Noooo! SW mecha...

Darth Sephiroth · Post by **Darth Sephiroth** » 2005-06-26 06:50am

Sorry its the AA-AT

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2005-06-26 07:22am

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:
Jim Raynor wrote:No. Surprisingly, it's from the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy, which Saxton served as a consultant on. The book claims that Blizzard force was composed of AT-ATs, AT-STs, AT-PTs, and AT-ARs.
No shit? That is bizzare. Well, I guess they are not the obsolete walker-prototypes that the EGTVV makes them out to be.

I don't have the ITW:OT, but perhaps a fair number of Death Squadron's typical load of land vehicles had been deployed to squash rebel activities on some other planet, and in Vader's rush to get to Hoth, had loaded up with the hand-me-down walkers of some low importance Imperial starbase?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-06-26 07:39am

No. Surprisingly, it's from the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy, which Saxton served as a consultant on. The book claims that Blizzard force was composed of AT-ATs, AT-STs, AT-PTs, and AT-ARs.

According to Saxton, it was believed at the time that the battle would be added to for the 2004 DVD release. Obviously, this didn´t happen, but there´s always a possibility for a future release....

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-06-26 11:27am

Darth Wong wrote:Real-life technology does not follow the "use one thing for everything" mentality of Star Trek, and typically has great diversity and specialization.

Real life technology is also standardized, witness the use of Panzer III/IV chassises for everything from tank recovery vehicles, Self Propelled Artillery,
Self Propelled AT guns, Flakpanzers...these seem to be totally different, unreleated designs.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2005-06-26 11:30am

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Real-life technology does not follow the "use one thing for everything" mentality of Star Trek, and typically has great diversity and specialization.
Real life technology is also standardized, witness the use of Panzer III/IV chassises for everything from tank recovery vehicles, Self Propelled Artillery,
Self Propelled AT guns, Flakpanzers...these seem to be totally different, unreleated designs.

Then there is also the German half tracks ect. I guess the point is a military is made up of many different vehicles.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-06-26 11:34am

Isolder74 wrote:Then there is also the German half tracks ect. I guess the point is a military is made up of many different vehicles.

Imagine having to support logistically a totally different design for each role. It would be enough to drive you insane.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2005-06-26 11:36am

MKSheppard wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:Then there is also the German half tracks ect. I guess the point is a military is made up of many different vehicles.
Imagine having to support logistically a totally different design for each role. It would be enough to drive you insane.

That is a point where I would have to agree. weren't Panzers I and II's the same basic chassis?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-06-26 11:40am

Isolder74 wrote:That is a point where I would have to agree. weren't Panzers I and II's the same basic chassis?

I'm not exactly sure; but one of the "official" vehicle mods
which I wholeheartedly support is that 20 year old AT-TE we see
in the EMPIRE comic book. The entire top of it has been removed,
and it's being used as a mobile open-topped APC, with E-WEBs and
various other light repeating blasters installed.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2005-06-26 03:05pm

These are from the VD. The top one's a 3m tall droid. The bottom one i'm not so sure about (may have a space for a pilot).

AFAIK The main reason for mechs in SW is supposed to be theatre-shield technology which requires ground traction to pass through. So i don't see why legs would be useful enough for a glorified forklift (especially compared to a hover loader).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-06-26 07:54pm

I'm not exactly sure; but one of the "official" vehicle mods
which I wholeheartedly support is that 20 year old AT-TE we see
in the EMPIRE comic book.

There is also the AT-IC, which basically seems to be an AT-AT with its troop compartments opened up and used to carry an ion cannon.

Admiral Drason · Post by **Admiral Drason** » 2005-06-26 09:47pm

Lord of the Farce wrote:
Darth Garden Gnome wrote:
Jim Raynor wrote:No. Surprisingly, it's from the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy, which Saxton served as a consultant on. The book claims that Blizzard force was composed of AT-ATs, AT-STs, AT-PTs, and AT-ARs.
No shit? That is bizzare. Well, I guess they are not the obsolete walker-prototypes that the EGTVV makes them out to be.
I don't have the ITW:OT, but perhaps a fair number of Death Squadron's typical load of land vehicles had been deployed to squash rebel activities on some other planet, and in Vader's rush to get to Hoth, had loaded up with the hand-me-down walkers of some low importance Imperial starbase?

Death Squad droped every thing it was doing when they found the rebel base. They wouldnt have had enough time to pick up extra troops.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2005-06-26 10:36pm

Isolder74 wrote:That is a point where I would have to agree. weren't Panzers I and II's the same basic chassis?

I highly doubt it. PzKpfw II was two and a half feet longer, half a foot wider, ten inches higher, and 18,000 pounds heavier (more than double the weight of PzKpfw I). Also, the I was built by Krupp, and the II by MAN.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-06-27 10:40pm

The Ordnance Lifter looks like the one I saw... Though, the pincer loaders arms look closer to it - but it doesn't have the human type legs.