the biggest problem is the unlikelihood of such a long-range confrontation.
"It probably has greater accuracy at that range ..."- It seemed that you wrote that because the AT-AT was able to fire ranges up to 17.28 km the AT-ST could do it as well. (Since the AT-AT was mentioned in brackets.)But now it seems that I am "really fucking stupid to read".

Ha ha, what a moron. He quotes the paragraph clearly showing the parenthetical quote he took out of context for what it is (clearly a parenthetical justification of the preceding sentence), and then still tries to pretend he didn't take it out of context, by taking the first few words of the next sentence ... out of context!

Yes, you are too fucking stupid to read. And even dumber for not admitting your own mistakes.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-25 02:54am

Stupid, moron and dumb? Because I canot write and read a foreign language without problems? Well, it is your opinion. I accept it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-25 02:57am

vakundok wrote: Self-guiding projectiles are already existing and are continiously developed.

No, guided projectiles for tanks do exist and in the near future (say 10 years from now) tanks will have over-the-horizon munitions for destroying other tanks- but it won't be the M1. The Abrams had it's TERM version cancelled.