Abacus wrote:I have to give my vote to the AT-AT. Heavily armored and armed, with a sufficient amount of support that can be deployed in the need for close combat. It's far from elegant, but the sheer brutal force it can bring to bear is exquisite. The fact that it can deal with difficult terrain about as well as any hover tank (minus going up mountains obviously), and can handle incoming fire a lot better, makes me want to invest in the AT-AT over anything else.
I'd have to agree. Its a tank, self-propelled artillery, and troop carrier rolled into one, with none of the problems a tracked or repulsorlift vehicle would have. Like any ground vehicle, though, it would need proper support and terrain. It also seems to lack any way of firing in something resembling a ballistic arc, but so do many similar SW vehicles.
That grappling hook thingy was a one-off. Or was that a two-off... Next time just have an AT-ST shoot off the line.
Abacus wrote:I have to give my vote to the AT-AT.....
I'd have to agree.
Except for the same weight a tank either treaded or repulsorlift would have better armor coverage p/inch2, a heavier power generator, and one big cannon rather than two medium ones, and all for a lower less visible profile and leave enough money for a more superior IFV to be developed.
Abacus wrote:I have to give my vote to the AT-AT.....
I'd have to agree.
Except for the same weight a tank either treaded or repulsorlift would have better armor coverage p/inch2, a heavier power generator, and one big cannon rather than two medium ones, and all for a lower less visible profile and leave enough money for a more superior IFV to be developed.
A more conventionally designed IFV could do the job well. The AT-AT did the job spectacularly well.
Legs that big don't get stuck or jammed the way smaller vehicles relying on tread or repulsors would, and provide greater elevation to the guns. Sure, you could see it coming from miles away - but what can you do about it, especially at that point in the SW universe when weapons like it may have been relatively new and the countermeasures not well worked out?
A larger power generator, well in SW universe that seems to be more a cost consideration in the sense the smaller and more powerful the generator, the more expensive it would be. The AT-AT stood up to heavy blaster fire and remained stable, and took out the Rebel generator with one salvo, but a downed walker with shields knocked out was finished by a single landspeeder firing into its neck. So the generator was probably more powerful than what might have been considered for a more ordinary vehicle.
The AT-AT appears to be a spare-no-expense weapon designed for propaganda effect, but engineered to deliver victory however awkward it may look.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
I always assumed walkers had shields of some sort along with armour. If not, then whoops. My respect for the vehicle goes up a notch.
In the movie it looked like a snowspeeder shot the walker downed by cable and destroyed it with a shot through the neck. It couldn't be that easy unless the fall badly damaged the armour coverage or it had shielding knocked out by the fall.
In the TESB novelization, it was supposed to have self-destructed. In any case, I guess I never really let go of that first impression and probably need to see the movie again.
General Brock
Couldn't it simply be that the armor in the neck was much thinner, and in order to get at it they had to topple the vehicle first?
This is the case with real-life tanks anyway. They usually have thinner armor in places that are less likely to be exposed to fire in order to save weight.
General Brock wrote:Legs that big don't get stuck or jammed the way smaller vehicles relying on tread or repulsors would, and provide greater elevation to the guns. Sure, you could see it coming from miles away - but what can you do about it, especially at that point in the SW universe when weapons like it may have been relatively new and the countermeasures not well worked out?
No actually mecha legs are substantially more susceptible to malfunction than treads or a repulsorlift system, since the legs have much more complex moving parts causing friction. And that height 'advantage' is a huge detriment when the opposing faction can field actual starfighters rather than jury rigged commercial speeders, as evidenced in numerous EU sources where X-Wing easily take them down.
A larger power generator, well in SW universe that seems to be more a cost consideration in the sense the smaller and more powerful the generator, the more expensive it would be. The AT-AT stood up to heavy blaster fire and remained stable, and took out the Rebel generator with one salvo, but a downed walker with shields knocked out was finished by a single landspeeder firing into its neck. So the generator was probably more powerful than what might have been considered for a more ordinary vehicle.
The only AT-AT that may possibly use shields is the Heavy AT-AT from the Galactic Battlegrounds game and it's never heard of again.
The AT-AT appears to be a spare-no-expense weapon designed for propaganda effect, but engineered to deliver victory however awkward it may look.
And you can get substantially greater performance from a dedicated direct fire, indirect fire, and infantry fighting vehicles.
Do we really need another Mecha VS Tank thread? It's been done to death but I'm sure someone else on here would be more than happy to rehash the same old arguments that were refuted here, by my recollection as an SDN Chronicler, as far back as 2001.
General Schatten wrote: And that height 'advantage' is a huge detriment when the opposing faction can field actual starfighters rather than jury rigged commercial speeders, as evidenced in numerous EU sources where X-Wing easily take them down.
I take exception to this crap as well. If the X-Wings had SOOOO much more powerful weapons than the air speeders, then why the fuck didn't they just have them float there and fire at the walkers. Why even bother with the speeders? If X-Wings could have just obliterated the walkers with ease as the EU proclaims, then why didn't they just take two or three and make some strafing runs on giant metal dinosaurs that Luke can run and keep up with? Oh that's right, because the EU is bullshit.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
General Schatten wrote: And that height 'advantage' is a huge detriment when the opposing faction can field actual starfighters rather than jury rigged commercial speeders, as evidenced in numerous EU sources where X-Wing easily take them down.
I take exception to this crap as well. If the X-Wings had SOOOO much more powerful weapons than the air speeders, then why the fuck didn't they just have them float there and fire at the walkers. Why even bother with the speeders? If X-Wings could have just obliterated the walkers with ease as the EU proclaims, then why didn't they just take two or three and make some strafing runs on giant metal dinosaurs that Luke can run and keep up with? Oh that's right, because the EU is bullshit.
Well from what I recall in most EU novels X-Wings use torpedoes to down them and not just lasers and at Hoth it didn't seem as if the rebels had a supply on hand. You should recall this being a key plot point in the Death Star attack as each fighter only carried enough munitions for one pass due to a shortage of torpedoes. There is also the fact that the X-Wings were being used to escort the Gallofrees out and thus might not have been available for may have been seen as a less important job.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
In addition, the EU also suggests in games that the base also came under air attack at one point, and it'd be logical for the X-wings, with superior dogfighting ability, to cover that. In addition, there didn't seem to be that many fighters at the base, according to the cross-sections guide, so I'd imagine that they'd want to save their ships to cover the transports, which were the priority.
"No, no, no, no! Light speed's too slow! Yes, we're gonna have to go right to... Ludicrous speed!"
Havok wrote:Wait. Since when did AT-ATs have shields?
When the snowspeeders shoot at the AT-ATs, the shots have a tendency to flare up into bright puffs around the vehicle, even when it would otherwise be a direct hit (ruling out "flak burst" effects), similarly to how shots interact with shields in the space scenes. I don't know if it's canon, but I assumed that indicated shielding. Also, when they shoot up Gen. Veers's vehicle's cockpit, I think one shot hits the viewscreen directly, to no effect.
General Schatten wrote: And that height 'advantage' is a huge detriment when the opposing faction can field actual starfighters rather than jury rigged commercial speeders, as evidenced in numerous EU sources where X-Wing easily take them down.
I take exception to this crap as well. If the X-Wings had SOOOO much more powerful weapons than the air speeders, then why the fuck didn't they just have them float there and fire at the walkers. Why even bother with the speeders? If X-Wings could have just obliterated the walkers with ease as the EU proclaims, then why didn't they just take two or three and make some strafing runs on giant metal dinosaurs that Luke can run and keep up with? Oh that's right, because the EU is bullshit.
Besides, does it really matter? An M1A1 can't really defend itself against an F-18 alone, so clearly M1A1 tanks are useless? I somehow doubt the AT-AT would be less vulnerable to starfighters on open terrain with no cover if you kept the boxy parts the same size and just chopped off the legs to replace with treads. Even if it was smaller I'm pretty sure X-wings could still strafe them pretty well when there's no cover available.
EDIT: Plus, since SW ground forces seem to only use kine-of-sight weapons, isn't that height also an advantage? I do remember seeing that justification brought out before.
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)
"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight
RogueIce wrote:
EDIT: Plus, since SW ground forces seem to only use kine-of-sight weapons, isn't that height also an advantage? I do remember seeing that justification brought out before.
It would let them see and engage targets sooner then a tracked vehicle, being able to see over terrain. Though you could probably solve that problem with a drone/mast and some missiles. *shrug*
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Cpl Kendall wrote:It would let them see and engage targets sooner then a tracked vehicle, being able to see over terrain. Though you could probably solve that problem with a drone/mast and some missiles. *shrug*
Yeah.
I think the AT-AT was meant, tactically, as an artillery/sniper platform, designed to hang back about ten kilometers from the battle (more if they have an elevated vantage point) and drop extremely powerful shots from their main guns into the enemy lines in support of more conventional troops assaulting. Then Palpatine looked at the big, heavily armored walker design and said "I like it, make it a troop transport."
At which point half the Imperial Design Bureau waits for the ISB agents to leave the room, then starts banging their heads on their desks.
I'd go for the Juggernaut. A wheeled or tracked vehicle, sporting both lasers AND missile weaponry (that may be able to fire indirectly), capable of rolling out rather than lumbering with stupid complicated mecha legs, and still able to transport stormtroopers, is better for me than some quadrupelagic Gundam-AT or whatever the mecha scum are peddling. The Juggernaut would not have been in anyway vulnerable to tripping and falling on its ass - tripping and falling ON ITS ASS, people! - and with its larger wheel surface area compared to those AT-AT feet, it's actually be more effective in difficult terrain compared to the AT-AT. We saw the Juggernaut roll out and strike hard and fast in Kashyyk, a muddy jungle world. Compared that to the slow and lumbering plodding pace of the AT-AT in Hoth, and well, the Juggernaut was just that much more awesome. A Juggernaut would have all the strengths of an AT-AT, and none of the terrible deficiencies of a ridiculous mecha. Oh, it looks scary. Maybe if it has a sword and transforms into a fighter plane, it'd be even scarier too!
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source) shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN! Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
Again, all this is why I think the AT-ATs only make sense in a particular role, and that role is not the one we see them used in. It's as if somebody was using self-propelled howitzers as if they were tanks, and the howitzers got the crap blasted out of them because they aren't tanks and are supposed to sit a long way behind the front (preferably on the other side of a big hill or something) and lob shells at the enemy.
A lot of the AT-AT's weaknesses would matter less if it were designed to stand off and fire from long range with lighter forces screening it against flank attacks. So I think it makes more sense as a long range artillery platform than as an assault transport... which is, naturally enough, what they wound up using them as.
General Schatten wrote: And that height 'advantage' is a huge detriment when the opposing faction can field actual starfighters rather than jury rigged commercial speeders, as evidenced in numerous EU sources where X-Wing easily take them down.
I take exception to this crap as well. If the X-Wings had SOOOO much more powerful weapons than the air speeders, then why the fuck didn't they just have them float there and fire at the walkers. Why even bother with the speeders? If X-Wings could have just obliterated the walkers with ease as the EU proclaims, then why didn't they just take two or three and make some strafing runs on giant metal dinosaurs that Luke can run and keep up with? Oh that's right, because the EU is bullshit.
Well from what I recall in most EU novels X-Wings use torpedoes to down them and not just lasers and at Hoth it didn't seem as if the rebels had a supply on hand.
What? Where in TESB did you come up with the info that the Alliance didn't have any torpedoes?
You should recall this being a key plot point in the Death Star attack as each fighter only carried enough munitions for one pass due to a shortage of torpedoes.
There is also the fact that the X-Wings were being used to escort the Gallofrees out and thus might not have been available for may have been seen as a less important job.
Uh, so the X-Wings couldn't catch up or just make a pass on the way up. How fast do they go again?
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Havok wrote:Wait. Since when did AT-ATs have shields?
When the snowspeeders shoot at the AT-ATs, the shots have a tendency to flare up into bright puffs around the vehicle, even when it would otherwise be a direct hit (ruling out "flak burst" effects), similarly to how shots interact with shields in the space scenes. I don't know if it's canon, but I assumed that indicated shielding. Also, when they shoot up Gen. Veers's vehicle's cockpit, I think one shot hits the viewscreen directly, to no effect.
"That armor is too strong for blasters. Rouge group, use your HARPOONS and tow cables and go for the legs. That may be our only chance of stopping them."
So the shields can stop blaster fire, but not fucking harpoons? And don't give me particle/ray shields unless you are going to suggest that no one anticipated someone might shoot a missile or rocket at them.
Oh yeah and apparently Luke is immune to these shields as well.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Havok wrote:Well from what I recall in most EU novels X-Wings use torpedoes to down them and not just lasers and at Hoth it didn't seem as if the rebels had a supply on hand.
What? Where in TESB did you come up with the info that the Alliance didn't have any torpedoes?[/quote]They might have, they might not have. It's implied that proton torpedoes are (by Rebel standards) fairly expensive ordnance. They're throwing them around like candy in the X-Wing novels, but that's after they've killed the Emperor. It's probably a lot easier to get torpedoes when you're a credible enough military power to be advancing on Coruscant, and after half the Imperial arsenals have gone rogue.
Uh, so the X-Wings couldn't catch up or just make a pass on the way up. How fast do they go again?
I'm sure they could. Though... if there were Imperial aircraft buzzing around above the shield, the transports might get bounced at any moment, which would make keeping them under escort from the moment they left the shield vital.
Even then, they'd still have the X-Wings that were delegated to transports that hadn't taken off yet, so using the X-Wings' blasters against AT-ATs would still have been feasible.
General Schatten wrote: And that height 'advantage' is a huge detriment when the opposing faction can field actual starfighters rather than jury rigged commercial speeders, as evidenced in numerous EU sources where X-Wing easily take them down.
I take exception to this crap as well. If the X-Wings had SOOOO much more powerful weapons than the air speeders, then why the fuck didn't they just have them float there and fire at the walkers. Why even bother with the speeders? If X-Wings could have just obliterated the walkers with ease as the EU proclaims, then why didn't they just take two or three and make some strafing runs on giant metal dinosaurs that Luke can run and keep up with? Oh that's right, because the EU is bullshit.
Besides, does it really matter? An M1A1 can't really defend itself against an F-18 alone, so clearly M1A1 tanks are useless? I somehow doubt the AT-AT would be less vulnerable to starfighters on open terrain with no cover if you kept the boxy parts the same size and just chopped off the legs to replace with treads. Even if it was smaller I'm pretty sure X-wings could still strafe them pretty well when there's no cover available.
That's not what I'm saying. My point is that the AT-ATs are effective because speeder mounted/starfighter mounted weapons aren't effective against them at all. Ground mounted lasers that were powered by a generator that powers a shield that can stop orbital bombardment can't effect them. I guess my argument is that *surprise* the EU is bullshit and over hypes the X-Wing.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Weight of evidence is far too strongly against this idea for it to be worth taking seriously. We know starfighters have power outputs in the E15- E17 watt range, flat out stated from ICS, and deduced from watching them move on screen.
Unless their weapon systems are totally unconnected to their powerplant, which, yes, right, then they do have an unknowable but substantial proportion of that available as firepower.
Heat and firepower calculations; assuming a 3,000 ton AT-AT for the moment, you'd need about thirty- two terajoules (3.2E13) to go from room temperature to vapour for something that size, if it was made of titanium. Eight kilotons, less a bit (7.644kt, but hey, overkill...).
What's the difference between a shield and a heat sink, anyway? Very little apart from heat absorption mechanism, as far as I can see. If the AT-AT has heat sinks coupled to the armour, they should serve.
It's own weapons might be able to reach that. I find it perfectly credible that a much smaller speeder's weapons couldn't; not remotely credible that something with ten thousand times that power couldn't spare more than a ten thousandth for weapons.
Why the rebel alliance chose to fight with one hand tied behind their back is the real question, and I think the credit for this has to go to General Veers. He was the wild card in the situation.
The speeders the Alliance sent out- what were they, what were they for? They're fast, agile, moderately tough (one manages to take a hit well enough to limp to a survivable landing rather than blow up), and they have what look like respectably big guns. They sound like tank hunters to me.
Assuming the rebels aren't so unequipped they have to make do with anything no matter how stupid, which may be quite an assumption- presumably these things were supposed to be effective against what they expected the Empire to have landed.
Echo Base looks to me to have been in a high valley, the clear space actually under the shield, surrounded by mountains; if the plan was to hack the head off the Imperial assault force, shoot up what mountain warfare units they managed to get over the terrain, force them to deploy a second assault wave, and then run for it while they were reorganising, that makes sense to me. Fast, agile tank hunters look good for that.
Veers blindsided them by doing the impossible, sending heavy assault units that the tank hunters couldn't cope with over terrain the AT-ATs shouldn't have been able to cope with- but did. The X-Wings were probably still being prepped for the space battle that they were expecting, and simply not ready for the ground fight.
The only purpose in my still being here is the stories and the people who come to read them. About all else, I no longer care.
And to think, if I'm right, that he did it all with what was meant as a lumbering long range siege platform...
Veers, you magnificent bastard, I would very much like to read your book!
Seriously, though. That makes a fair amount of sense to me; AT-ATs are tough, but not tough enough to shrug off kiloton range nukes unless something sufficiently advanced is going on under that armor. And tactical nuke level firepower is so far within Star Wars capabilities that it's almost comically weak when you go to vehicle-scale combat. Most of their ground weapons aren't that powerful, and there are good reasons not to make them that powerful, but in a world where close air support can come in the form of light turbolaser fire, you cannot in good conscience call a ground vehicle "heavy armor" unless it has some capability to resist that kind of pounding.
Of course, that leaves us with AT-ATs that, by all appearances, sneer at the firepower of their own guns, even at "maximum firepower..." I wonder what an AT-AT - AT-AT duel would look like.
General Schatten wrote: No actually mecha legs are substantially more susceptible to malfunction than treads or a repulsorlift system, since the legs have much more complex moving parts causing friction. And that height 'advantage' is a huge detriment when the opposing faction can field actual starfighters rather than jury rigged commercial speeders, as evidenced in numerous EU sources where X-Wing easily take them down.
Point taken. The AT-ATs didn't have to travel very far, so perhaps they were meant for such missions; short range against poorly armed opponents.
The only AT-AT that may possibly use shields is the Heavy AT-AT from the Galactic Battlegrounds game and it's never heard of again.
Kind of an important detail to leave hanging. I guess it keeps the buzz alive.
And you can get substantially greater performance from a dedicated direct fire, indirect fire, and infantry fighting vehicles.
Do we really need another Mecha VS Tank thread? It's been done to death but I'm sure someone else on here would be more than happy to rehash the same old arguments that were refuted here, by my recollection as an SDN Chronicler, as far back as 2001.
No, I think I read that thread once, on ones like it, thanks for reminding me.
Compared to the vehicles I've seen on-screen, the AT-AT certainly seems like the best vehicle, but I'm not well enough versed to seriously debate it.
I did look up some references at theforce and wookiepedia, so while I was assuming the SW universe had mecha-like tech down, it seems they actually do not, at least until they change their minds again.
AATC-86 wrote:General Brock
Couldn't it simply be that the armor in the neck was much thinner, and in order to get at it they had to topple the vehicle first?
This is the case with real-life tanks anyway. They usually have thinner armor in places that are less likely to be exposed to fire in order to save weight.
The toppling of the AT-AT also reduced top-neck target area, as the head and body were bent closer together while the more exposed length of neck was on the ground.
If the neck were so vulnerable to a one-shot, simply having the snowspeeders come in from the sides and blast at the neck, instead of head on, would have impaired the ability of the head-mounted guns to swivel and track targets. This would have bought more time for the ground forces and probably saved no small number of lives. Since they didn't, neck shots were either impractical or the rebels weren't very smart.
My initial impression was that when the walker toppled, it landed on its throat and upper chest, which disrupted the shielding that allowed the neck to move freely without heavy armour. The snowspeeder shot through the upper neck into the forward part of the body, perhaps detonating a munitions magazine or the power source.
However, if Lucasfilm says there weren't shields, and the walker is far more impractical than it actually appears to be, OK. Way to defend your franchaise. I would have thought a collar shield would have at least occurred to them by now.
As far as movie-only ground units go, the performance and appearance of the AT-AT is a winner. Use the perspective from the EU and other less cannonical material, and this is probably not the case.
Simon_Jester wrote:
Of course, that leaves us with AT-ATs that, by all appearances, sneer at the firepower of their own guns, even at "maximum firepower..." I wonder what an AT-AT - AT-AT duel would look like.
Now that would be cool. They could walk right up to one another blazing for a weak spot, then start a shoving match like a couple of bull dinos to see who got knocked over first, then the winner could strafe the belly and neck. Walker defenses work while standing, but don't take well to falling.
- PeZook
