AT-AT Walker vs Reaver Battle Titan

[Balrog]

A SW AT-AT walker faces off against a WH40K Reaver Battle Titan on the frozen plains of Hoth. Both start within firing range of the other. The Titan is armed with a turbo-laser in one arm, gatling blaster in the other, and Apocalypse missile launcher on its back. First one to destroy the other and remain functional wins.

[Sgt_Artyom]

I'm going to have to say the Reaver is gonna win this. I'd imagine it has a slight advantage in manoeuvrability and the fact that is has void shielding and a dedicated anti-armour weapon is making this seem like a rather one sided affair.

[Lord Revan]

yeah if the Reavers weapons can penetrate AT-ATs armor it's not contest, the AT-AT is a beefed up IFV, while the titans seem like heavy anti-armor/fire support platforms.

[Jub]

There's some evidence from ESB, in the form of blaster shots bursting away from their hulls, that AT-ATs may be shielded. This shielding seems to cover their heads, backs, and legs, but as seen when Luke attacks the belly of one of the walkers with his light Saber, they do have weak spots. They also withstand fire from dedicated, if somewhat out of date, anti-vehicle turrets which is another benchmark of their durability.

As far as firepower goes, we know that AT-ATs can level a generator complex, a facility which is likely to be hardened against attack, with a single shot full power shot from its chin-mounted lasers. We also know that they are accurate enough to swat down snowspeeders with a fair degree of success. In addition, depending on their intended role, they could be carrying dedicated scouts on speeder bikes alongside an anti-vehicle unit in their transport bay. This might not matter given the distance the two vehicles are stated to be placed at, and the speeder bikes are probably worthless, but if the AT-AT can deploy additional assets that could easily help tip the balance in its favour.

The AT-AT is also far faster than the Reaver, at least in a straight line. The Reaver's top speed is stated to be 27kph on road and 19kph off-road while the AT-AT was calculated to move at 60kph on favourable terrain by his forums very own Mike Wong. Again, this might not matter a great deal given that the two walkers start in range of one another, but it is another potential advantage for the AT-AT.

That isn't to say that the Reaver doesn't have anything going for it. Unlike the AT-AT we know that the Reaver has four void shields defending it with armor beyond that. These shields, depending on the source can withstand multiple shots from turbo-laser destructors however other sources have squad level lascannons mission killing titans. Depending on the level of void shields assumed for this battle that swings things pretty wildly.

Weapons wise the Reaver is in the same boat as the AT-AT. It has one anti-vehicle weapon in a limited traverse mount along side other secondary weapons unlikely to hurt an AT-AT. That Anti-vehicle weapon is a doozy though, the high end of the effects of a titan mounted turbolaser are impressive, though as with all of 40k the descriptions tend to vary from source to source. In terms of secondary weapons, it might be argued that the Gatling blaster could hurt an AT-AT, but given the performance against emplaced anti-tank weapons I'd guess it to be unlikely. The appocalypse missiles seem even less likely to hurt an AT-AT seeming more akin to an artillery barrage than a dedicated anti-armor weapon.

In the end the fight comes down to which interpretation of each vehicle we go with. The highest end version of the Reaver versus an unshielded AT-AT is a pretty clear win for the Reaver. While a shielded AT-AT versus a low end Reaver is one that I'd call for the AT-AT.

[Sgt_Artyom]

I'd always assumed AT-AT's were un-shileded. In ESB don't the shots actually just strike the sides of the AT-AT, causing a rather large flare up but doing little else. Luke even makes a comment about this, something along the lines of "That armour's too tough for blasters".

[Patroklos]

Some of the shots appear to "explode" away from the surface. Some on the surface. This could simply be the shield being weakened from previous shots at some point, while being a full power at others. Its not really clear. It kind of depends on if we use the "if the shield is up its up" reasoning or the "it has varying power depending on hits taken, becoming less effective over time." Either one could be used to explain the ESB AT-ATs, but have different implications.

I also don't think we should assume the shield power generator on Hoth was harmored. Some equipment just doesn't lend itself to armor protection due to its functioning like communications and radar antennas. Of course that depends on whether what we saw was the generator and emitter or just the generator. I took the full power shot to be required due to its size, not because it was a hard target.

[Jub]

Some of the shots appear to "explode" away from the surface. Some on the surface. This could simply be the shield being weakened from previous shots at some point, while being a full power at others. Its not really clear. It kind of depends on if we use the "if the shield is up its up" reasoning or the "it has varying power depending on hits taken, becoming less effective over time." Either one could be used to explain the ESB AT-ATs, but have different implications.

I could also have to do with the angling of the shield. We know that smaller vessels want to ensure that incoming fire hits the shield at the correct angle and that this angle can be the difference between life and death. It could also lead to shots bursting at different distances from an AT-ATs hull.

I also don't think we should assume the shield power generator on Hoth was harmored. Some equipment just doesn't lend itself to armor protection due to its functioning like communications and radar antennas. Of course that depends on whether what we saw was the generator and emitter or just the generator. I took the full power shot to be required due to its size, not because it was a hard target.

If it was the generator itself, I'd assume that it would be hardened, but would probably blow up pretty well if breached. If it was the emitter it probably wouldn't can't be hardened, but I'd imagine that the all the energy we saw released would have been from the initial blast. In either case, full power to the chin guns was ordered and a large building exploded rather violently.

[Sgt_Artyom]

I've checked my Guide to Warfare and Wikipedia (Both the Canon and Legends tab) and I can't find it saying anywhere that the AT-AT actually has any form of shielding. It's pretty much just the most heavily armoured land vehicle ever fielded by the Empire at the time (Most heavily armoured land vehicle for anyone actually).

[Jub]

I've checked my Guide to Warfare and Wikipedia (Both the Canon and Legends tab) and I can't find it saying anywhere that the AT-AT actually has any form of shielding. It's pretty much just the most heavily armoured land vehicle ever fielded by the Empire at the time (Most heavily armoured land vehicle for anyone actually).

I checked the primary source, that being the movies and saw evidence that says otherwise. How do you explain the fact that blaster shots burst over the hulls of AT-ATs in the movies?

EDIT: That came out sounding way overly aggressive, but the question still stands.

[Borgholio]

How do you explain the fact that blaster shots burst over the hulls of AT-ATs in the movies?

Mike's Turbolaser commentaries actually discuss this. His two primary points are that turbolaser bolts actually have an invisible section out front that can do damage before the visible section impacts, and that turbolaser bolts can actually detonate in a "flak" fashion.

[Jub]

Mike's Turbolaser commentaries actually discuss this. His two primary points are that turbolaser bolts actually have an invisible section out front that can do damage before the visible section impacts, and that turbolaser bolts can actually detonate in a "flak" fashion.

That would explain shots that detonate 'short', as in away from the target along the axis they were fired along. It doesn't work for those that detonate 'high', as in away from the target away from the target off of the axis they were fired from. We see a mix of the two types over the course of the battle.

[Tribble]

Perhaps they have both heavy armour and shielding? Maybe a direct hit is enough to penetrate the shields but not the armour, which could account for the different effects we see.

[Sgt_Artyom]

Watching the Battle of Hoth scene. I think most of the shots we see detonating away from the AT-AT's themselves are actual being fired at the speeders and perhaps being adsorbed by their shields?

Most of the time they're rather close but in a few spots you can see the same flashes outside the cockpit whilst we have an interior view as Luke speaks and we can also see them flaring up around the outside of the speeders.

[Jub]

Watching the Battle of Hoth scene. I think most of the shots we see detonating away from the AT-AT's themselves are actual being fired at the speeders and perhaps being adsorbed by their shields?

Most of the time they're rather close but in a few spots you can see the same flashes outside the cockpit whilst we have an interior view as Luke speaks and we can also see them flaring up around the outside of the speeders.

The speeders almost certainly don't have shields themselves. The shots that make what I'm talking about most obvious mainly burst right above the top point of the walkers, almost as if they were going high and hit something that extends just slightly up off of the hull.

[Captain Seafort]

The shots that make what I'm talking about most obvious mainly burst right above the top point of the walkers, almost as if they were going high and hit something that extends just slightly up off of the hull.

Just so we're clear, I believe the events you're talking about are these:



That looks like a shield flash to me.

[Rogue 9]

This really isn't even a question. The turbo-laser destructor mounted on a Reaver Titan is a starship-grade weapon in its setting, and the Imperial Navy is capable of glassing planets. Their ships have heavier weapons in the form of lance batteries, admittedly, but their turbo-lasers are still relevant in ship to ship combat.

[Tribble]

There is an interesting shot at 4:03 in the video. It looks like an AT-AT shot was blocked by a shield, even though it missed the turret and the snowspeeders by a good margin. Thoughts?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I would point out that the Reaver Battle Titan mounts a Laser Blaster, not a Turbo-laser Destructor. Same profile and damage but three shots not too.

And I wouldn't discount the Gatling Blaster either. It is powerful enough to smash light and medium tanks in a single shot and it has twice the rate of fire of the laser blaster.

[Tribble]

I don't know much about the Reaver. Could it withstand a full powered shot from an AT-AT? If so, it seems like it would win this, but if not we'd probably be looking at a tie.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well it has four void shields that can individually tank shots from it's own turbolaser/laser blaster armament, though void shields are a bit weird in how they absorb damage. Even past that it has 18 hull points so it can survive even the most devastating hits from Destroyer-strength weapons on the tabletop (D-weapons roll a D6, on a 6 they remove D6+6 hull points from the victim, a Reaver can survive this on hull points alone).

[Isolder74]

Well Star Wars has two types of shields, Particle and Ray shields. Particle shields are often included as part of a ship's armor and are usually always on. A shielded ship is usually referring to the ship's Ray shields that are the ones that are usually raised or lowered in combat.

So the shield flash could be the particle shields that are part of the passive armor protection of the walker. While still technically shields they aren't the kind that can be configured to provide extra protection when the commander desires.

[Jub]

Well it has four void shields that can individually tank shots from it's own turbolaser/laser blaster armament, though void shields are a bit weird in how they absorb damage. Even past that it has 18 hull points so it can survive even the most devastating hits from Destroyer-strength weapons on the tabletop (D-weapons roll a D6, on a 6 they remove D6+6 hull points from the victim, a Reaver can survive this on hull points alone).

In the same game, void shields can be dropped by strength 6 assault cannons, man packed missile launchers, and other various light anti-tank weapons (strength 6 and up). Their hull is also vulnerable to man packed missiles (strength , man packed lascannons (strength 9), power fists wielded by strength 4 or better models, krak grenades, etc... Not exactly a stunning profile for something so massive.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The AT-AT was vulnerable to one dude with a cutting tool and a grenade, so yeah.

As I said, the void-shields are weird, they basically act as an ablative layer that will absorb one lethal hit then vanish, whether that lethal hit is from a S6 assault cannon or a SD Turbolaser is irrelevant.

[Jub]

The AT-AT was vulnerable to one dude with a cutting tool and a grenade, so yeah.

Yeah, but at least, it was only vulnerable on the bottom to a soldier armed with a grappling hook, lightsaber, and thermal detonator. Going by 40k tabletop rules, as the low end, that Reaver could bite it from a regiment of guardsmen marching forward lobbing krak grenades until the Titan lurches to a halt.

As I said, the void-shields are weird, they basically act as an ablative layer that will absorb one lethal hit then vanish, whether that lethal hit is from a S6 assault cannon or a SD Turbolaser is irrelevant.

Yeah void shields seem to a threshold, they're perfect above that, but if you exceed it even slightly they just wink out. It's conceivable, at the low end of the scale for Reaver characteristics, that the cheek weapons on an AT-AT could drop them and the main chin-mounted guns could open up and get real damage through. If this is the case the AT-AT could well win by virtue of having better targeting systems and thus the ability to get the first shot off.

If the Reaver can't be harmed by the cheek guns or if the Reaver can shoot and hit first the AT-AT loses.

[Patroklos]

The AT-AT was vulnerable to one dude with a cutting tool and a grenade, so yeah.

All real armored vehicles are vulnerable to close quarters infantry. This is a vs. So unless you think a titan can pull of what Luke did its irrelevant.