Iowa vs AT-AT

[NecronLord]

single Iowa WWII battleship

I repeat

single Iowa WWII battleship

This means, NO NUKES, NO CRUISE MISSILES,
[bearing in mind on one occasion cruise missiles have hit the wrong f**king COUNTRY]

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

I know it isn't going to happen in this scenario. Therefore I don't need to know that. In fact depending on what stage of the war it might not even have radar. And yes an AT-AT can target in less than a minute, In TESB one of them shoots a snowspeeder down with contemptuous ease in about three seconds.

[Cpt_Frank]

Now victory or defeat in this scenario depends on who gets the first shot. And under normal circumstances that'll be the AT-AT.
But If the Iowa gets the first shot, the AT-AT is dead.

[Howedar]

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.

No, it can't magically fire in eight places at once. However, it can barrage an area that may or may not be full of densly packed AT-ATs (we have no data on how close they are to each other).

I should like to know why you think that a single AT-AT shot is enough to destroy an Iowa. We have no real idea of the firepower of an AT-AT, but we do know that older, less defended battleships could survive a fairly close airburst of dozens of KT. Even assuming the AT-AT's shot travelled right through the Iowa and out the other side, this would not sink it unless the shot caused a magazine to cook off (rather unlikely).

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Howedar: "Target Iowa, maximum firepower." BOOM!

As stated before in TESB Veers AT-AT utterly obliterated the Rebs shield generator with one shot, albeit max fiepower. We should assume such a vital piece of equipment would be heavily armored, as without it they would be be atacked from the air/ orbitally bombarded (they didnt know vader was looking for prisoners). Also we should assume that SW material is significanly more resiliant than anything modern day armor can present. That being said, a good shot near the water line (assuming the shot goes right through) would spell certain doom, even if it is over time. An airburst of such caliber would easily crush the vessel, or I should certaintly think so.

[Subnormal]

3 foot tall plastic model vs. 300 feet long Mothball museum I don't care who wins it's pretty damn boring.

[Jim Raynor]

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.

No, it can't magically fire in eight places at once. However, it can barrage an area that may or may not be full of densly packed AT-ATs (we have no data on how close they are to each other).

I should like to know why you think that a single AT-AT shot is enough to destroy an Iowa. We have no real idea of the firepower of an AT-AT, but we do know that older, less defended battleships could survive a fairly close airburst of dozens of KT. Even assuming the AT-AT's shot travelled right through the Iowa and out the other side, this would not sink it unless the shot caused a magazine to cook off (rather unlikely).

There is a big difference between surviving a kiloton-level airburst and taking kiloton-level damage from an AT-AT's lasers. With the nuke, the ship would only be taking a fraction of the bomb's energy. However, a laser blast would deliver all of its energy in a small area. Even though we don't know the exact yield of an AT-AT's lasers, the older, smaller, and presumably weaker Republic gunships could carry missiles up to 100 kilotons. An AT-AT's guns set to full power should be on a similar level. Even if it could take a few walkers down, I find it highly unlikely that the Iowa can survive a few shots from this kind of firepower.

[Sea Skimmer]

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.

NO, I was replying to a post mentioning nuclear Tomahwaks. That was my SOLE concern, I am quite awareo f the other variants and there capabilitys, but they were NOT relevant.

None of the Nukes ever got GPS, so thats a non factor in the context of my post. And the existance of the data to make up TERCOM maps wont matter. Even if the area had been scanned recently, which is extramly unlikely, its still going to take time and resources not on an Iowa to make up the data package to be fed to the missile.

TASM might be able to lock on to a AT-AT, assuming its on land at or very close to sea level. But I was not addressing TASM.

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.

Minor mistake on my part

[Mr Bean]

So basicly its FIRE back off and shell the costline and hope you get lucky for the Iowa?

[Howedar]

Howedar: "Target Iowa, maximum firepower." BOOM!

As stated before in TESB Veers AT-AT utterly obliterated the Rebs shield generator with one shot, albeit max fiepower. We should assume such a vital piece of equipment would be heavily armored, as without it they would be be atacked from the air/ orbitally bombarded (they didnt know vader was looking for prisoners). Also we should assume that SW material is significanly more resiliant than anything modern day armor can present. That being said, a good shot near the water line (assuming the shot goes right through) would spell certain doom, even if it is over time. An airburst of such caliber would easily crush the vessel, or I should certaintly think so.

So your evidence is a string of assumptions, then the thought that a hole at the waterline will sink Iowa? God man, get a brain. We have no evidence as to the armor (or lack thereof) of the shield generator, except for the fact that nothing at Hoth was armored. Iowa, or any other battleship of the time, could easily take a hole at the waterline several meters in diameter (what do you think torpedos do?) and still stay afloat. They wouldn't progressively sink, because watertight bulkheads would control the flooding.
Oh, and we don't even know whether the AT-AT's weapons are capable of airbursts. Since we have no evidence that they can, we must assume that they cannot.

posted by Jim Raynor
There is a big difference between surviving a kiloton-level airburst and taking kiloton-level damage from an AT-AT's lasers. With the nuke, the ship would only be taking a fraction of the bomb's energy. However, a laser blast would deliver all of its energy in a small area. Even though we don't know the exact yield of an AT-AT's lasers, the older, smaller, and presumably weaker Republic gunships could carry missiles up to 100 kilotons. An AT-AT's guns set to full power should be on a similar level. Even if it could take a few walkers down, I find it highly unlikely that the Iowa can survive a few shots from this kind of firepower.

AT-AT's main cannons seem about the same size of the lasers on fighters, rated at 1 kiloton or thereabouts. Certainly 100KT-range weapons on a close infantry support vehicle would be detrimental to the health of one's soldiers. Iowa can steam out of range of the AT-AT's weaponry without taking more than a salvo or so, and the heavy armor of Iowa ought to at least reduce the damage caused, if not prevent it completely. Remember, the cannons firing on the AT-ATs at Hoth, which were nearly as large as those of the AT-ATs, did no damage to the heavy armor of the AT-AT. Granted, the AT-ATs almost certainly have more advanced armor, but it sure as hell ain't a foot thick. If nothing else, the concentrated nature of blasters should keep many vital systems of Iowa intact simply by the fact that they would punch a hole instead of blow up.

Posted by Sea Skimmer
NO, I was replying to a post mentioning nuclear Tomahwaks. That was my SOLE concern, I am quite awareo f the other variants and there capabilitys, but they were NOT relevant.

None of the Nukes ever got GPS, so thats a non factor in the context of my post. And the existance of the data to make up TERCOM maps wont matter. Even if the area had been scanned recently, which is extramly unlikely, its still going to take time and resources not on an Iowa to make up the data package to be fed to the missile.

TASM might be able to lock on to a AT-AT, assuming its on land at or very close to sea level. But I was not addressing TASM.

Fair enough. We're arguing different things then. Potentially there is a way to toss out Tomahawks at short range as a last-ditch weapon, but I don't work for Raytheon.

Oh, and AT-ATs usually are rather close to sea level on a flat plain next to an ocean

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Howedar: "Target Iowa, maximum firepower." BOOM!

As stated before in TESB Veers AT-AT utterly obliterated the Rebs shield generator with one shot, albeit max fiepower. We should assume such a vital piece of equipment would be heavily armored, as without it they would be be atacked from the air/ orbitally bombarded (they didnt know vader was looking for prisoners). Also we should assume that SW material is significanly more resiliant than anything modern day armor can present. That being said, a good shot near the water line (assuming the shot goes right through) would spell certain doom, even if it is over time. An airburst of such caliber would easily crush the vessel, or I should certaintly think so.

So your evidence is a string of assumptions, then the thought that a hole at the waterline will sink Iowa? God man, get a brain. We have no evidence as to the armor (or lack thereof) of the shield generator, except for the fact that nothing at Hoth was armored. Iowa, or any other battleship of the time, could easily take a hole at the waterline several meters in diameter (what do you think torpedos do?) and still stay afloat. They wouldn't progressively sink, because watertight bulkheads would control the flooding.
Oh, and we don't even know whether the AT-AT's weapons are capable of airbursts. Since we have no evidence that they can, we must assume that they cannot.

Howedar, please no need for insults, I'm no engineer or military tactician, just my humble little thoughts on the subject, furthermore:

Are you saying a multi-kiloton hit to an Iowas waterline wont sink it? Ships can be resiliant but this is ridiculous! During the Hoth battle scene we see AT-ATs using flak constantly, these were low powered shots at best mind you, as they were coming out rather rapidly and merely rocked a snowspeeder, but afull powered shot would cause a spectacular air burst, or I should certaintly think.

Hmmmmmmmm... Why would the shield generator be armored...lets see here...oh thats right! ITS A MILITARY FACILITY. If you had a vital piece of equipment between you and a fleet of ISDs you better cover your ass and make sure your instalation is at least semi-armored! Whats more, why would Veers tell them to shoot at max firepower if it wasnt armored? Just so he could see a bigger kaboom? highly doubtful.

And as for your statement about AT-ATs gun size is utterly proposterous. Check em out again, theyre nearly the size of the freakin air speeders, not normal size, and thats just the length of the barrel, the power from the generator it draws from must be much larger than that of a starfighter.

[Howedar]

Yes, I am saying that such a hit to the waterline wouldn't sink Iowa. Having a multi-kiloton-equivilent laser is not the same as a kiloton-level nuke. If it were powerful enough, the AT-At's weaponry would drill a nice neat hole into the side of Iowa, but it wouldn't blow it in two.

I am not saying that the shield generator shouldn't be armored. I am saying that there is no evidence that it is (none of the Hoth facilites were armored). Since nothing at Hoth was armored, it is unreasonable to assume that the shield generator was. It seems likely to me that Veers ordered maximum firepower not because he had to penetrate armor, but because he really did want a bigger boom. Again, AT-AT weaponry is not explosive in nature. The bigger the hole in the generator he made (and that is precisely what his weaponry would do), the more likely he would connect with something critical and volitile.

As for AT-AT flak bursts, when did we see a flak shot come from the main cannons? I remember them coming from the small cheek blasters, but not the primary weaponry. The fact that one set can fire flak bursts doesn't mean the other can, certainly it would require more precise control and potentially more equipment to fire flak bursts, equipment which might just have been viewed as unnecessary for the primary cannons.

From this view, the exposed barrels of the main cannons seem roughly 2 meters long (about as long as Luke's height, possibly a bit more), for an overall length not much greater than an X-wing's cannons.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Yes, I am saying that such a hit to the waterline wouldn't sink Iowa. Having a multi-kiloton-equivilent laser is not the same as a kiloton-level nuke. If it were powerful enough, the AT-AT's weaponry would drill a nice neat hole into the side of Iowa, but it wouldn't blow it in two.

My mistake, not one AT-AT, but 8 correct? I think eight (or even less, since one or two might be destroyed before they get a chance to fire) or whatever shots to the water line would to a better job at screwin em up a bit.

I am not saying that the shield generator shouldn't be armored. I am saying that there is no evidence that it is (none of the Hoth facilites were armored). Since nothing at Hoth was armored, it is unreasonable to assume that the shield generator was. It seems likely to me that Veers ordered maximum firepower not because he had to penetrate armor, but because he really did want a bigger boom. Again, AT-AT weaponry is not explosive in nature. The bigger the hole in the generator he made (and that is precisely what his weaponry would do), the more likely he would connect with something critical and volitile.

Well incase you didnt see the walls and ceiling in the main complex, there made of ice, not precisley the toughest material in the world, know?
In fact the whole Echo Base (according to EU, and onscreen evidence) is entirley made out of ice so no, it isnt armored. On the contrast, the generator is made out of metal, so we can assume that it is armored (and again it is a vital facility). As for the Veers max power shot, if there was no armor, what would be neccesary to drill through? A low power shot could have accomplished a similar feat if it was not armored. Again, max power shot to drill through armor.

As for AT-AT flak bursts, when did we see a flak shot come from the main cannons? I remember them coming from the small cheek blasters, but not the primary weaponry. The fact that one set can fire flak bursts doesn't mean the other can, certainly it would require more precise control and potentially more equipment to fire flak bursts, equipment which might just have been viewed as unnecessary for the primary cannons.

Agreed, we dont see flak bursts from AT-ATs main cannon, but what use would it be against fast manuvering speeders? Slow fire rates a anit-speeder gun does nto make. But since we se the cheek guns on the AT-AT have flak, TIE fighters have flak, Turbolasers have flak,whats to say AT-AT main guns dont? theres certaintly enough evidence to say everone else does.

From this view, the exposed barrels of the main cannons seem roughly 2 meters long (about as long as Luke's height, possibly a bit more), for an overall length not much greater than an X-wing's cannons.

Take note those guns are firing, and the AT-ATs cannons depress when firing, and still it has a larger generator to feed upon.

[Jim Raynor]

posted by Jim Raynor
There is a big difference between surviving a kiloton-level airburst and taking kiloton-level damage from an AT-AT's lasers. With the nuke, the ship would only be taking a fraction of the bomb's energy. However, a laser blast would deliver all of its energy in a small area. Even though we don't know the exact yield of an AT-AT's lasers, the older, smaller, and presumably weaker Republic gunships could carry missiles up to 100 kilotons. An AT-AT's guns set to full power should be on a similar level. Even if it could take a few walkers down, I find it highly unlikely that the Iowa can survive a few shots from this kind of firepower.

AT-AT's main cannons seem about the same size of the lasers on fighters, rated at 1 kiloton or thereabouts. Certainly 100KT-range weapons on a close infantry support vehicle would be detrimental to the health of one's soldiers. Iowa can steam out of range of the AT-AT's weaponry without taking more than a salvo or so, and the heavy armor of Iowa ought to at least reduce the damage caused, if not prevent it completely. Remember, the cannons firing on the AT-ATs at Hoth, which were nearly as large as those of the AT-ATs, did no damage to the heavy armor of the AT-AT. Granted, the AT-ATs almost certainly have more advanced armor, but it sure as hell ain't a foot thick. If nothing else, the concentrated nature of blasters should keep many vital systems of Iowa intact simply by the fact that they would punch a hole instead of blow up.

Actually, an AT-AT's cannons are specifically said to be HEAVY lasers. Also, later AT-ATs were upgraded to carry turbolasers. And the AT-AT is not used just for close infantry support. Close infantry support vehicles don't destroy entire buildings with a single shot. There's something called POWER SETTINGS. The rest of your little rebuttal was nothing but unsupported assumptions. How'd you come to the conclusion that the Iowa could escape while taking only a salvo or so? And I love how you just assume that the Iowa's armor can significantly reduce the damage of or even completely prevent the damage from the AT-AT fire. Do you really think the Iowa's armor can stop multiple direct hits from kiloton-level weaponry? And your example of the AT-AT's armor stopping stopping blaster fire is meaningless. You know nothing about the armor's strength, you just assume that if an AT-AT can take it, the Iowa can too. And what's this nonsense about the lasers cutting neat little holes without taking out the ship's vital systems?

[Renewed_Valour1]

A low power shot could have accomplished a similar feat if it was not armored. Again, max power shot to drill through armor.

Low power was just barely making the ice vaporize…. An 1" sheet of metal could probably stop one of those bolts.

A small question…. Why would you armor a shield generator that is sitting under the shield

Close infantry support vehicles don't destroy entire buildings with a single shot.

Prove that building wasn't taking out by the secondary explosions of some volitaile part of the generator exploding. Every single time we've seen a Star War shield generator explode they've gun up very impressively which seems to imply they don't take even minor amounts of damage well.

How'd you come to the conclusion that the Iowa could escape while taking only a salvo or so?

Well there's the small fact that the Iowa is at the edge of the AT-ATs range and is in fact faster than the AT-ATs.

Do you really think the Iowa's armor can stop multiple direct hits from kiloton-level weaponry?

Prove that it is kiloton level weaponry.

And what's this nonsense about the lasers cutting neat little holes without taking out the ship's vital systems?

Have you ever seen the damage that battleships have taken and remained operational? A few holes drilled through her hull assuming they don't cook off a magazine won't do much.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Low power shots, exactly valor, when one sets out to kill infantry (not some heavily armored machine) one need not use over the top high power shots to accomplish what a smaller significantly weaker shot will do. The generator destruction scene is far better piece of evidence relating to an AT-ATs destructive power.


Valor puh-leeze, "Iowas are in fact much faster than AT-ATs" do you understand how much time is spent loading the gun, finding the correct co-ordinates for the shell, rotating the turret, and actually firing the gun takes? Its not a 1-2-3 kiddy show here, IT TAKES TIME. Not so for the mighty AT-AT, whom uses energy weapons, holographic targeting systems, and has a quick swivling head with superb accuracy.

As for proof of kiloton scale weaponry go out and buy the AOTC:ICS, I should certaintly hope that if the Jedi Starfighter can carry KT yield lasers, an AT-AT can!

As for the water-line issue, we can all scrap that anyways, aim for that big fat purdy conning tower instead. KABOOM! "Fire the 16" guns!" "Sir, they just blew up the targeting, firing, loading control mechanisms aboard the bridge, you were watchign right?" "NO YOU BAFOON! I was playing Stratego with my friend Billy!" Watch as the poor confused ship drifts aimlessly withough weapons, navigation ect.

[Howedar]

Actually, an AT-AT's cannons are specifically said to be HEAVY lasers. Also, later AT-ATs were upgraded to carry turbolasers. And the AT-AT is not used just for close infantry support. Close infantry support vehicles don't destroy entire buildings with a single shot. There's something called POWER SETTINGS. The rest of your little rebuttal was nothing but unsupported assumptions. How'd you come to the conclusion that the Iowa could escape while taking only a salvo or so? And I love how you just assume that the Iowa's armor can significantly reduce the damage of or even completely prevent the damage from the AT-AT fire. Do you really think the Iowa's armor can stop multiple direct hits from kiloton-level weaponry? And your example of the AT-AT's armor stopping stopping blaster fire is meaningless. You know nothing about the armor's strength, you just assume that if an AT-AT can take it, the Iowa can too. And what's this nonsense about the lasers cutting neat little holes without taking out the ship's vital systems?

The lasers of the AT-AT would cut holes in the hull of Iowa (assuming sufficient power) because they are not explosive in nature, but instead act like big lasers, only with a visible bolt. Thus, a single shot could only do so much damage to the ship's vitals. For example, firing through the ship at point A won't damage equipment at point B, 20 feet to the side of the line of fire. I came to the conclusion that Iowa could escape only taking a salvo or two because it is nearly at maximum demonstrated AT-AT range, and could steam out of range fairly quickly (the refire rate of the AT-AT at maximum firepower isn't known, but ought to be lower than at lower firepower). My example of the AT-AT's armor stopping blaster bolts is far from meaningless. I'll be the last one to claim that AT-AT armor is simple hardened steel, but it demonstrates that metal armor has the capability to stop blaster bolts, so Iowa's armor ought to at least slow them down.

As for my thinking the armor would slow down the bolts, its a 12-inch thick plate of steel. What, you think the shot will pass through completely unabated?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Howedar, at what point did everyone decide that lasers carry no explosive impact? In ANH we clearly see in the Tantive IV battle that stormtrooper shot were causing EXPLOSIVE damage to the walls, as was han in the escape form docking bay 94.

In TESB we see Boba Fetts blaster blow huge chunks out of cloud city's walls, and leave them on fire too.

In ROTJ during the skiff battle scene, when Jabbas thug uses that laser cannon attached to the armrail we clearly see large explosions on the skiffs hull.

In TPM we see ATT fire at the ground and great flaming fireballs spew forth from it.

In AOTC Jangos blaster bolts cause small explosions on Kaminos deck, and when Boba fires Slave 1's main gun it cause a titanic fireball to come forth and proceed to cook Obi-Wan.

clearly blasters, lasers, and turbolasers do cause explosive damage on contact.

[Renewed_Valour1]

Low power shots, exactly valor, when one sets out to kill infantry (not some heavily armored machine) one need not use over the top high power shots to accomplish what a smaller significantly weaker shot will do.

The generator destruction scene is far better piece of evidence relating to an AT-ATs destructive power. :

No it's a perfect example of what happens when you hit a volatile target with a little bit of damage. We've seen two Imperial Shield Generators go up. I just rewatched the Endor shield generator going up and it goes up if anything more impressively than the one at Hoth. Now do you want to claim those tiny demolition charges the rebels used were kilton range? And before some silly radical Warsie comes along and does that a kilton blast that close to Han would have killed him.

Valor puh-leeze, "Iowas are in fact much faster than AT-ATs" do you understand how much time is spent loading the gun, finding the correct co-ordinates for the shell, rotating the turret, and actually firing the gun takes? :

:rolls: Speed that the vessel can travel at…. An Iowa's top speed is faster than an AT-AT and will carry her out of range. Oh and it takes about a minute to reload between salvoes.

As for proof of kiloton scale weaponry go out and buy the AOTC:ICS, I should certaintly hope that if the Jedi Starfighter can carry KT yield lasers, an AT-AT can! :

I always knew the M1A2 Abrams must be armed with kiltotons range nuclear weapons! Hey the B-2 has it so the Abrams must have it. Now stop and think about how stupid what I just said sounds.

As for the water-line issue, we can all scrap that anyways, aim for that big fat purdy conning tower instead. KABOOM! "Fire the 16" guns!" "Sir, they just blew up the targeting, firing, loading control mechanisms aboard the bridge, you were watchign right?" "NO YOU BAFOON!:

You do realize the turrets can fire independently of each other? That the vessel has more than one gunnery control station and the turrets have independent directors? That the ships have another station where they can be conned? This isn't an Imperial war machine that explodes when it falls over….

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Valor, Han killed the Endor sheild generator from inside, lacking armor, with a shaped charge than probably busted up the reactor pretty good. That is in no way like the Hoth scene where it used raw firepower to bust it open. And since when are sheild generators warp cores? why are they suddenly so volatile that if you sneeze on it it'll explode like you say? We have no evidence that it is weak, and frankly if Veers needed a high-KT range shot to knock out teh generator I don't think he was expecting some death0inducing chain reaction.

Ho-Ho! Iowas fast now you're special. Lasers move fast, ships do not (even though the Iowa does move exceptionally fast for a ship), it won't help running.

Jedi Starfighter 8m long, 4 m wide. Has a reactor about the size of Obi-Wan. Is not a Bomber and cannot carry bombs, it has only its lasers.
AT-AT 30m tall 10m (?) wide. Big honkin reactor to power this war machine, Big ass assault lasers. Go figure huh?

Final point conceded.

And please riddle me this, if an AT-AT is described as being an ultimate ground asault weapon, capable of decimating any base, how is it you make them out to be sluggish (they can move top speed 60kph) low powered (big honkin reactor and lasers) and frail (lots of armor that us here humans cannot begin to comprehend the strength of). Are they all just big flukes? I have a strange feelign in my gut..and more or less my brain, that that is not true.

[Renewed_Valour1]

Valor, Han killed the Endor sheild generator from inside, lacking armor, with a shaped charge than probably busted up the reactor pretty good.

Please! You now argue the Endor shield generator has no armor and it must be the reactor that took it out. Well it was probably a hit to the Hoth Generator to say the reactor by a shot with less destructive energy than a 16" round from an Iowa that destroyed the reactor. Remember Ocham's Razor the simple answer is usually the right one.

That is in no way like the Hoth scene where it used raw firepower to bust it open.

Uh what I'm saying is AT-ATs have no raw firepower. The explosion we see in the movie is the reactor or whatever cooked off at Endor also destroying the generator. All it implies is that the AT-ATs low powered shots aren't powerful enough to get through the shielding of the reactor to set it off. I see no evidence that the Hoth shield generator should or did have armor on it.

why are they suddenly so volatile that if you sneeze on it it'll explode like you say? .

Oh I don't know maybe because every single time a shield generator has exploded it's done so most impressively even when the blast that set it off was very unimpressive

Jedi Starfighter 8m long, 4 m wide. Has a reactor about the size of Obi-Wan. Is not a Bomber and cannot carry bombs, it has only its lasers. AT-AT 30m tall 10m (?) wide. Big honkin reactor to power this war machine, Big ass assault lasers. Go figure huh? .

Yeah and two totally different missions. Or if you want a different example a 8,315 ton 505ft long Arleigh Burke destroyer has no nuclear weapons yet the B-2 bomber can carry them quite easily. The AT-AT is designed to support troops in the role of a APC. Do you realize what a kiloton blast would do being setoff anywhere near ground troops? There's no reason to arm a over glorified armored bus with kiloton range weapons.

And please riddle me this, if an AT-AT is described as being an ultimate ground asault weapon, capable of decimating any base, how is it you make them out to be sluggish (they can move top speed 60kph) low powered (big honkin reactor and lasers) and frail (lots of armor that us here humans cannot begin to comprehend the strength of). Are they all just big flukes? I have a strange feelign in my gut..and more or less my brain, that that is not true.

No it just implies to me the Empire is very lucky that no one has any descent ground combat capability in their own galaxy to challenge them. You do realize 60 kph is slower than an Iowa? And is this the same real armor that is on the AT-STs that can't stop the kinetic energy of a log?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

No the Endor generator no doubt had armor, I'm not arguing that. But on the inside where theres no reason to solidify with armor. And yes I do believe he used the shaped-charge proton grenade to damage the reactor because Han put it on the ceiling, where the grenade woudl channel the energy up into the reactor.

How on Earth do you know what a 16" shell can and cannot do in some super advanced space-faring galaxy. This is my point-Sheild Generator, armored to resist damage (duh), made of some element known as "durasteel" which we damn well better assume is significantly more resiliant that regular, modern day armor. It would require some fire power to pierce that armor, know? The guns dont look big just to be scary. They actually serve a *PURPOSE* to kill stuff, big stuff.

Read about Endor. Read above about Hoth. In TPM the gugans sheild generator was made with mud and sticks (when compared to the Trade Fed army) and had no doubt hundreds (ok maybe several dozen) battle droids pounding on it.

Tsk Tsk, Valour! Those guns dont just look big so we can be amazed at how much resources the Empire can waste on them! In there role as an APC they used relativly lowpowered blasts to kill enemy infantry and artillery yes, but when you need to whip out the big guns-and they literally are big-AT-ATs strut there stuff. Also the KT yiled blast was set off from about was it 17km away from the walker, obviously before we see ground troops.

First to your silly AT-ST comment-All Terrain SCOUT walker. Hence the word scout, not meant to go kill anyone by fuzzy teddybears.

As scene in AOTC AT-AT (style) craft have been around for a decade at the time of ANH, so they obviously do there job well, I mean can you honestly believe if AT-ATs were as horrible as you say they would have allowed them into service?And that comment about how they just got lucky they never tested it on a real army, guess what? THE IMPERIALS HAVE A REAL ARMY. I'm sure they tested its effectivness against a simulated oponent (robot drones or what not) and simulators themselves. MY GOD ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD APPROVE THEM AT THIS RATE! Why all they are is giant unshielded weakspots with a big sign that says "tip me" huh? sheesh!

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Allright Valour/howedar/whomever, I'm hittin the hay, post your rebuttal and I'll get back to ya.

-latah

[Jim Raynor]

This is complete BS. Valour, the burden of proof is on you to come up with evidence that SW shield generators go off like fragile warp cores rather than exploding from the energy of the weapons used to attack them. Also, where do you get off that the AT-AT was designed only to carry and support infantry? Every source I've seen has described the AT-AT as one of the most powerful combat vehicles in the galaxy. And you have yet to show any proof that an AT-AT's guns are below kiloton level. Your argument about killing your own infantry is crap because of a little thing called POWER SETTINGS. If tiny snubfighters and Old Republic Gunships have kiloton level weaponry, then an AT-AT's heavy laser cannons and turbolasers sure as hell do.

Howedar, have you ever even seen the SW movies? I can't believe you actually think SW lasers only cut small holes without causing vaporization and explosions. What kind of useless weapons would lasers be if they relied on the volatility of their targets rather than actual firepower to destroy things? Just look at all those scenes Garden Gnome pointed out. Also, you have yet to provide any actual evidence to back up your other claims. The scenario starts with the Iowa 10 miles offshore, or approximately 16 km. It still has more than a km before it gets pass the AT-ATs' max range. While it can move through that distance in about a minute or two, you yourself have admitted that you don't know what the fire rate of the AT-ATs are. Therefore, it is impossible for you to prove your claim that the AT-ATs will only get off a single salvo. And again, how does the fact that the AT-AT's armor can stop lasers lead to the Iowa's armor being able to? Let me say this again. You have no clue what the armor is made of and how strong it really is. In one of your earlier posts, you said that AT-AT lasers were comparable to starfighter lasers rated at 1 kiloton. Even if I agree to this low number, do you really believe that the Iowa can withstand multiple, concentrated 1 kiloton blasts? If this is the case, shouldn't it be completely impervious to any normal bombs and missiles today? The Iowa might be one hell of a ship, but it definately can't take that kind of damage.

[Master of Ossus]

BTW, it's not like there is nothing on an Iowa that would explode if it was hit. If all the AT-AT's could do was keep shooting at it until it turned into Swiss cheese, they would STILL destroy it in only a few shots, even if their own weapons caused no explosive damage. There is enough flammable or explosive material on an Iowa to destroy the entire ship several times over if all of its ordnance was to go off at once. A hit to a magazine would definitely destroy the ship, and with eight AT-AT's raking the vessel, a hit would be almost guaranteed.

That is IF the AT-AT shots are not explosive. They certainly seem to explode upon impact, and starship-weapons in SW certainly explode, and even have "flak-burst" modes. AT-AT weapons seem to be analogous to these weapons in almost all respects.

An AT-AT is really a heavily armored vehicle that carries starfighter-scale (and possibly even larger) weapons. It can fire over-the-horizon, and is virtually immune to small arms and modern artillery/missiles. I see no way for the Iowa to win this contest against eight AT-ATs. It might have been more interesting had there been only one.

[Howedar]

Gnome, your assertation that AT-AT blasts will explode on contact merely helps Iowa. If the blasts went straight through the armor, they would expend less of their energy on the armor and more on the inside. If they in fact will explode (for lack of a better word) on contact with the armor, far more energy will be expended on the armor, and far less on the inside of the ship. In fact, there's a decent chance that with the energy radiating in a hemisphere through the armor that it won't actually penetrate. In this case, depth of armor would be more important than composition.