Iowa vs AT-AT

[Manji]

When the AT-AT stepped on Lukes snowspeeder, the observed effect for the speeder was similar to what happens to a coke can when a person steps on it.

*Splat*

If the speeder was constructed of "materials many thousands of times stronger than steel" that would not have happened.

And if it was it proves the power of the AT-AT.

Er... no. Being able to crush something is not proof of power in the military sense.

It's certainly proof of weight... but that's all, really.

The Jahre Viking, the world's largest ship, is over 10 times heavier than the USS Iowa. But it's not "more powerful".

[phongn]

If the battleship is carrying nuclear rounds (and only two were modified to do so), it might stand a chance if it can withstand the first hits from the AT-AT.

[Akm72]

If the battleship is carrying nuclear rounds (and only two were modified to do so), it might stand a chance if it can withstand the first hits from the AT-AT.

There is another problem the Iowa has to face; the very high accuacy of the AT-ATs main cannons. They should have little difficulty in hitting, and knocking out, the three main turrets with their first shots, leaving the Iowa with only her secondary weapons.

[Crazy_Vasey]

If the battleship is carrying nuclear rounds (and only two were modified to do so), it might stand a chance if it can withstand the first hits from the AT-AT.

There is another problem the Iowa has to face; the very high accuacy of the AT-ATs main cannons. They should have little difficulty in hitting, and knocking out, the three main turrets with their first shots, leaving the Iowa with only her secondary weapons.

Would a normal AT-AT driver be that accurate though? Veers and co are elite troops IIRC.

[Veers]

And if it was it proves the power of the AT-AT.

Proves the weight of the ATAT.

Which can't be that great and still function as an All Terrain Attack Transport. Otherwise, it would sink anywhere it tried to walk.

Unless it wa held up by repulsorlifts? But what would be the point then? Besides, Repulsors can't enter theatre shields, apparently.

And it seems the weight of the ATAT's foot alone was enough to crush the speeder. It didn't require the whole AT/AT to shift its weight.

[Subnormal]

I believe the Iowa carries, Cruise missles, which could be modified into nuclear weapons, Though I don't know how they can get through AT AT shields as they appear to be INVINCIBLE to anything except tow cables, and this bring me to the point, How fast was the magnetic tow cable hook flying when it went through the AT AT shields, and the speed of the line wrapping around it, The tow cable moved pretty damn fast, which leads to the point, how fast do KE weapons have to be to not past through shields, another point is Luke using the magnetic grapling hook, which if the area was shielded flew pretty fast upward through it. So say if a slow moving missle were to be fired at the AT AT is there any evidence that says it would be slow enough to penitrate the shields and then explode inside them. Or say a Nuclear weapon exploded from below it, what is the possiblity that the legs would be blown outward and the AT AT fall.

[Manji]

AT-AT's do not have shields. They have armor - but they do not have active shields of the type that a starship or starfighter would have.

[Sea Skimmer]

I believe the Iowa carries, Cruise missles, which could be modified into nuclear weapons, Though I don't know how they can get through AT AT shields as they appear to be INVINCIBLE to anything except tow cables, and this bring me to the point, How fast was the magnetic tow cable hook flying when it went through the AT AT shields, and the speed of the line wrapping around it, The tow cable moved pretty damn fast, which leads to the point, how fast do KE weapons have to be to not past through shields, another point is Luke using the magnetic grapling hook, which if the area was shielded flew pretty fast upward through it. So say if a slow moving missle were to be fired at the AT AT is there any evidence that says it would be slow enough to penitrate the shields and then explode inside them. Or say a Nuclear weapon exploded from below it, what is the possiblity that the legs would be blown outward and the AT AT fall.

The Nuclear BGM-109 Tomahawks aren't capable of on the fly targeting. The ship can only enter pre-plotted targets for them due to the need to plot waypoints and the like. This takes months do to, and the ship does not have the ability to do it for a number of reasons.

They can't be used against the AT-AT's. At the range in question, it would be a bad idea anyway. 200 kilotons at 8 miles would fry the Iowa and destroy all fire control gear. Unless ever AT-AT was taken out, it would be quite dead, though it is anyway.

[LordChaos]

Nice to see so many fanatics overestimating the AT-AT and underestimating the Iowa.

The myth of the Iowa requiring "ranging" salvos before it can effectively fire : The truth is, even in their WWII guise, their radar fire control was good enough to get stradles on a IJN destroyer WITH THE OPENING SALVO. Now, that destroyer was near maximum range and was moving at a speed signifigantly faster then any AT-AT is going to make.

As for being able to damage an AT-AT - the HC rounds leave craters almost the size of an AT-AT. Can't be good for the damn thing's footing to have the ground blown out from under it. The AP shells, if they hit (and some will) would be more then suffecient to penitrate the armor in all likelyhood... and that will spell the end of that particular AT-AT.

As for the AT-AT's firing on the Iowa : they would have to do it quickly, as in about 1 minute, the Iowa's out of range (or, if you don't belive that 17.xx km is their range, in less then 2 it's hull is out of sight over the horizon). And they don't have enough of the right type of firepower to destroy/defeat an Iowa in that timeframe without being extreamly lucky at the same time. The likely effect of a hit will be localized damage, pitting/partial penitration of armor, possible full penitration, but followed by dispursement in the spaces behind the armor prior to hitting the next bulkhead. Without a serious dose of luck, they aren't going to hit anything vital enough to end it before the Iowa can break contact and shell away without retaliation.

[Renewed_Valour1]

The Nuclear BGM-109 Tomahawks aren't capable of on the fly targeting. The ship can only enter pre-plotted targets for them due to the need to plot waypoints and the like. This takes months do to, and the ship does not have the ability to do it for a number of reasons. .

The Iowa however could be carrying the nuclear 16"shells that they had for a short time. She could easily get over the horizon and lob them in on top of the AT-ATs.

[Howedar]

The Nuclear BGM-109 Tomahawks aren't capable of on the fly targeting. The ship can only enter pre-plotted targets for them due to the need to plot waypoints and the like. This takes months do to, and the ship does not have the ability to do it for a number of reasons.

They can't be used against the AT-AT's. At the range in question, it would be a bad idea anyway. 200 kilotons at 8 miles would fry the Iowa and destroy all fire control gear. Unless ever AT-AT was taken out, it would be quite dead, though it is anyway.

What the fuck are you smoking? Taking months to target a Tomahawk? 200kt destroying a ship at a range of 8 miles?

[Howedar]

Oh, and the fire control gear of Iowa remains gear-driven computers. Try again.

[John]

Not withstanding that Iowa is my home state, as a wise man once said, "Even if the armor stops the shell (from penatrating), you're still getting hit by a 1000 to 3000 pound object travelling in excess of Mach 2 ( 1500 mph). That kind of force breaks things, whether the shell breaks up on impact or not.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Nuclear BGM-109 Tomahawks aren't capable of on the fly targeting. The ship can only enter pre-plotted targets for them due to the need to plot waypoints and the like. This takes months do to, and the ship does not have the ability to do it for a number of reasons.

They can't be used against the AT-AT's. At the range in question, it would be a bad idea anyway. 200 kilotons at 8 miles would fry the Iowa and destroy all fire control gear. Unless ever AT-AT was taken out, it would be quite dead, though it is anyway.

What the fuck are you smoking? Taking months to target a Tomahawk? 200kt destroying a ship at a range of 8 miles?

No, the real question is whats in your pipe.

If you had bothered to actually read my post, you notice that I specified that the electronics and fire control of the Iowa would be destroyed, not the ship its self.

As for Tomahawks, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The BGM-109A, the only version with a nuclear warhead, used TERCOM guidance.

The maps used by TERCOM require extensive satellite photography and radar mapping. For the gulf war, it took six months to plot three routes, one each from the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean and Red seas, to the Baghdad area.

Six months and equipment and resources a battleship will not and never has had onboard. And the missiles wouldn't accept the data anyway.

The A model cannot be told to simply fly to a given point and dive into the target. A recent upgrade to the conventional Tomahawks added a GPS receiver, which means TERCOM maps are no longer needed. That’s why in the mid 1990s Clinton could fling that at everyone under the sun, because of an upgrade Nuclear Tomahawks and those used in the Gulf never had.

Even with that, target location and way points still have to come from at least the region command center, as apposed to Washington.


If the half a brain you have left after the crack had worked in the first place, you could have looked all that up at a dozen web sites or in a hundred different books..

[Master of Ossus]

Not withstanding that Iowa is my home state, as a wise man once said, "Even if the armor stops the shell (from penatrating), you're still getting hit by a 1000 to 3000 pound object travelling in excess of Mach 2 ( 1500 mph). That kind of force breaks things, whether the shell breaks up on impact or not.

When Hobbie and Wedge were talking about the use of proton torpedoes, they said that it would have taken them four torpedoes to take out four AT-AT walkers. I really don't see why this confused you. This means that only a direct hit from a thermonuclear weapon could destroy such a walker (or even knock it down, the pilots would not have cared if the walker was down or actually destroyed, at that point). A close proximity blast, even from a proton torpedo, would not knock the walker over, as proven by the statement. If it could have, Hobbie would have said that they could have taken the walkers just as easily with ONE proton torpedo. He specifically stated four.

BTW, I am VERY aware how much force is behind a shell. Whether or not the shell completely vaporizes upon impact or not, the force behind it is almost identical. I never claimed that the walkers would be able to take such an impact because the shells would do nothing, I said that the walkers would be able to withstand the shells, in spite of their power. I also don't see why "breaking up" would be in the least bit relevent for explosive shells that are DESIGNED to explode upon impact. It would seem it would only hurt the penetrating power of solid shot to break up on impact.

[John]

When Hobbie and Wedge were talking about the use of proton torpedoes, they said that it would have taken them four torpedoes to take out four AT-AT walkers. I really don't see why this confused you. This means that only a direct hit from a thermonuclear weapon could destroy such a walker (or even knock it down, the pilots would not have cared if the walker was down or actually destroyed, at that point).

Uh, yes they would. As an A-10 pilot I would give a large damn as to whether the tank I just strafed was 'knocked out' or just 'immobilized'.

A close proximity blast, even from a proton torpedo, would not knock the walker over, as proven by the statement. If it could have, Hobbie would have said that they could have taken the walkers just as easily with ONE proton torpedo. He specifically stated four.

If I say it will take four torpeadoes to sink the Bismark, does that mean the Bismark can ignore up to three torp hits?

[quotw]BTW, I am VERY aware how much force is behind a shell. Whether or not the shell completely vaporizes upon impact or not, the force behind it is almost identical. I never claimed that the walkers would be able to take such an impact because the shells would do nothing, I said that the walkers would be able to withstand the shells, in spite of their power. I also don't see why "breaking up" would be in the least bit relevent for explosive shells that are DESIGNED to explode upon impact. It would seem it would only hurt the penetrating power of solid shot to break p on impact.[/quote]
Or AP shells with base fuzes that are designed to crash through armor and explode inside the target.

[Master of Ossus]

But not if the A10 pilot was in that situation. Remember the context in which it was used. The X-Wings did not have to destroy the AT-AT's, they just had to temporarily disable them. To destroy them was not in the least bit necessary, at that point, although it MIGHT EVENTUALLY become necessary to destroy them completely. In the situation that they were in, the status of the AT-AT's was either "active," "damaged," or "disabled." There was really no reason to destroy them, so long as they were down for a period of time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that to destroy them would have required more effort than it was worth. BTW, an Iowa would not have the luxory that the X-Wing pilots had. It would have to destroy them, in this situation, because it is trying to prevent them from becoming active in the future. It appears that the Iowa is in a shore-bombardment role. It would wish to destroy such threats before whatever else happened that required them to be bombing the shore in the first place.

[John]

The X-Wings did not have to destroy the AT-AT's, they just had to temporarily disable them. To destroy them was not in the least bit necessary, at that point, although it MIGHT EVENTUALLY become necessary to destroy them completely. In the situation that they were in, the status of the AT-AT's was either "active," "damaged," or "disabled." There was really no reason to destroy them, so long as they were down for a period of time.

I'm sorry, but this seems reminicent of the 'low powered shots' rant Mike often levels at Trekkies. If tanks are attacking me, I will try to destroy them, not just disable them.

[Master of Ossus]

I agree. You will attempt to destroy them. If, though, you disable another one while destroying the first, so much the better. If a thermonuclear weapon could have knocked down and disabled several of those walkers, Hobbie would have said they could have done it with one. BTW, the reason they did not use torpedoes was because they were attempting to conserve them. If they could have knocked the walkers down with one shot, they would have done it or considered doing it. They did not.

[Jim Raynor]

AT-ATs require thermonuclear weapons to take out?

Which part of your ass did you pull this out of?

Imperial walkers are so fucking unstable that just about anything makes them explode violently - including falling over.

In one of the books, a snowspeeder rammed an AT-AT and destroyed it. Given the speeds we saw in ESB for snowspeeders (a few hundred mph at best) and their probable weight (less than a ton), it's obvious that a 1.2 ton projectile moving at mach 2.2 would be far more destructive than the impact of a snowspeeder.

One direct hit from a 16 inch Iowa gun would tear an AT-AT to pieces.

According to the official site, that scene never happened since it was left out from the actual movie. The pilot who did the ramming, Derik Klivian, lives on in the post-ROTJ novels.

[Jim Raynor]

Nice to see so many fanatics overestimating the AT-AT and underestimating the Iowa.

The myth of the Iowa requiring "ranging" salvos before it can effectively fire : The truth is, even in their WWII guise, their radar fire control was good enough to get stradles on a IJN destroyer WITH THE OPENING SALVO. Now, that destroyer was near maximum range and was moving at a speed signifigantly faster then any AT-AT is going to make.

As for being able to damage an AT-AT - the HC rounds leave craters almost the size of an AT-AT. Can't be good for the damn thing's footing to have the ground blown out from under it. The AP shells, if they hit (and some will) would be more then suffecient to penitrate the armor in all likelyhood... and that will spell the end of that particular AT-AT.

As for the AT-AT's firing on the Iowa : they would have to do it quickly, as in about 1 minute, the Iowa's out of range (or, if you don't belive that 17.xx km is their range, in less then 2 it's hull is out of sight over the horizon). And they don't have enough of the right type of firepower to destroy/defeat an Iowa in that timeframe without being extreamly lucky at the same time. The likely effect of a hit will be localized damage, pitting/partial penitration of armor, possible full penitration, but followed by dispursement in the spaces behind the armor prior to hitting the next bulkhead. Without a serious dose of luck, they aren't going to hit anything vital enough to end it before the Iowa can break contact and shell away without retaliation.

Where's your proof that AT-AT fire will do such little damage to the Iowa? One full-power blast from was able to destroy the entire shield generator complex in TESB. The scenario sets it up so that both sides are within firing range and aware of each other from the very start. I have no doubt that the Iowa's guns will be able to take out an AT-AT, especially if it blows out the ground from under it like you pointed out. However, even if we be generous and assume it can take out half the walkers with its first salvo, can you imagine what 4 full-powered blasts from the remaining AT-ATs will do to the Iowa? Shots that will probably be in the kiloton range, since much weaker vehicles in AOTC had such firepower.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

The idea of a Iowa destroying an AT-AT is laughable, but eight! this is like pitting Lennix Luis is a boxing fight against pee wee herman.

Lets look at the facts here about AT-ATs:

1.) They can take hits from kiloton scale weaponry. We know that this weaponry (lasers) does impart kinetic energy, as in ANH and TESB when the faclon is getting shot by TIEs the ship rocks noticably.

2.) If Iowas nukes do 200KTs, I think a AT-AT can take that, as it is said it takes a protorp to kill one which is estimated to be high megatonnage, low gigatonnage yields.

3.) We know AT-ATs weapons also are kilotonnage range weapons, and if someone can give me proof an Iowa can take kiloton scale hits, then by all means present it.

Thusly, by looking at these facts I seriously doubt an Iowa has the firepower to destroy/knock over an AT-AT, but the AT-AT can crush an Iowa, a single AT-AT, eight is just plain overkill.

[Howedar]

Um, you noticed what happens when an AT-AT falls over, right? You know how big of a crater the shells can make, right?

Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 10:32 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sea Skimmer:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by countdooku:

The Nuclear BGM-109 Tomahawks aren't capable of on the fly targeting. The ship can only enter pre-plotted targets for them due to the need to plot waypoints and the like. This takes months do to, and the ship does not have the ability to do it for a number of reasons.

They can't be used against the AT-AT's. At the range in question, it would be a bad idea anyway. 200 kilotons at 8 miles would fry the Iowa and destroy all fire control gear. Unless ever AT-AT was taken out, it would be quite dead, though it is anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the fuck are you smoking? Taking months to target a Tomahawk? 200kt destroying a ship at a range of 8 miles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, the real question is whats in your pipe.

If you had bothered to actually read my post, you notice that I specified that the electronics and fire control of the Iowa would be destroyed, not the ship its self.

As for Tomahawks, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The BGM-109A, the only version with a nuclear warhead, used TERCOM guidance.

The maps used by TERCOM require extensive satellite photography and radar mapping. For the gulf war, it took six months to plot three routes, one each from the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean and Red seas, to the Baghdad area.

Six months and equipment and resources a battleship will not and never has had onboard. And the missiles wouldn't accept the data anyway.

The A model cannot be told to simply fly to a given point and dive into the target. A recent upgrade to the conventional Tomahawks added a GPS receiver, which means TERCOM maps are no longer needed. That’s why in the mid 1990s Clinton could fling that at everyone under the sun, because of an upgrade Nuclear Tomahawks and those used in the Gulf never had.

Even with that, target location and way points still have to come from at least the region command center, as apposed to Washington.


If the half a brain you have left after the crack had worked in the first place, you could have looked all that up at a dozen web sites or in a hundred different books.

Iowa had nearly all fire control gear for the 16-inch guns inside the armor, and these systems were mechanical, so an EMP-like effect wouldn't do shit. As for your bitching and moaning about TERCOM, your assumption that Iowa would be carrying only nuclear, non-GPS Tomahawks, and the idea that there is no GPS coverage available, and the idea that the entire area completely lacks TERCOM coverage (let alone the fact that a TASM could easily target the bigass metal wall that is an AT-AT) is laughable. Hell, you could even shoot Harpoons at it.


Oh, and my good friend, please learn proper nomenclature. Unless your Iowa is somehow shooting Tomahawks out of as-yet-unseen torpedo tubes under the waterline, its a RGM-109A.

[Manji]

The idea of a Iowa destroying an AT-AT is laughable, but eight! this is like pitting Lennix Luis is a boxing fight against pee wee herman.

Lets look at the facts here about AT-ATs:

1.) They can take hits from kiloton scale weaponry. We know that this weaponry (lasers) does impart kinetic energy, as in ANH and TESB when the faclon is getting shot by TIEs the ship rocks noticably.

2.) If Iowas nukes do 200KTs, I think a AT-AT can take that, as it is said it takes a protorp to kill one which is estimated to be high megatonnage, low gigatonnage yields.

3.) We know AT-ATs weapons also are kilotonnage range weapons, and if someone can give me proof an Iowa can take kiloton scale hits, then by all means present it.

Thusly, by looking at these facts I seriously doubt an Iowa has the firepower to destroy/knock over an AT-AT, but the AT-AT can crush an Iowa, a single AT-AT, eight is just plain overkill.

You are so full of shit.

Do you know what would happen if an AT-AT was hit by a 200kt blast?

Even if it somehow magically survived the blast itself, the ground beneath it's feet would not. The AT-AT would suddenly find itself high in the air above the gaping thousand-foot maw of a nuclear crater, several hundred feet deep, which the AT-AT would then plunge to the bottom of.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Even if it somehow magically survived the blast itself, the ground beneath it's feet would not. The AT-AT would suddenly find itself high in the air above the gaping thousand-foot maw of a nuclear crater, several hundred feet deep, which the AT-AT would then plunge to the bottom of.

conceeded manji, none the less eight AT-ATs is still more than enough to take out an Iowa. It cannot fire magically fire in eight places at once and 1 shot is overkill to an Iowa.