Tracked Vehicles Instead of Walkers...

[Darth Wong]

Don't be an idiot, Blake. The AT-AT is a transport, not artillery, and Luke Skywalker running up to any real APC would be blown into giblets, lightsaber or no.

The AT-AT is both a transport and artillery. They used it for blowing up a major installation at long range; that's a job for artillery. It's also sufficiently well-armoured to withstand long-range fire, but it can't fight very well in close.

Could the SW galaxy have designed and built a better vehicle for that particular mission? Sure. Does this necessarily mean that Vader's Death Squadron must have had such vehicles on hand? I don't see why. These aren't Acclamators; they're capships designed for destroying other capships, and troop carrying is a secondary function at best.

As for FOG3's notion that the AT-ATs cost the Imps the battle, the Imps won that battle. He's just arguing that they could have won it faster by bringing in some sort of futuristic MLRS, or (presuming that there's an altitude ceiling imposed by the shield) using some sort of low-altitude cruise missiles. Each of these approaches has potential strengths and weaknesses, but the AT-ATs are pretty much guaranteed to work, so why not use them?

[LordShaithis]

The AT-AT is both a transport and artillery. They used it for blowing up a major installation at long range; that's a job for artillery. It's also sufficiently well-armoured to withstand long-range fire, but it can't fight very well in close.

Point taken, though I still find it odd that a vehicle designed at least in part to deliver infantry to battle is so ill-equipped to deal with enemy infantry. I'm not talking about a huge redesign, just a few light repeating blasters on the undercarriage to discourage hijinks such as Luke's and provide cover fire as it opens the door to dismount troops.

Could the SW galaxy have designed and built a better vehicle for that particular mission? Sure. Does this necessarily mean that Vader's Death Squadron must have had such vehicles on hand? I don't see why. These aren't Acclamators; they're capships designed for destroying other capships, and troop carrying is a secondary function at best.

It is a secondary role for the ISD, but one which it's very well-equipped to execute. Looking up the stats, an ISD is supposed to have a complement of twenty AT-ATs, thirty AT-STs, and a prefabricated garrison base, on top of nearly ten-thousand infantry and shuttles in which to land them.

As for FOG3's notion that the AT-ATs cost the Imps the battle, the Imps won that battle. He's just arguing that they could have won it faster by bringing in some sort of futuristic MLRS, or (presuming that there's an altitude ceiling imposed by the shield) using some sort of low-altitude cruise missiles. Each of these approaches has potential strengths and weaknesses, but the AT-ATs are pretty much guaranteed to work, so why not use them?

And that's exactly what I'm saying, that the Empire could have won much more easily using missiles. And given that a single ISD carries dozens of armored fighting vehicles and thousands of soldiers, I do find it odd that Vader's entire squadron didn't have even one or two MLRS (or equivalent) kicking around for situations like this.

[FTeik]

What role could Hoth's climate have played in the Empire's decision to use walkers? The rebels had huge problems to modify most of their vessels to the cold, IIRC.

[Anguirus]

^ I think I brought this up as well. The walkers may well have been the only vehicles in the force that were already capable of operating in the local conditions. (Probably the legs keeping the main body off the ground helps a LOT).

The so-called "primary" turret has a safety margin of 2 degrees forward if you keep it at 90 degrees. Sideways and rearwards is a bit better, but we're still talking about a gun that can't normally fire at ground vehicles. It also has a damage rating equal to the multi-barreled rear blaster cannon.

It's a long-range weapon. Think the 17.2 kilometer shot from the Battle of Hoth. This gun has a 360 degree field of fire, is placed higher than the AT-AT's heavy cannons, and has the most firepower of the craft's turrets. Shots that have to be directed lower, at nearby vehicles, are taken by the other turrets--that's what they're there for. It has coverage from nearly all angles by weaker weapons as well, as well as the indirect-fire missiles.

As for damage ratings being the same, I honestly don't take RPG stats into consideration. I'll check the ICS when I get home, but if there's no contradiction, that still indicates that the top turret is a long-range weapon and the repeating turret is a close range anti vehicle weapon.

[Darth Wong]

Point taken, though I still find it odd that a vehicle designed at least in part to deliver infantry to battle is so ill-equipped to deal with enemy infantry. I'm not talking about a huge redesign, just a few light repeating blasters on the undercarriage to discourage hijinks such as Luke's and provide cover fire as it opens the door to dismount troops.

To be honest, I always felt that it was a mistake for the EU writers to call it a transport and draw its as a basically hollow box. When I was younger, I had always envisioned the body of the walker to be filled with machinery. It really makes more sense when you think of it that way; its huge body is required in order to provide the power for its weapons.

It is a secondary role for the ISD, but one which it's very well-equipped to execute. Looking up the stats, an ISD is supposed to have a complement of twenty AT-ATs, thirty AT-STs, and a prefabricated garrison base, on top of nearly ten-thousand infantry and shuttles in which to land them.

The ability to put down a quickie generic pre-fab base does not necessarily mean they're particularly well equipped for planetary invasions. For an actual full-scale military operation you need much more than that, unless you're Donald Rumsfeld.

And that's exactly what I'm saying, that the Empire could have won much more easily using missiles. And given that a single ISD carries dozens of armored fighting vehicles and thousands of soldiers, I do find it odd that Vader's entire squadron didn't have even one or two MLRS (or equivalent) kicking around for situations like this.

Not necessarily. They wanted to capture the Rebels, not annihilate them. Luke was the mission objective, remember? Saturating the base with nuclear missiles would not have accomplished this objective. Direct fire, on the other hand, allows you to know exactly what you're hitting and what kind of collateral damage you can expect (unwanted collateral damage from the use of bombs and guided missiles is a major problem in real-life; this should not come as a surprise).

[Vympel]

To be honest, I always felt that it was a mistake for the EU writers to call it a transport and draw its as a basically hollow box. When I was younger, I had always envisioned the body of the walker to be filled with machinery. It really makes more sense when you think of it that way; its huge body is required in order to provide the power for its weapons.

It wasn't really the EU that did it though- the TESB novelization was the first to call it an AT-AT, and we know of course from the film that they're troop carriers.

Also, I always got the impression they had a lot of internal space from my (admittedly subjective) impression of Luke getting off the AT-AT in RotJ.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is that they're a pretty bad design for a troop carrier. You can debark by roping down, but how do you get back in unless you have a loading platform handy? That's why I never really liked the "troop carrier" role.

In any case, the whole "tracked vehicles vs walkers" thread is not particularly well-served by debating missiles vs direct-fire guns. You could put direct-fire guns on a tracked vehicle, or missiles on a walker.

[nightmare]

It's a long-range weapon.

Situated at a height of 20.5 m, its theoretical maximum range is 16.17 km to horizon. The AT-AT's gun height of approximately 16.64 m gives it a range of 14.57 km on flat terrain.

The problem is that you can't depress it more than 5 degrees, leaving 2 degrees safety margin. The weapons is incapable of firing at anything closer than 8.7 km, and that leaves no safety margin at all; a blast fired at this range would likely damage the Juggernaut. ~10 km leaves a small margin of error. The situation is only a miniscule better rearwards. This is all assuming flat terrain, of course.

So you are right. It is a long-range gun. In fact, it's useless for firing at anything closer than ~10 km. I was wrong in assuming it would make useful AA; it's an artillery gun.

It's rather clear by now why the A6 Jugg has so many weapons - they're next to useless except for a specific task, meaning they complement each other for a useful whole. AT-AT weapons are far more versatile in comparison. Previous claims by you made it seem like all the A6 weapons were effective in any direction and range up to max, and at any target. Seems like the direct opposite to me.

[Connor MacLeod]

It's a long-range weapon.

Situated at a height of 20.5 m, its theoretical maximum range is 16.17 km to horizon. The AT-AT's gun height of approximately 16.64 m gives it a range of 14.57 km on flat terrain.

The problem is that you can't depress it more than 5 degrees, leaving 2 degrees safety margin. The weapons is incapable of firing at anything closer than 8.7 km, and that leaves no safety margin at all; a blast fired at this range would likely damage the Juggernaut. ~10 km leaves a small margin of error. The situation is only a miniscule better rearwards. This is all assuming flat terrain, of course.

So you are right. It is a long-range gun. In fact, it's useless for firing at anything closer than ~10 km. I was wrong in assuming it would make useful AA; it's an artillery gun.

You're talking about moving the head around, I assume? Yes, that does limit it some, but the side guns have more traverse (I dont remember where I saw that, it might have been the TESB comic) but even more than that, both sets of guns (heavy lasers and medium blasters) can fire "off axis" independent of the gun (we see this when that AT AT fires on the last walker before the "maximum firepower" scene.) So its not quite THAT bad. (on the other hand, ,its also proof the AT-AT needs greater than the 2-3 km range the WEG stuff implies, too.)

[Connor MacLeod]

All good points, Katr_Kana, but I'd like to point out that even with inertial guidance, those hailfire missiles, if programmed at moment of launch, could have still hit the AT-TEs (at least most of the time).

It's also possible that the hailfire missiles had droid brains with visual sensors on them. Probably more expensive (significant cost increase considering the volume of missiles fired), but possible.

Those hailfire missiles certainly appeared to take erratic paths that look like they're intended to attempt to frustrate anti-missile fire, but I'm surprised the Republic vehicles didn't have some sort of point defense weapons, too.. or even attempt to improvise anti-missile fire.

Hailfires engaged at very close ranges, though (less than a kilometer, which the AOTC:ITW book implies might be close to their max effective range.) Star Wars evidently has the ability to jam even optical sensors somehow (ANH novel, where the Death star jammed "everything but a pilot's eyes" to paraphrase.) and even if they couldn't, there's still the fact that guided rockets/missiles are vulnerable to interception (Gunships on Utapau intercepted hailfire missiles with their mini superlasers, according to the ROTS novelization.)

While twilight enfolded the sinkhole, over the bright desert above assault craft skimmed the dunes in a tightening ring cen­tered on the city. Hailfire droids rolled out from caves in the wind-scoured mesas, unleashing firestorms of missiles toward the oncoming craft for exactly 2.5 seconds apiece, which was how long it took for the Vigilance's sensor operators to transfer data to its turbolaser batteries.

Thunderbolts roared down through the atmosphere, and hailfire droids disintegrated. Pinpoint counterfire from the bub­ble turrets of LAAT/i's met missiles in blossoming fireballs that were ripped to shreds of smoke as the oncoming craft blasted through them.

[Connor MacLeod]

To be honest, I always felt that it was a mistake for the EU writers to call it a transport and draw its as a basically hollow box. When I was younger, I had always envisioned the body of the walker to be filled with machinery. It really makes more sense when you think of it that way; its huge body is required in order to provide the power for its weapons.

They don't really carry all that many troops (about 40 or so) and some scout bikes. I presume they only carry troops either for defensive purposes or scouting (either with the bikes or some exotic trooper or something.) Or maybe for assault/capture purposes along the path of the walker.

Really, if they wanted to drop larger numbers of troops they'd use assault shuttles/transports, or dedicated trooper carriers (We know they have those as per ROTS, after all.)

[LordShaithis]

To be honest, I always felt that it was a mistake for the EU writers to call it a transport and draw its as a basically hollow box. When I was younger, I had always envisioned the body of the walker to be filled with machinery. It really makes more sense when you think of it that way; its huge body is required in order to provide the power for its weapons.

The weapon power of the AT-AT is odd to me too. The commander orders "maximum firepower" or something to that effect, but when the shots hit the generator you don't see the huge vaporization of surrounding snow you would expect, given that even fighter guns are supposed to be kiloton range. Granted it makes sense that they didn't want to use nuke-yield blasts when trying to capture the base, but it begs the question of why the officer said that.

The ability to put down a quickie generic pre-fab base does not necessarily mean they're particularly well equipped for planetary invasions. For an actual full-scale military operation you need much more than that, unless you're Donald Rumsfeld.

Yeah, landing ground troops is definately a secondary or tertiary function of an ISD, given how inadequate even a fleet of them would be for occupying a decently populated world. I take it that they're supplied with ground forces specifically so they can undertake small-scale operations, like the Tatooine search and Hoth attack, where calling in dedicated troop transports isn't practical.

Still, given that the AT-AT is clearly a heavy assault vehicle (as opposed to something you would use to police a city) and that an ISD carries twenty of the suckers, I have to figure that someone planned on these ground forces seeing some serious action, however small the scale. With that in mind, I can't figure out why they don't have a more balanced complement of vehicles.

I mean if the rebel air support on Hoth had consisted of anything that could deliver protorps, the battle might have been a serious problem for Imperial ground forces. Surely having friendly fighter support cut off by a theater shield isn't something that was completely unheard of, so why wasn't there even a trace of decent AA defense?

Not necessarily. They wanted to capture the Rebels, not annihilate them. Luke was the mission objective, remember? Saturating the base with nuclear missiles would not have accomplished this objective.

Well, they hardly needed to carpet-nuke the base just to take out that generator. If I recall correctly their probe droid had already given them a good view of it, and thus the location should have been known to them. All they needed was some sort of cruise missile in sufficient quantity to slip one past whatever rebel air defense there was, and take out the shield. Then cue the troop shuttles and orbital fire support from light turbolasers dialed down to an appropriate "don't collapse the whole bloody base" setting.

Direct fire, on the other hand, allows you to know exactly what you're hitting and what kind of collateral damage you can expect (unwanted collateral damage from the use of bombs and guided missiles is a major problem in real-life; this should not come as a surprise).

Direct fire has its benefits, of course, but I find the total lack of indirect fire weapons at Hoth odd, considering the distances involved.

In any case, the whole "tracked vehicles vs walkers" thread is not particularly well-served by debating missiles vs direct-fire guns. You could put direct-fire guns on a tracked vehicle, or missiles on a walker.

Yeah, it's sort of drifted onto the general subject of what a weird vehicle the AT-AT is, and why it's relied upon so heavily. But it hasn't gone totally off the original topic, and I still find it interesting, so I'll probably keep posting until it either peters out or someone tells me not ot.

[nightmare]

You're talking about moving the head around, I assume?

Previously I did, that part is about the primary turret on the A6 Juggernaut. Good point about the off-axis capability, though. I have to check the movie again for some specific AT-AT examples, maybe there are some.

[Kuciwalker]

I mean if the rebel air support on Hoth had consisted of anything that could deliver protorps, the battle might have been a serious problem for Imperial ground forces. Surely having friendly fighter support cut off by a theater shield isn't something that was completely unheard of, so why wasn't there even a trace of decent AA defense?

The situations in which friendly fighter cover is unavailable (theater shield) are the same as those in which enemy air support isn't too hot either, probably.

[Batman]

I mean if the rebel air support on Hoth had consisted of anything that could deliver protorps, the battle might have been a serious problem for Imperial ground forces. Surely having friendly fighter support cut off by a theater shield isn't something that was completely unheard of, so why wasn't there even a trace of decent AA defense?

The situations in which friendly fighter cover is unavailable (theater shield) are the same as those in which enemy air support isn't too hot either, probably.

I don't see why. Yes, so the Rebel Snowspeeders did mostly dick against the AT-ATs. That's most likely because they weren't designed to. Given the minuscule size of protorps and the accompanying launchers I fail to see why they can't be mounted on purely atmospheric vehicles (as evidenced by the fact that real-life combat aircraft regularly carry weapons significantly larger than that). Assuming no starfighters=no aerial threat worth mentioning is IMHO foolish.

[Darth Wong]

The nature of the Rebel defense implies that they expected something other than AT-AT walkers: something smaller, faster, and less heavily armoured.

[LordShaithis]

The snow and ice on Hoth were supposed to be many meters deep, weren't they? Assuming snowspeeder guns are anywhere remotely in the same ballpark as starfighter guns, they would have done very well to strafe the surface beneath the walkers feet. Nothing remains stable when you vaporize the ground out from under it.

Bleh. This battle makes less sense the more I think about it.

[Anguirus]

Previous claims by you made it seem like all the A6 weapons were effective in any direction and range up to max, and at any target.

When did I say that? The vehicle in general has better coverage than the AT-AT, because it has more diverse weaponry and can strike at almost any angle at long and short range.

Situated at a height of 20.5 m, its theoretical maximum range is 16.17 km to horizon. The AT-AT's gun height of approximately 16.64 m gives it a range of 14.57 km on flat terrain.

The Juggernaut is 30.4 meters tall. That would give it even longer range, though the elevation problem persists.

I finally have the ICS, so here are a few more interesting tidbits:

Max land speed 160 kph
Fuel for 30,000 km
Crew 12 excluding gunners, 50-300 passengers depending on internal configuration.

"Each of a Juggernaut's wheels consists of three versatile, independently spinning segments, which enable the hulking vehicle to move smoothly across even the most inhospitable terrain."

"The large surface of the Juggernaut's wheel helps to reduce ground pressure. This makes the vehicle less prone to sinking in soft soil than the heavy AT-TE or AT-HE, where the weight is supported by smaller, narrow feet."

"Although wheeled transport may seem like a graceless system from a prehistoric age, a Juggernaut's direct ground contact protects it from electromagnetic attacks and shield discharges. It can also stop and turn in a smaller radius than any repulsorlift craft, crushing dwarf spider droids or battle droids beneath its treads. Nearly impenetrable armor and an arsenal of beam and missile weapons make it a match for most ground-based vehicles."

(Bolded a weird part for emphasis. I don't see how that makes any sense. Maybe it means to say "repulsorlift craft of similar size?" But even that makes no sense.)

"...built around a powerful reactor core and engine, with blasters and grenade launchers on every side. As well as being a front-line assault vehicle, these hulks provide secure shelter and transport for a company..."

"Thermally superconducting armor absorbs energy beams and spreads heat harmlessly over a wide area."

"Juggernauts are designed to deliver tremendous firepower in order to overwhelm well-shielded military structures, some of which can withstand a lone Juggernaut's barrage for hours."

In the cutaway diagram, the "reactor and engine systems" are buried in the middle of the craft. There is a rear deployment hatch that two sets of interior stairs lead down to, underneath the rear cockpit. It seems as if a ramp or hatch deploys right underneath that cockpit. That would make for slow deployment, but it seems feasible. The troop cabin has its own life-support system and blast doors. The armor looks to be about a quarter-meter thick, assuming the clone troops are about 2 m tall.

[nightmare]

When did I say that? The vehicle in general has better coverage than the AT-AT, because it has more diverse weaponry and can strike at almost any angle at long and short range.

You never stated it outright, it merely looked like this was your meaning. A typical problem on a two dimensional medium. Consider that scrapped.

The Juggernaut is 30.4 meters tall.

With extended mast. I scaled gun elevation.

(Bolded a weird part for emphasis. I don't see how that makes any sense. Maybe it means to say "repulsorlift craft of similar size?" But even that makes no sense.)

You know that aircraft of today have turning radii usually counted in kilometres, unless going at particularly slow speed. The same principle should apply to repulsorcraft in general, though, the small and highly agile snowspeeders at the battle of Hoth were able to execute some very tight turns, albeit at fairly slow speed.

The armor looks to be about a quarter-meter thick, assuming the clone troops are about 2 m tall.

25 cm? That's a little less than my calculations, but well within reason.

The rest is interesting, although I think the only point it brings up is greater ground contact than AT-TEs and the like, which is rather obvious anyway.

I too have a bit new to add after watching the sequence. Firstly, AT-ATs are indeed capable of off-axis firing, though we haven't yet established the limitations of it. Presumably it would give it a greater fire arc. Secondly, there is at least one AT-ST alive after the rebel artillery was blown up and Echo base overrun by imperial stormtroopers.

The third point has nothing to do with this debate, I'll just say I agree with Dr.Saxton about the range of AT-AT main guns.

EDIT: No wait - there is at least one more thing of interest. "Fuel for 30,000 km" should give it very good potential range. Unless there's some other problem involved.

Here is a link to the A5. You can see for yourself the similarities with the A6. If you can show that none of the weaknesses in the A5 are present in the A6, be my guest.

[Batman]

(Bolded a weird part for emphasis. I don't see how that makes any sense. Maybe it means to say "repulsorlift craft of similar size?" But even that makes no sense.)

You know that aircraft of today have turning radii usually counted in kilometres, unless going at particularly slow speed. The same principle should apply to repulsorcraft in general, though, the small and highly agile snowspeeders at the battle of Hoth were able to execute some very tight turns, albeit at fairly slow speed.

Aircraft today are hindered by the need for aerodynamic lift/maneuvering (mostly), and structural and physiological limits on the g forces they can pull.
Neither applies to a craft with repulsors, TVC, and accelleration compensators.
They should be able to change heading (if not-immediately-direction) at will and slow down just as fast (if not faster) than they can accellerate.

[Kuciwalker]

Particularly, a slow-moving ground-hugging repulsorcraft (e.g. the droid tanks of Ep 1) should be far more maneuverable than either an ATAT or a wheeled vehicle.

[Anguirus]

The A5 is simply a scaled down A6...or vice versa.

The height of the "box" part of the craft is 30 meters. For one thing, the mast telescopes up and down to an unknown extent, so it makes no sense to use that as the basis for the height of the craft. Second, it's 49.4 meters long and about 3/5 as tall as it is long. That's because it has nearly the same proportions as the 15 meter tall 21 meter long A5. Just double the numbers (30 meters tall, 42 meters long) and add a bit to the A6's length.

If you can show that none of the weaknesses in the A5 are present in the A6, be my guest.

*Checks link* Well, I guess they have pretty much the same "primitive" drive system...the one that apparently has a tight turning radius (Saxton may have used hyperbole but the point is pretty clear), three independently-moving segments per wheel, independent suspension per wheel, etc.

The other weakness (short range) seems to be due to the use of primitive guns and targeting systems (cough WEG BS about CW era equipment sucking cough), which could simply be replaced without altering the basic design.

And we already discussed that the best place to shoot one of these things is going to be the undercarriage. That much is clear, but at least the reactor and fuel tank are completely surrounded by armor. The suspension system is partly exposed, so I'd go for that, but you might have to shoot off several wheels to stop it. And then it'll keep shooting.

[nightmare]

The A5 is simply a scaled down A6...or vice versa.

The height of the "box" part of the craft is 30 meters. For one thing, the mast telescopes up and down to an unknown extent, so it makes no sense to use that as the basis for the height of the craft. Second, it's 49.4 meters long and about 3/5 as tall as it is long. That's because it has nearly the same proportions as the 15 meter tall 21 meter long A5. Just double the numbers (30 meters tall, 42 meters long) and add a bit to the A6's length.

I wasn't guessing, I measured it. Plus: Link

*Checks link* Well, I guess they have pretty much the same "primitive" drive system...the one that apparently has a tight turning radius (Saxton may have used hyperbole but the point is pretty clear), three independently-moving segments per wheel, independent suspension per wheel, etc.

The other weakness (short range) seems to be due to the use of primitive guns and targeting systems (cough WEG BS about CW era equipment sucking cough), which could simply be replaced without altering the basic design.

And we already discussed that the best place to shoot one of these things is going to be the undercarriage. That much is clear, but at least the reactor and fuel tank are completely surrounded by armor. The suspension system is partly exposed, so I'd go for that, but you might have to shoot off several wheels to stop it. And then it'll keep shooting.

Multiple wheels provide some redundance regardlesss of construction, yes. It is reasonable that the A6 is a better vehicle than the A5 since it is apparently a newer product. The dissimilarities do not appear great however. One might also note that the A6 is not the last model of the Juggernaut, so apparently there was room for improvements.

[Anguirus]

In that case, why don't the A5 and A6 appear to have drastically different proportions? If the A6 is 20 meters tall and 50 meters long, then the A5 is 3/4 of the height and less than half of the length!

[Winston Blake]

Gee, thanks. The fact is that the Rebel X-wings only carried a single pair of torpedoes because they were so expensive, supporting my point that missiles are more expensive than blaster cannons.

Watch him backpedal. From a missile that costs as much as multiple AT-ATs to merely blasters are cheaper then missiles. No shit, sherlock.

I didn't know it was possible to backpedal on a point that I already conceded. By the way, that was a cruise missile carrier costing several AT-ATs, not a single missile.

The only period in which we see missiles in common use is during the Clone Wars, the only full scale war in 25 000 years. Your explanation for this is 'Hur, hur, Empire stoopid'. My explanation is that only a superpower facing another superpower needs the capability provided by jam-resistant missiles

So you're saying I can make the missiles even cheaper, because I don't need to make them as jam resistant, which means I can use them more liberally when in the Clone Wars they already had lots of them on effectively expendable unit. Wow, that would utterly blow away your previous position, why on Earth would say something like that?

Huh? Are you missing the fact that the Rebels still had ECM?

All Imperial starships, including the smallest one-man fighters, incorporate sensor jamming equipment. According to SWICS, advanced TIE fighters employ sophisticated sensor suites that "must overcome the extremely powerful jamming signals used by all combat craft". The DS also employed "hundreds of Kuat Drive Yards 220-SIG tactical jammers" that prevented the attacking X-Wings from being able to use their onboard sensors (ref. SWEGWT). And of course, the Imperial fleet broadcast so much sensor interference during the Battle of Endor that the Rebel fleet was unable to determine whether the DS2 shield was up or down until they destroyed the fleet's primary communications ship (ref. ROTJ novelization).

You speak of ECM as if it only works in the most crude forms possible, the Battle of Endor example indicates a little more elegance in operation then you seem to appreciate, but given you've already declared the Empire doesn't need "jam resistant" missiles, what your point?

What's your point with this? It's like you were starting something about how a misunderstanding of ECM invalidates a point of mine, then - nothing. By the way, that's a misquote, it's not from me, it's from the main site.

During the OT missiles are seen very rarely, and the Empire has no formidable enemy, nobody with resources even approaching its own. The use of AT-ATs despite the possibility of guided missiles can be rationalised by considering that, while missiles are possible, the Empire can't justify the cost, complexity and labour of using them any more. Not when the biggest and best opposing force are pitiful guerilla raiders like the Rebels.

Whatever.

Those are some very good points. I concede everything.

If I could have found one big enough, I would have compared it to an artillery shell. That would still have been too resource-intensive, since my point was that blaster bolts don't require any manufacturing/shipping etc, and hence are cheaper than complex autonomous missiles that are continuously destroyed. I don't know what point you thought you were attacking.

If you're saying used up, Tibanna gas, parts, etc will also be used up. It'd really have helped if you'd bothered to look back and find out what my position was as opposed to associating me with others.

Are you incapable of seeing anything quantitatively? My whole point is that blasters bolts will obviously use up resources at a much lower rate.

If you'd limited yourself to didn't field you'd be correct. Couldn't isn't, especially if Anquarius' reference to quad laser cannons being able to blow them away in DE is legit.

May I ask if English is your first language, or if you have any kind of mental condition like dyslexia?

I could ask the same.

My answers would be yes and no, Mr "I know you are but what am I".

What do you think quoting this achieves? It doesn't say anything about urban warfare there. Insurgents can be based in frozen wastes and jungles, not necessarily cities. Are you trying to say that fighting the Rebellion was an actual war? What would you call fighting guerillas recruited from the Empire's subjects, if not counter-insurgency?

What part of Galactic Civil War and the Alliance to Restore the Republic is so hard for you to comprehend? Yes, it was a war, and your lame begging of the question doesn't change the ramifications of what is required to legitly consider a piece of equipment versatile in "counter-insurgency." As you've not brought forward a valid counter argument concession accepted.

If it really was a civil war, what areas of the galaxy did the Rebellion control? What systems declared their opposition to the government and allegiance to the Rebellion? None. I don't know how anyone could watch Star Wars and think the Rebellion was anything but a covert network of revolutionaries. The Clone Wars were a civil war (hell they were based on the American civil war), the Rebellion was just that - a rebellion. What does 'Alliance to Restore the Republic' have to do with war?

You posted a dictionary definition and it proved you wrong, I should be the one spitting 'concession accepted'. Here are all the definitions of 'insurgent' referenced at Dictionary.com, none of them mentioning anything urban, all of them fitting the Rebel Alliance.

in·sur·gent /ɪnˈsɜrdʒənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sur-juhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.

in·sur·gent (ĭn-sûr'jənt) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

insurgent

adjective
1. in opposition to a civil authority or government

noun
1. a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
2. a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla]

Main Entry: in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: in-'s&r-j&nt
Function: noun
1 : a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially : one not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one that acts contrary to the established leadership (as of a political party, union, or corporation) or its decisions and policies

You're the one who assumed that counter-insurgency implied urban warfare, even though I was clearly referring to the Rebellion which certainly isn't based in cities. Carrying blaster cannons which can be manufactured and maintained for cheap, dialed to any yield, and which provide a huge number of stowed kills is more versatile than a rack full of cruise missiles. I say 'versatile' because even though 'general' is the antonym of 'specialised', it's ambiguous.

If you are conducting counter insurgency you need to at least be able to conduct operations in urban areas as these are your centers of power, doofus. It's implied, you don't like it, don't BS with general terminology you're to ignorant to comprehend.

The Rebels were not based in the Empire's centres of power. You know what, if you have such a huge problem with the meaning of the particular term 'counter-insurgency', why don't you try mentally substituting my use of it with 'counter-Rebellion'? Insisting that 'But, but - it's implied' doesn't get you anywhere.

Where did I say that AT-ATs would have no problem navigating streets? YOU said AT-ATs wouldn't even fit in 'the biggest boulevards' and I corrected you. Your point that AT-ATs would suck at walking through urban terrain is a strawman, since I never suggested AT-ATs for urban warfare.

You mean this?

Try taking up the biggest boulevards completely by itself further encouraging dissent, if it can go at all. So unless you're hiding something up your sleeve that leaves heavy handed burned earth policy, which will only encourage them all the more.

So you've stooped to lying to give yourself traction, doofus? Not to mention you're to ignorant to comprehend what I'm actually talking about, pathetic.

What exactly did I lie about? I merely proved that AT-ATs are smaller than you claimed they were.

OK, so making CAS aircraft could be done.

I'm getting tired of this CAS nonsense. CAS is a role, and the mission I'm outlining is a Strike mission with potential SEAD, both of which the A-10 is known to be exceeding capable in doing.

More semantic nitpicking. I've used the term 'CAS aircraft', which the A-10 undoubtedly is. The fact they can do other missions is irrelevant.

Now how would you sell that to an Imperial Appropriations Committee, with the Clone Wars long gone and no opposing forces left anywhere near the power of the Empire? Policing criminal activities and skirmishing with guerillas and gangs doesn't justify enabling new capabilities through developing powerful, expensive new systems.

Fine no AT-ATs _period_ by the same exact logic.

Did you miss the whole 'existing AT-ATs' thrust of my position? New implementations are always restricted by existing ones. My main concept is old Clone War transports (see the extremely similar behind-front-lines AT-OT) fitting neatly into the assault gun role during the post-Clone-War cutbacks. The other one was considering the AT-AT as an AT-HE-based kangaroo vehicle.

If not for Luke Skywalker and the hidden Rebel ion cannon, the AT-ATs would have been undefeated and no Rebel ships could've escaped.

And if they'd all just instantly converted, there never would have been a fight. You already have the deck utterly stacked in the Imperials favor and you're still trying to cheat? So much for your confidence in the "effectiveness" & "versatility" of AT-ATs.

What are you babbling about? You're judging the vulnerability of AT-ATs based on the actions of a superhuman who's fated to save the galaxy, and judging the Imperial lack of haste based on the assumption they already knew about the huge honking space gun that would assrape their blockade of the planet.

You go on about how small nuclear yield weapons (missiles/mines) can be to kill AT-ATs. You even say they could fit in MANPADS. Let's assume there's no reason why missiles aren't commonly used. Why wouldn't that work even better against CAS aircraft? Your squadron of A-10s and AC-130s gets a face full of nuclear fireball as soon as it crosses the horizon. Now, in a Rebel-controlled battlefield full of jamming which nullifies missiles, snowspeeders would outmaneuver them and shoot them down.

It wouldn't work better because the aircraft could manuever and actually effectively utilize ECM. The level of jamming you seem aware of isn't going to make the round not follows it's ballistic path which is sufficient against a target that can hardly be said to move. WW1 has solid evidence of this where many of the early tanks got knocked out by artillery once the shock wore off, despite they basically had to get a direct hit on them. They needless to say were a heck of a lot smaller, and had a lot more targetting issues the SW should.

Evasive maneuvers aren't going to do much against kilometer-wide nuclear fireballs. Why have you switched over to A-10s vs AT-ATs? I thought this was about A-10s replacing AT-ATs.

The lack of CAS aircraft can be rationalised by a lack of armour, the kind of heavy armour that made snowspeeder blasters and Rebel gun emplacements utterly impotent against the AT-ATs. A-10s certainly can't carry MBT-level armour.

It can carry bigger, better deflector screens then a starfighter, which are the primary defense in the SW universe, not armor. As a matter of fact if I was really in the mood for a fight I could go further with that, but I'm not.

What makes you think an AT-AT wouldn't be able to carry even more powerful shields than a small aircraft, if it was that simple?

Ok then, let's limit these super-Bradleys to WWI tank speeds. Now would you rather replace them with A-10s? It could be done, but it's a matter of 'why?' rather than 'why not?'.

Limit? Clock them yourself, Luke's ability to use the Force at this point was between little and none, and the whole antics after he gets shot down clearly show just how slow they're going.

Are you incapable of staying on subject, or are you just dodging? You whine that the Bradleys in my analogy should move as slow as AT-ATs, then when I do that, you whine that I'm saying AT-ATs are fast? What the hell?

Furthermore don't call them Super-Bradleys, you sound like Sparks. Why would I use Aircraft/Airborne? Because doofus, if it didn't fail to slip your notice they utterly failed their primary mission objectives because they took so long that when they got there the base was practically abandoned, and the transports were already outside but apparently positioned such that the Imperials couldn't find them and neutralize them (Aerial recon would have been nice). Considering they used snail slow vehicles, you don't see the problem here, or why I'd pull the Aircraft/Airborne card as opposed to the Air Assault or Mechanizard card?

I'll call them whatever the fuck I want, or how about you quit making references that most people here aren't going to understand (fucking Gavins). You sound like Darkstar.

I'll quote myself in the first post on the previous page, because you're apparently to dense to have noticed:

[snip]

I admit that I assumed your plan was to send conventional transports after the air assault (A-10s + humvees), which was actually LordShaithis' plan (replacing 'cruise missile + warhead' with 'aircraft + munition').

I have already addressed and went over this, fool. The only way an AT-AT even works is if you have something like an orbitting fleet supressing them from just running/outmaneuvering, at Hoth we had the Elite of the Elite. As any competant guerilla knows, you avoid the frontline troops whenever possible and target the REMFs, supply lines, and otherwise except for the final push. AT-ATs can't keep up with anything we have let alone the common speeder.

So? When is the Empire not going to have space superiority? At Hoth we also had a fat Rebel ion cannon, which the Imperials obviously weren't aware of. Are you saying that the Rebels weren't avoiding the 'frontline troops'? They were literally hiding underground in a remote backwater, and they got found by Vader's roaming expeditionary force. The only time they engaged the main Imperial forces was at the Battle of Endor, which was, exactly as you describe, the final push.

Note that Ackbar acknowledged that the entire Rebel fleet was outclassed by the Imperial ships present, even though most of the Imperial fleet was spread thin across the galaxy just trying to find the Rebels.

Wrong. AT-ATs can move faster than modern tanks, with a top speed of 60 km/h. Abrams tanks are listed as 48 km/h cross country. I use the cross-country value because, simply by virtue of the sheer scale difference, terrain that's cross-country to a tank is flat to an AT-AT.

You can save a bunch of money on manufacturing cost by producing stuff with a Safety Factor of 0.1, but it won't do the job it needs to do so you might as well have flushed it down the toilet.

That's cute, but if you can save having to field five new different types of vehicle for different roles by re-purposing an existing vehicle for general purpose use, choosing the latter is plausible. All you're doing is whining about how much the AT-AT sucks and doesn't do the job. We've got our evidence (the Empire uses AT-ATs) so we have to either rationalise its problems, or take the cop-out of assuming character stupidity. Anything else is just masturbating. What is your explanation for the use of AT-ATs?