A true to life AT-AT, possible?

Cabwi Desco · Post by **Cabwi Desco** » 2005-02-12 11:41pm

well i was thinking of star wars vehicles or tech that would work using current modern technology and i started thinking about walkers, specifically the AT-AT, and realized (minus the lasers of course and the non-existence of durasteel) one could theoretically build an AT-AT.

it doesnt require fancy repulsors, its mostly a armored box on legs.

you would need powerful drive motors to move the thing but wouldnt it be possible? if not a scaled down one man model maybe?

MickeyMo · Post by **MickeyMo** » 2005-02-12 11:48pm

The problem is that even if existing tech allowed for such a device, the existing anti-armor tech would render it useless.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2005-02-12 11:51pm

Oh, possible. As long as all you are making is a(n unarmoured) metal box on legs.

MickeyMo · Post by **MickeyMo** » 2005-02-12 11:52pm

Large armored vehicles are easy targets for armored munitions.......

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2005-02-13 12:35am

While it probaly could possible make an Walker that would more or less immune to most anti-armor weapons

first it would probaly be closer to AT-TE then AT-AT

Second it probaly draw a lot fire, since its legs would make easy to disable

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2005-02-13 12:46am

We could probably build the frame, and quadruped locomotion isn't as hard as bipedal locomotion. Kudos to MickeyMo for noticing that we simply couldn't armor it enough and even if we did, it would be a sitting duck to any sort of anti-armor munitions or aircraft.

The other problem would be powering it. You'd have to put in a diesel generator on the order of the V-24 powered monsters they put in the big dump trucks. Then you'd have to have equally big fuel tanks. And on top of that, you'd have to have massive electric traction motors to drive the legs.

In short, the thing would probably topple over when it tried to take its first step, since we don't have the compact power sources in Star Wars and as a result, it'd weigh several hundred (if not several thousand) tons -- and the bulk of that would be at the top.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-02-13 05:14am

The term missile magnet comes to mind.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2005-02-13 12:32pm

Possible. But useless.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-02-13 02:47pm

Sure it's possible, but it's a frankly idiotic design obviously created to look impressive on screen rather than be a practical vehicle. You're infinitely better off building a wheeled or treaded vehicle. It'll be faster, more efficient, and more stable.
A legged vehicle would be good for rough terrain. It could go in places where a wheeled vehicle never could. But a good one would be lower to the ground than an AT-AT.
And don't even get me into the two legged walkers from ROTJ. Man those things look built to fall over.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2005-02-13 03:08pm

Junghalli wrote: And don't even get me into the two legged walkers from ROTJ. Man those things look built to fall over.

Those were in TESB, too, just FYI.
I think te common consensus has been for a long time that Walkers are primarily a terror weapon. They're designed the way they are because of their looks.
As an aside, I'm still trying to figure out what MickeyMo's armored munitions are...

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-02-13 03:58pm

Batman wrote: Those were in TESB, too, just FYI.
I think te common consensus has been for a long time that Walkers are primarily a terror weapon. They're designed the way they are because of their looks.
As an aside, I'm still trying to figure out what MickeyMo's armored munitions are...

He probably meant anti-armor weapons.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2005-02-13 04:17pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Batman wrote: Those were in TESB, too, just FYI.
I think te common consensus has been for a long time that Walkers are primarily a terror weapon. They're designed the way they are because of their looks.
As an aside, I'm still trying to figure out what MickeyMo's armored munitions are...
He probably meant anti-armor weapons.

Oh, I know what he meant, but since he also seems to think kevlar bullets are teh uber

MickeyMo · Post by **MickeyMo** » 2005-02-13 05:08pm

Batman, no thats because our existing munitions can already penetrate kevlar. Vests made only of kevlar a useless against most rifles, especially high powered ones.

The point being is that there will never be a time, in this or any other century or Galaxy, when any armor can be created that will need anything other than a projectile to penetrate it. Since they can just make the munitions out of the same substance. That goes for Tungsten, Depleted Uranium, Titanium or "Durasteel." The actual munitions and armor will be composites of various materials, as is already the case with many types.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2005-02-13 05:38pm

Oh, so armor needs to be cracked by a penetrator? Gee whiz, guess the RPG's useless then...

Oh, wait-- the news from Iraq just came in... nope, it ain't.

Point is, you don't need a penetrator to go through armor-- shaped charges, HEAT, and so forth, are just as effective. Hell, with something along the lines of the AT-AT, you could just set off a bigass directed explosion and knock it over, effectively rendering it immobile.

I suggest you do your research first...

MickeyMo · Post by **MickeyMo** » 2005-02-13 05:42pm

I never said that there are not other ways to defeat armored vehicles. "...anything other than a projectile" meant that we won't need phasers or blasters or rayguns.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-02-13 05:50pm

Elheru Aran wrote:Oh, so armor needs to be cracked by a penetrator? Gee whiz, guess the RPG's useless then...

Oh, wait-- the news from Iraq just came in... nope, it ain't.

Point is, you don't need a penetrator to go through armor-- shaped charges, HEAT, and so forth, are just as effective. Hell, with something along the lines of the AT-AT, you could just set off a bigass directed explosion and knock it over, effectively rendering it immobile.

I suggest you do your research first...

Actually HEAT rounds do use a penetrator, when the round goes off the super-heated liquid metal and gas from the warhead becomes the penetrator.

You could probably build an AT-AT using modern materials and weapons, but there's no point. It's role can be fulfilled by modern MBT and APC/IFV's operating together. The AT-AT is designed to be a weapon of terror to be used against technilogically inferior opponents. Conditions that don't exactly exist on modern Earth.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2005-02-13 07:08pm

The only reason walkers were created in SW militaries is to defeat theater shields, walkers can march right through them. They have no real or practical purpose in modern warfare.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2005-02-13 07:11pm

treaded vehicles can also bypass theatre shields.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2005-02-13 07:28pm

Yes I know.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-02-14 03:03am

You could build one but it will only be good for coolness looking

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2005-02-14 12:35pm

It's a pity that George Lucas seems to be allergic to tracks The SPHA-T would have been a perfect candidate (IIRC it was even in the original design), yet they put those useless-looking centipede legs on it. Sigh...

Darth Bowser · Post by **Darth Bowser** » 2005-02-14 02:55pm

It seems to be a rule, futuristic = needs legs not tracks.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2005-02-14 06:33pm

Crayz9000 wrote:It's a pity that George Lucas seems to be allergic to tracks The SPHA-T would have been a perfect candidate (IIRC it was even in the original design), yet they put those useless-looking centipede legs on it. Sigh...

Yeah, that always bugged me too. Oh well, at least we get the Juggernaught "Turbo Tank" in Episode 3 though.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-02-15 02:23am

Icehawk wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:It's a pity that George Lucas seems to be allergic to tracks The SPHA-T would have been a perfect candidate (IIRC it was even in the original design), yet they put those useless-looking centipede legs on it. Sigh...
Yeah, that always bugged me too. Oh well, at least we get the Juggernaught "Turbo Tank" in Episode 3 though.

Please say that "turbo tank" wont the official name

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2005-02-15 02:35am

wautd wrote:Please say that "turbo tank" wont the official name

It's hardly a tank anyway, more like a cross between a Stryker and a two-story dump truck with blasters tacked on for good measure

But yeah, calling it a turbo tank is kinda dumb...