Iowa vs AT-AT

[Master of Ossus]

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.

Actually, it is POSSIBLE that AT-AT blasts have so much energy that they would actually impart less energy if they went straight through a target (like a fifty-caliber bullet, which imparts only a fraction of its energy as it passes through a person) than if it were to explode. Your point, though, is well taken, and a weapon that passed cleanly through the armor of an Iowa would also do unimaginable damage to the ship's systems and crew. Even a very few such shots would cripple the vessel, even if by chance none of them hit a critical area.

[Jim Raynor]

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.

So there's a chance that the laser won't penetrate the armor? Care to actually prove this rather than just assuming the armor can stand up to the lasers? Again, do you really think that the Iowa can take multiple direct hits from kiloton-level weaponry?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

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.

And whats to say a (perhaps multi-)kiloton blast won't do equal damage when it explodes? Maybe it'll burst through the armor as if it didn't explode on contact, and the shock wave of the actual blast will reverberate through the ship, damaging systems and knocking men on their asses. True this is merely assumtion, but I think you should take it into consideration.

On a side note, I was always under the impression that somthing like a 2000 pound bomb would do significant damage to some thing of an Iowa class ship if it hit near the water line. Now a kiloton is one thousand tons, and 2000 pounds is a ton. Although that is a conversion from standard to metric, I should think that the numbers would be close enough (maybe). However from reading this that is not true, and Iowas can stand up to kiloton scale blasts. An statements I may have said earlier that they couldn't were based on this assumption.

[Moonstone Spider]

http://www.battleship.org/

According to this site the Iowa can fire each of it's 9 16" guns twice a minute and each of it's 20 5" guns 15-30 times a minute.

Given that it's firepower is enough to topple the AT-ATs with one shell near the ground, and that it's radar-guided weaponry will let it fire accurately with the first salvo, it's unlikely 8 AT-ATs will survive the first minute of Combat when 18 3700 pound shells will hit them and the earth at their feet. The 16" guns can swivel to fire in any direction, so orientation of the Iowa isn't too significant unless it's facing it's rear directly to the AT-ATs at the start, in which case only 3 of the big guns can target.

On the other hand the AT-AT weaponry has a very narrow range of movment based on how well the Neck can twist, and while there's some flexibility unless it's aimed perfectly at the Iowa at the start of the battle it's going to spend at least a minute just turning it's body, a minute the Iowa will destroy it in. Unless you grant perfect placement with every AT-AT weapon aimed at the Iowa at the start and the Iowa facing the wrong way the AT-ATs will likely die before they ever get a shot off.

[Akm72]

http://www.battleship.org/

According to this site the Iowa can fire each of it's 9 16" guns twice a minute and each of it's 20 5" guns 15-30 times a minute.

Given that it's firepower is enough to topple the AT-ATs with one shell near the ground, and that it's radar-guided weaponry will let it fire accurately with the first salvo, it's unlikely 8 AT-ATs will survive the first minute of Combat when 18 3700 pound shells will hit them and the earth at their feet. The 16" guns can swivel to fire in any direction, so orientation of the Iowa isn't too significant unless it's facing it's rear directly to the AT-ATs at the start, in which case only 3 of the big guns can target.

On the other hand the AT-AT weaponry has a very narrow range of movment based on how well the Neck can twist, and while there's some flexibility unless it's aimed perfectly at the Iowa at the start of the battle it's going to spend at least a minute just turning it's body, a minute the Iowa will destroy it in. Unless you grant perfect placement with every AT-AT weapon aimed at the Iowa at the start and the Iowa facing the wrong way the AT-ATs will likely die before they ever get a shot off.

That's crap, a walker can turn it's body by 45 degrees in seconds if required, and swing the head round a further 45 degrees at the same time to engage targets up to 90 degrees off-axis



The Iowa on the other hand will take 10's of seconds to open fire, and will have to fire a wide-spread for it's first salvo if it wants any chance to actually hit anything - and the second salvo will take 30 seconds beyond that. This is time for each of the AT-ATs to fire 10's of kiloton-level shots in return. Each blaster-bolt contains at least 1000 times more energy than a 16" shell from the Iowa, and even if it uses that energy FAR less efficiently it should have no difficulty in overcoming the Iowa's armour, which is designed to defeat 16" armour-piercing and HE shells.

[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.

So there's a chance that the laser won't penetrate the armor? Care to actually prove this rather than just assuming the armor can stand up to the lasers? Again, do you really think that the Iowa can take multiple direct hits from kiloton-level weaponry?

If you really want me to go and calculate this out, I will. Frankly, I think it would be a waste of time. There are a great many unknowns in this. We don't know how blaster shots react with armor of the Wars type, let alone real life armor. We don't know even within an order of magnitude the firepower of the AT-AT's weapons. We don't know how thick the blaster shot is (if we're assuming it would go straight though) or how much it would mushroom when hitting the armor (if that is what it did). We don't know so many things that I hesitate to say anything more than there is a chance.



Gnome, when bombs fall very close to a ship and detonate underwater, they can do damage because water is not compressable, acting rather like a torpedo or a depth charge.

[Master of Ossus]

But, I think that the point is, an AT-AT can almost certainly do some damage to an Iowa, and an Iowa cannot damage it in return. I don't see that the AT-AT can lose.

[Howedar]

But, I think that the point is, an AT-AT can almost certainly do some damage to an Iowa, and an Iowa cannot damage it in return. I don't see that the AT-AT can lose.

Ummmm what? If nothing else they could be rendered inoperable through knocking them over in a pit deep enough that they couldn't somehow step up out of.

[Master of Ossus]

But, I think that the point is, an AT-AT can almost certainly do some damage to an Iowa, and an Iowa cannot damage it in return. I don't see that the AT-AT can lose.

Ummmm what? If nothing else they could be rendered inoperable through knocking them over in a pit deep enough that they couldn't somehow step up out of.

Okay, and it's going to do that how? A walker is at least fifteen meters tall, it has very good balance, and is capable (according to the SWEVV) of traversing considerable inclines. Nothing short of a nuclear payload would be able to destroy a single walker, much less eight of them, and you are assuming the presence of deep pits in the ground (or you are assuming that the Iowa would have time to manufacture its own). This would take an immense amount of time and is probably not even possible. In the meantime, even a single kiloton blast would likely devastate an Iowa. We know that the blasts are AT LEAST as large as one meter in diameter (scaling from the troopers on Hoth, assuming 1.75 meter soldiers). Even if the shot passed cleanly through the ship, which is unlikely, sixteen of those would almost certainly find a critical system. And after a second volley, 32, and a third volley, 48. An Iowa is incapable of repelling firepower of that scale. It is primarily an offensive weapon, and it would take significant damage from such fire. Assuming that it exploded when it hit the armor, an Iowa's armor is not rated to stop that kind of firepower (assuming 1 kiloton yields/shot), and you are assuming that the armor protects the entire ship, which is not true. My conclusion has not yet been disproven.

[Howedar]

16" shells make big-ass craters. That was my point.

[Master of Ossus]

But, do they make 15 meter tall craters? Or ones that slope steeply? In almost all terrain that I know of, the answer is no. The only exceptions are EXTREMELY rare terrains that are clearly not pertinent to this discussion (ie. some salt flats, areas around the Dead Sea, etc.). I also do not think that a 16 inch shell would knock down an AT-AT walker for very long, if at all.

[Howedar]

-Copied from http://www.usnfsa.com/articles/techdata/td1.htm

MK 13 High Explosive (HE) projectile (Base Detonating)

Again, the only change is the fuse. In this configuration, the projectile has a tremendous cratering capability. The fuse is normally set with a .05 second delay to allow the round to penetrate the earth. This usually creates a crater about 25 to 35 feet in diameter and 10 to 20 feet deep. That depth of crater requires about 150 cubic yards of earth to fill (over 20 dump truck loads).

Using this fuse and a hard steel nose plug, this projectile is also has excellent concrete piercing capabilities. Ten feet of penetration against reinforced concrete is easily achieved at 30,000 yards. Engagement of dug-in troops is also very effective when using this round/fuse combination

Do you think dropping an AT-AT 3-6 meters is good for it?

[Akm72]

You still need to get your 16" shell to hit the ground near the feet of the walker. If you're REALLY lucky you might knock over 1 using a salvo of 16" shells from the Iowa. But you're not going to knock down all 8 walkers before they've started blasting holes in the battleship, and by the time the Iowa is ready to fire a second salvo, it's already dead.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't think dropping a walker 6 meters would knock it over so it could not get up. It seems pretty well constructed, and in the past they have been able to traverse terrain that seemed very difficult. I really do not know, though. I can't remember anything like dropping a walker, or having a walker fall in any EU material. Remember, though, that walkers can get up once knocked down, and they can even kneel voluntarily in order to protect themselves, and then stand up again once they finished.

[Howedar]

I don't think dropping a walker 6 meters would knock it over so it could not get up. It seems pretty well constructed, and in the past they have been able to traverse terrain that seemed very difficult. I really do not know, though. I can't remember anything like dropping a walker, or having a walker fall in any EU material. Remember, though, that walkers can get up once knocked down, and they can even kneel voluntarily in order to protect themselves, and then stand up again once they finished.

Any ability to get up after falling over sideways would contradict everything canon has shown us pertaining to the joint construction and design. Possibly a walker could get up after tripping like in TESB, but it couldn't possibly get up sideways.

[Master of Ossus]

And you could knock it over sideways precisely how? Especially considering that you could not do so with direct hits, in this scenario, because the AT-AT's would be facing the Iowa in order to target it. Proximity blasts have no where near the yields required to knock over an AT-AT in such a manner.