Imperial Walker versus 40K Anti-Armor Weapons

[Connor MacLeod]

You mean the K-wing? I believe that was retconned (sensibly, for once) that it did not sport "real" turbolasers, but rather it was a brand name or something.

No, I mean X-wings. It was mentioned in the Corellian trilogy. I believe the falcon has also been shown as having turbolasers in place of its quadguns, and E-wings have had "turbolasers" mounted. There were "turbocharged" lascannons on the Hornet interceptor (first mentioned in the Jedi Academy trilogy).

"Turbolasers" are not "just" capital ship weapons, any more than laser or blaster cannons are only vehicle/fighter weapons. You have surface-to-surface and surface to air TL artillery that is frequently used (Imperial Sourcebook, such as the Co-Mar Tri-tracker) You can have capitla-ship scale laser cannons and blaster cannons (The trench mounted quad lasers on an ISD-1, or the trench mounted quad laser cannons on the Trade Federation battleship) The Invisible Hand and the Separatist Destroyer from ROTS also mention having laser cannons distinct from the point defense weaponry.

And while I generally prefer turbolaser to mean heavier weapons (in excess of most blaster/laser cannons) . . . no, I am not arguing for gigatons, here. All I said was that, on the topic of possibly upgraded AT-ATs, there have been upgraded variants around with boosted firepower. By how much it was boosted is unspecified. Though as you note, their main weapons were indeed called turbolasers in the comic.

You're not going to get much more firepower than a few kts for various reasons, but recoil is the big one. You *might* justify a few tens or a couple hundred kilotons per "shot" without recoil getting excessive, but megaton or higher is flat out. It would knock the At-At over, especially given the fact it's mounted high up on thin, stilt like legs. The only way to get around that is to make an At-AT many tens of thousands of tons in mass, and that is only going ot make the absurd ground pressure issues with it worse (you know, those small, spindly legs)

On topic of fighters, the Utapauan Porax-38 was outfitted with a hypermatter power plant that could generate multi-megatons per second on maximum load. So theoretically, at least, it should be possible to outfit fighters with energy weapons quite a bit heavier than the usual single-digit kilotons (though still not gigatons). Although, as usual, there are probably trade-offs; the Porax was quite big, and also a fairly high-end fighter from what I understood of its entry in the RotS:ICS.

All fighters generate megatons of KE from their engines simply by virtue of having multi-thousand gee accelerations. More specifically I believe its somehwere in the tens to several hundreds of megatons each second at max output, depending on ship mass, acceleration, max loaded weight, etc. Not surprising considering Falcon sized starships are into the e18-e20 watt range for power output from engines.

However, getting the power from reactors to guns is not instantly MEGATONS of firepower. Curtis discusses the subject in more detail here, but in general the power transmission technologies of starfighter-scale vessels aren't as efficient as they are on large capital ships. There's also recoil issues. Consider the x-wings laser cannons mounted on those thin wings, whereas the engines are mounted close ot the hull.

I never argued for heavy capship killers in the giga/teraton range. There are any number of reasons for why that is unreasonable, and you point out a few good ones. I would, as I said, rather imagine that they would be on par with the weakest of light turbolasers - somewhere towards the lower megaton range, or thereabouts. Nor do they (obviously) necessarily use this max firepower all the time; in the comic, I believe they never did.

Megaton range is problematic for the recoil issue I already discussed above. The AT At Max firepower calcs from TESB calced by Darth Physbod yers back even discount multi-megaton AT-AT guns.

The original source goes like this, quote unquote:

The Vipers' six-limbed construction allowed them to stand bipedally on their rear legs while hosing down the immediate vicinity with a withering spray of fire. The middle set of appendages ended with advanced blaster cannons, each packing the knockout punch of a Capital ship turbolaser; two smaller laser cannons were concealed beneath the chin. The heavy front pincers had the lightning reflexes to snare a low-flying airspeeder, and the tensile strength to maintain their grip while steering the unfortunate craft straight into the ground.

"Knockout punch" might refer to some kind of burst-fire mode with charge-up that is not sustainable over any length of time, and probably does. And "capital ship turbolaser" is also somewhat open to interpretation, but should still mean that its peak firepower is substantially heavier than starfighter weapons in most cases.

And Vipers were substantially less massive than AT-ATs. How the hell are they firing these guns without knocking themselves over?
Moreover, if you read it it is not saying that the Viper carries turbolasers. It says it has blaster cannons which are supposed to be comparable (in some way) to some sort of capital ship turbolaser. Turbolasers are different from blaster/laser cannons in how they are generated, not in firepower (turbolasers are some weird "compound" weapon related to superlasers, or the composite beam lasers on LAATs). But they can be widely variable in firepower, just as laser and blaster cannons can be.

Implications for this sort of weapon would be the ability to create highly effective, energy-weapon armed starships (think SW equivlaent of Defiant or White Star) or quite probably even large fighter-sized objects (gunboats or blastboat or other transport/shuttle sized craft) carrying capital-ship weaponry. I can't recall ever seeing that happening or being mentioned.

As for the SPHA-T, I thought that was supposed to carry a heavier starship-grade weapon? Which should make it another class than the Viper (which is a combat 'droid, not an artillery platform), and orders of magnitude more powerful at its peak. Apart from the differences in firepower (and the necessary power generation, bracing, and so on), most of the size and mass differential would probably be in cost and trade-offs; from what I recall, Balmorra (the Viper's manufacturer) was known for building high-end "elite" systems that were not necessarily cost-effective. Although it did supposedly use some new, revolutionary technology for its shields, at least.

If you believe some of the interpretations, the SPHA-T was supposed to carry the equivalent of a Venator's heavy turbolaser turret, which it could only fire for a couple of seconds tops before needing a recharge, all based on the shield rating given in the AOTC:ICS for a core ship (so not only was it firing hundreds of TT max, it carried many times that in power onboard.)

Of course, the SPHA-T is the size of the repuslor turbolaser artillrey, its fucking huge. The Viper is fucking tiny compared to even an AT-AT as I recall.

(The MAS-2xB I presently lack reliable data on, so I cannot comment on it. What is it; is Wookieepedia's write-up on it essentially correct?)

My essential guides are all packed away, and I dont wnat to dig them out right now, so as far as my memory can recall, they seem to be okay. Take that as you will.

[Connor MacLeod]

Careful, Sarevok. Connor will soon be around to blast anyone to a crisp who uses face-value Imperial Armour numbers.

It wouldn't be the first time someone accused me of fanboyism

Me, I personally think Warhammer 40,000 is too inconsistently portrayed for anyone to be able to meaningfully quantify or debate it, and I believe I have said so before. The vast amount of books, little consistency, and obscurity of many titles makes any judgment on its capabilities, except perhaps for broad generalities, impossible. Two people can look at a dozen different books each, do perfectly honest and objective analysis, and then come up with as wildly different conclusions as you and Connor. And for lack of a canon policy, neither one is any more "right" than the other, although their results will be mutually exclusive.

Now, then, if this is so, now imagine what happens when the pro- and anti-Warhammer camps in a VS debate do this and each side purposely put their spin on the figures. Say, how it often is on SpaceBattles, when the anti side cite more or less exclusively from the Imperial Armour and Codex books, and the pro side from the novels . . . and more often than not, both sides tend to quote only the parts of their books that reinforce their own ideas and downplay the contrary passages.

It invariably, axiomatically degenerates into namecalling of the "You people are just dishonest wankers who cherrypick what you like and ignore the weaker showings" and "If you have not read every single book ever, then frankly you are not qualified to comment on the franchise, and any weak showings you quote are obvious outliers" kind (said examples being more or less accurate caricatures of the anti- and pro side, respectively), and no conclusion is (or can be) reached.

Congrats. You've just described all the years and decades of SW/ST analysis in a nutshell. How is this unique to 40K again?

[Connor MacLeod]

Anyway I don't see why this thread is so long. Imperial Armor firmly establishes why IoM vehicles don't stand a chance against modern tanks much less AT-ATs.

For instance the frontal armor of a Land Raider tank is mere 98 mm thick and is stated to be "equivalent to 300 mm of conventional steel". The front armor of the IoMs premier tank is weaker than a North Korean T-55. Storm trooper blaster rifles will penetrate that !

Define "conventional steel" in a 40K context please, if you wnat your comparison to have any validity. Simply saying "its steel" is meaningless, since steal itself can be tremendously variable (Don't believe me? Mike made note of it here long ago.)

Also, before you start getting into some sort of anti-40K calc rant like I suspect this is gearing towards, bear in mind that many of the accusations leveled at 40K can also apply to the use of the EU in Star Wars (you know text).

In terms of firepower the weapons are just as bad.

When it fired, the breech of the main gun hurtled back into the turret space with one hundred and ninety tonnes of recoil force.

Apparently this tank was a Leman Russ Conqueror, which has a barrel length of 2.42 metres according to Imperial Armour 1. 190 tons works out to be 1.9 * 10^6 newtons. This force applied over a distance of 2.42 meters produces a total of 4.5 MJ of work. That's not much stronger than a blaster rifle at firing a maximum power bolt. And much weaker than a modern tanks main gun.

You do realize that the "recoil force" is not the same thing as the force coming out of the gun barrel, right? did you do some actual research, or did you just lift Abanim's old SB calcs when he tried pulling that shit on me years ago?

Imperial Armor has details vehicle speeds and armor thickness. They are not very impressive. For example a Lemon Russ has a top road speed of 35 kilometer/hour. Off road it does a mere 21 kph.

In contrast the Empire's tanks are quite advanced. For example the 1-H Imperial-class repulsortank does 300 km/h over any terrain. Yet even they can't defeat an AT-AT by outmaneuvering it.

Hey look! a no math mentality! All other variables are irrelevant if oyu can outmanuever something. What, are you thinking these tanks are ramming the AT-ATs or something?

i could also point out people have argued that the tremendous "walking" speeds the official text gives walkers (At-ATs, AT-STs, AT-TEs, etc.) is crap because it means the vehicles have to be able to run/gallop (sort of like in that one robot chicken Star Wars episode.)

I could also point out that Russes have, in the various bits of fluff, demonstrated highly varibale speed performance. Hell, even in the IA stuff Russes have variable speed.

Which goes to show the level competence IoMs enemies has. An army is measured by the quality of it's opposition...

Right. Star Wars is an epitome of military competence as well. I mean, just look at Endor and the prequels. I'm not even going to dig into the EU for examples.

No its just dumb looking. Just like galaxy punching Mecha is stupid.

The AT-AT actually looks like a halfway decent vehicle that could exist given the level of technology the Empire has. The Titans... don't make slightest iota of sense.

The AT-AT maybe doomed in practicality due to being a 4 legged mecha but at least it is not made stupider by demanding that it serve a secondary role as a circus attraction. It is pretty awesome looking as far as Western mecha designs go.

Not according to Sea Skimmer. I've tried rationalizing the AT-At design before. He shot down all my arguments and made some good reason why the only good rationale for the AT-At was (as I remember him saying) "Pork Barrel spending".

Titan's ARE stupid since they are bipedal walking machines. But they're not done that way because someone thinks walkers are the epitome of military combat, but because they are... GOD MACHINES. Ever hear the term before? Titans inspire the same level of awe and reverence that Space Marines can. And in 40K, thoughts/emotions/belief DO have a tangible effect on things, even for humans. It's akin to the effect of Gargants and Stompas as effigies of Ork Gods, albiet on a far less developed scale.

The vast bulk of the Imperium's armies do not make use of Walkers. Whereas for Star Wars its hard to argue they don't

But they give us actual values. 40K does not have much in the way of visuals. Which leaves us with rather unreliable method of interpreting stylistic and symbolic language into empirical quantities. And the prose is often highly inconsistent with itself. If you consider the visual evidence actual 40K battles look a lot like the low end values. In all the cinematics I watched and games I played Space marines don't move in bullet time and their guns look positively weaker and shorter ranged than a real world weapon like the XM-25.

It's really a question of what you consider to be your main personal source of Warhammer 40000. Now if you are a fan of the novels and want to debate literary 40K then be my guest. But that does not look anything like Warhammer 40K most people knows. As I said before versus debate 40K occurs in a separate universe from main continuity.

Hey don't beat around the bush. Just come out and bitch about why you hate 40K.

[Shroom Man 777]

As Sarevok said to Malachuschus, who sigged the line when in that discussion Sarevok ended up making himself look like an ignorant shithead (again):

"Please educate yourself before posting more."

[Connor MacLeod]

I just want him ot justify his assumptions better. If he has more data than "I am interpreting this from Imperial armour" then I want to see it. And I could be doing him a disservice. He just sounds like a bitter fanboy, but I could be misinterpreting things.

[Simon_Jester]

Fair enough.

Anyway, re: tacticostrategic mobility, uh, the AT-ATs still have to walk towards their objective. If you're comparing them to light paratrooper infantry that move on foot, without any vehicle transport, then that just serves the point. A vehicle with speed comparable to infantry moving on foot!

Right. Basically, AT-ATs are pretty obviously designed to be air-dropped near a place that you want destroyed, then to walk the last distance on foot. They're faster than a man on foot, though not as much faster as any number of other ground vehicles.

Tactically, one thing is that they look very slow and ponderous because of their size, but so do elephants, which move surprisingly quickly overland- though, obviously, not as fast as a car. A 20-meter tall object will look slow and ponderous unless it is moving very fast, because we're used to judging "fast" movement by how many times the object's own length it moves per second. Likewise, a bug looks like it's moving very fast when you observe it up close... but it's actually moving ridiculously slowly because it's so small.

I don't do any of those things, and yet you continue to rant at me as if I did.

My spiels aren't really directed towards you, it is towards them.

And yet you proceed to spiel about what I say as much as about what they say.

Well, then sneak to the flanks and then start popping at the vulnerable spots at more effective ranges then when long-distance accuracy won't be an issue, while the vehicle is unable to strike back (because it's not turned towards you/because you've surprised it). It's the standard trick to dealing with armored vehicles, and unless the AT-AT will never ever wade into an area crawling with anti-tank infantry like how a man might stick his toes into a pool and jump back when the water's too cold, the AT-AT will have to encounter this situation.

Yes. And the AT-AT itself is poorly suited for this. It would rely heavily on escorts, and would prefer to stay out of situations where it's likely to get bazookaed from the flanks, preferably by staying comfortably out of range where it can use its big honking guns to best advantage. In this respect it is a terrible choice for carrying infantry into a ground assault, sigh.

I mean, how else would it encounter 40k (or other verse) anti-armor weapons? Anti-armor infantry certainly won't be charging straight towards the AT-AT. This is how anti-armor infantry engages armor.

Yes. The only mitigating factor is the sheer durability of AT-AT armor, which appears to resist vehicle mounted heavy weapons pretty effectively- I mean, maybe the guns on those snowspeeders are shit, but if they were that shitty, you'd think the Rebels would have just detached a couple of X-Wings to do a proper job of killing the AT-ATs (and stalling the Imperial ground advance) to buy more time for the evacuation transports. Because ultimately what screws up the evacuation is the AT-ATs overrunning the Rebel trenches and blowing up the shield generator; killing those AT-ATs early in the battle would make a huge difference.

The whole speeder is as big as the turret guns, or the guns the speeder mounts is as large as those big turret guns? Those speeders still use power to fly, and if the blasters and engines use the same power source... Whereas IIRC, those turret guns had cables running around them, didn't they? It'd be a cunning thing, connecting your defense guns to the base's power grid.

Hmmm. Maybe so. Hard to say.

Well, if we're gonna go with the AT-AT as a long-range siege platform, then that's like asking who'll win - a guy with an RPG, or an MLRS launcher a dozen miles away.

Well, in that case, the job of countering them goes to the Imperial artillery- massed fire from indirect-fire guns and superheavy ground units- including Titans which are like AT-ATs only bigger and beefier and harder to kill, and also things like the Shadowsword which would probably make you a very happy Shroomy if you saw it.

I think I was also asking "hey guise what examples of SW anti-armor weapons are there, so we can compare/look for something corresponding in 40k" too. So... don't ask me. Maybe Sarevok knows. He seems to know about non-AT-AT "obscure vehicles known only to some geeks" from the Star Wars Extroverted Ureter novels.

True. Incidentally, that AT-AA he showed is, I'm pretty sure, from a video game. Galactic Battlegrounds or something, it was basically the Age of Empires II engine only with Star Wars graphics and planes thrown in.

[Darth Hoth]

No, I mean X-wings. It was mentioned in the Corellian trilogy. I believe the falcon has also been shown as having turbolasers in place of its quadguns, and E-wings have had "turbolasers" mounted.

Interesting, those were more than I was aware of. Do you know roughly where in the books it was said? I have the Corellian Trilogy around, but it was a good long while ago I read it.

You're not going to get much more firepower than a few kts for various reasons, but recoil is the big one. You *might* justify a few tens or a couple hundred kilotons per "shot" without recoil getting excessive, but megaton or higher is flat out. It would knock the At-At over, especially given the fact it's mounted high up on thin, stilt like legs. The only way to get around that is to make an At-AT many tens of thousands of tons in mass, and that is only going ot make the absurd ground pressure issues with it worse (you know, those small, spindly legs)

I have not run the maths on the recoil more specifically, myself, but your numbers sound about right from what I know of it. (I read up on recoil and momentum since we debated last year.) So, yes, higher firepower is obviously problematic. If it was going to mount heavier cannon, it would need (in addition to retooling the weapons and powerplant) more exotic upgrades - some kind of repulsor or force-field effect, perhaps, that anchored it with respect to the ground, and/or redistributed the pressure over a larger ground area. Which should be theoretically possible to build, given the tech base, but have not been observed or mentioned anywhere, as far as I know.

Given that, I will not argue that such craft exist. Point conceded.

(Although if we analyse the toy models, like Saxton does on his site, there is the heavy-calibre All-Terrain Ion Cannon . . . )

However, getting the power from reactors to guns is not instantly MEGATONS of firepower. Curtis discusses the subject in more detail here, but in general the power transmission technologies of starfighter-scale vessels aren't as efficient as they are on large capital ships. There's also recoil issues. Consider the x-wings laser cannons mounted on those thin wings, whereas the engines are mounted close ot the hull.

That sounds reasonable, and probable.

Megaton range is problematic for the recoil issue I already discussed above. The AT At Max firepower calcs from TESB calced by Darth Physbod yers back even discount multi-megaton AT-AT guns.

Do you have a link to those calculations? I broadly agree, but it would still be interesting to have a look.

And Vipers were substantially less massive than AT-ATs. How the hell are they firing these guns without knocking themselves over?
Moreover, if you read it it is not saying that the Viper carries turbolasers. It says it has blaster cannons which are supposed to be comparable (in some way) to some sort of capital ship turbolaser. Turbolasers are different from blaster/laser cannons in how they are generated, not in firepower (turbolasers are some weird "compound" weapon related to superlasers, or the composite beam lasers on LAATs). But they can be widely variable in firepower, just as laser and blaster cannons can be.

Again, I do not disagree with all the problems you posit for the weapon. They are clearly there. However, while the book does not call their weapons turbolasers, it does say that their blaster cannon do have the "knockout punch" of capital-ship grade weapons. Which makes me question whether they should be sub-megaton, since capital ship weapons (even the laser cannon) tend to be more powerful than that. Or is there another, better way to interpret "knockout punch" than as referring to raw power (in a burst, presumably)?

Implications for this sort of weapon would be the ability to create highly effective, energy-weapon armed starships (think SW equivlaent of Defiant or White Star) or quite probably even large fighter-sized objects (gunboats or blastboat or other transport/shuttle sized craft) carrying capital-ship weaponry. I can't recall ever seeing that happening or being mentioned.

Nor I. Old books called the Skipray Blastboat a "capital ship" on account of its powerful weapons and shields; that would be about the closest. I also have vague memories that some bits (the old Essential Guide to Vessels and Vehicles?) treated the B-Wing similarly, though I will not swear on that. But both of those were strictly hyperbole, of course.

[Black Admiral]

Titan's ARE stupid since they are bipedal walking machines. But they're not done that way because someone thinks walkers are the epitome of military combat, but because they are... GOD MACHINES. Ever hear the term before? Titans inspire the same level of awe and reverence that Space Marines can. And in 40K, thoughts/emotions/belief DO have a tangible effect on things, even for humans. It's akin to the effect of Gargants and Stompas as effigies of Ork Gods, albiet on a far less developed scale.

Just to emphasise this: Imperial Titans have never been conceived of in-universe as rational weapons of war. The Adeptus Mechanicus build them as literal avatars of their God, the Omnissiah/Deus Mechanicus, in physicality. The nearest analogy in a modern context would be Christian fundamentalists building a giant, mobile statue of Jesus armed with heavy artillery batteries and cruise missile launchers, and even then it doesn't work exactly.

The vast bulk of the Imperium's armies do not make use of Walkers.

Well, actually, yeah they do - just not as pervasively as most SW forces (the Guard have their Sentinel scout walkers, Space Marines have Dreadnoughts (and, much as I'm reluctant to mention it, the DreadKnight), the Ad Mech have their miscellany of mecha units, the Ecclesiarchy have Penitent Engines).

[Darth Hoth]

It wouldn't be the first time someone accused me of fanboyism

" " indicates the light-hearted way the line was written. You obviously like Warhammer a lot, which I believe shows in how you tend to respond when people criticise it, and the Vs fan dislike of Imperial Armour is well known. But it was not intended to accuse you of dishonesty in analysis or debating.

Congrats. You've just described all the years and decades of SW/ST analysis in a nutshell. How is this unique to 40K again?

The difference I see is that Star Wars (the EU) has a somewhat clear canon hierarchy, whereas Warhammer does not. With Star Wars there are fairly objective means of deciding which source should take precedence in cases where they conflict (which, I will readily admit, is quite often) and resolving contradictions. It also has an absolute canon (the films) which should not be contradicted and can serve as some kind of baseline. Also, as Sarevok said, for SW/ST we have the visuals, which tend to be more objectively useful for quantification than prose descriptions in books will be most of the time. The latter of which is basically all we have when Warhammer is concerned.

[Connor MacLeod]

" " indicates the light-hearted way the line was written. You obviously like Warhammer a lot, which I believe shows in how you tend to respond when people criticise it, and the Vs fan dislike of Imperial Armour is well known. But it was not intended to accuse you of dishonesty in analysis or debating.

I wasn't speaking of you specifically. I've been told quite a few times before I have some critics who feel they needed to correct my extravagant fanboyism. It's actually kinda hilarious in a way, since it reminds me of the stuff Mike and Curtis have been subjected to.

The difference I see is that Star Wars (the EU) has a somewhat clear canon hierarchy, whereas Warhammer does not. With Star Wars there are fairly objective means of deciding which source should take precedence in cases where they conflict (which, I will readily admit, is quite often) and resolving contradictions. It also has an absolute canon (the films) which should not be contradicted and can serve as some kind of baseline. Also, as Sarevok said, for SW/ST we have the visuals, which tend to be more objectively useful for quantification than prose descriptions in books will be most of the time. The latter of which is basically all we have when Warhammer is concerned.

you have a very idealistic view of things then, because "canon" has changed on more than one occasion (most recently being the introduction of "T" Canon), nevermind the odd attitudes that pervade places like Wookieepedia. "Canon" in SW has also become progressively more all-inclusive (even some of the more sillier aspects.)

Despite that, there are people who still argue those sorts of things (like the places of the ICS in matters, whether more recent sources have "corrected/contradicted" the ICS, etc. Case in point the "Size of the Grand Army of the REpublic" and the size of the droid armies.)

Appealing to movie canon doesn't always help either, since the movies provide some indicators, but not alot, and even in some cases can be contested or argued over still (DEath Star construction time, implications for shipbuilding, whether or not the firepower of the Death STar says anything about SW firepower in general and if so whta sort of scaling is used, etc.)

It is NOWHERE as clear cut as you make it out to be, and this is from my own personal experience in dealing with SW debates, SW canon, and all that. By contrast, 40K has been VASTLY less of a headache to deal with, in part because its seemingly "inconsistent" nature is actually more forgiving of variation or different interpretations/ideas.

[Connor MacLeod]

Interesting, those were more than I was aware of. Do you know roughly where in the books it was said? I have the Corellian Trilogy around, but it was a good long while ago I read it.

not offhand. I know Luke's X-wing was mentioned as having turbolasers and thats about it. I haven't read the books in over a decade.

(Although if we analyse the toy models, like Saxton does on his site, there is the heavy-calibre All-Terrain Ion Cannon . . . )

If we go by toys, then the ARC starfighter has e16 watt shielding (whatever the hell that means).

That sounds reasonable, and probable.

It might be possible to mount guns inside the hull and offset some of the drawbacks (the hull is probably better than thin S-foils as far as recoil goes) but you might not get much range on them, and you won't have much "off-axis" firing capability (contrast that with the wide arcs of X-wing guns.)

About the only "fighter" I can think of that would need or carry megaton guns owuld be something like a B-wing, which is designed to attack small starships and freighters, but those guns would almost certainly suck as anti fighter weapons (nevermind being gross overkill)

Of course, fighters also have massive hundred or thousand gee accelerations in their engines which can help soak up recoil. The same can't be said of any gorund vehicle.

Do you have a link to those calculations? I broadly agree, but it would still be interesting to have a look.

I provided them in some recent thread in SW vs ST to that Mercenario guy today.

Again, I do not disagree with all the problems you posit for the weapon. They are clearly there. However, while the book does not call their weapons turbolasers, it does say that their blaster cannon do have the "knockout punch" of capital-ship grade weapons. Which makes me question whether they should be sub-megaton, since capital ship weapons (even the laser cannon) tend to be more powerful than that. Or is there another, better way to interpret "knockout punch" than as referring to raw power (in a burst, presumably)?

Put it in another way. If we take this literally, this would be an argument that SW turbolasers are sub-gigaton (or hell, sub-megaton) in yield. I wouldn't be so hasty to read too much into "turbolaser", lest someone turn your argument against you.

Nor I. Old books called the Skipray Blastboat a "capital ship" on account of its powerful weapons and shields; that would be about the closest. I also have vague memories that some bits (the old Essential Guide to Vessels and Vehicles?) treated the B-Wing similarly, though I will not swear on that. But both of those were strictly hyperbole, of course.

I mean taking down ISD sized targets. It might be possible in some way, but if it does its probably more like a disposable "recoilless" rifle type setup, rather than a integral, "multi-use" energy weapon. And even then it probably won't be much more than smaller ships.

Blastboats are on the same scale as B-wings.. they seem designed to take on smaller ships rather than bigger ones, and Ion cannons are not pure "physical damage' weapons to begin with, so raw energy isn't quite as important.

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, actually, yeah they do - just not as pervasively as most SW forces (the Guard have their Sentinel scout walkers, Space Marines have Dreadnoughts (and, much as I'm reluctant to mention it, the DreadKnight), the Ad Mech have their miscellany of mecha units, the Ecclesiarchy have Penitent Engines).

Sentinels and Dreadnoughts are glorified AT-Pts/AT-rTs at WORST. And that is hardly of the same scale as AT-STs, AT-Ats, AT-TEs, AT-APs, or AT-HEs. If you want to get into particularily silly examples, there's the Op topped transport from ROTS, and the Legacy era introduced an even more top-heavy version of an At- AT.

Basically though this is just silly fanboy "one upsmanship" type tactics crap. Saying that AT ATs are a better walker is ultimately like saying decapitation is better than having your guts spill out of your torso.

(also on the repulsortank issue.. as I recall only the Imperial army used them. THey're at least the only force I'm aware of using them. The storm troopers or other forces had to borrow them from elsewhere.) And if this gets into a discussion about the Imperial army.. there's some pretty hilarisous shit there, trust me.

*double edit* actually even a discussion of tanks owuld be pretty hilarious. Leman Russes have a bunch of flaws in them (especially if they're of the 'riveted hull' variety..) but there's some pretty hilariously retarded designs for repulsortanks too (Saber fighter tank, I'm looking at you...)

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Sarevok's already been beat down pretty solidly, so I don't want to dogpile any further, but I feel it bears mentioning that the Conqueror's main gun is a low velocity gun intended for firing HE rounds against soft targets, so the power of the gun itself is more or less irrelevant as long as the shell reaches the target. It's not an anti-tank weapon or intended to penetrate heavy armor, so trying to quantify it as such is absurd.

[Simon_Jester]

AT-ATs aren't a better walker in any real sense of the word. The one thing they have going for them is that, just in terms of the aesthetic and before we start cackling about LOL MECHA SCUM and all, they do look like someone set out to design a serious engine of war. They're not covered in decoration, and they have a certain aura of implacability and resilience, too, at least in the movie scene where they appear.

Superficially, they look like a powerful military machine designed to fight and kill. The appearances don't match the reality that well when you consider the lack of broadside armament and assorted other problems, but I do see the point about the aesthetics- though the Emperor titan is a cherry-picked example of Imperial design at its worst.

[Connor MacLeod]

The conqueor's main gun in honour Guard was described as a "hypervelocity". That can lead to some.. interesting conclusions.

[Connor MacLeod]

AT-ATs aren't a better walker in any real sense of the word. The one thing they have going for them is that, just in terms of the aesthetic and before we start cackling about LOL MECHA SCUM and all, they do look like someone set out to design a serious engine of war. They're not covered in decoration, and they have a certain aura of implacability and resilience, too, at least in the movie scene where they appear.

Superficially, they look like a powerful military machine designed to fight and kill. The appearances don't match the reality that well when you consider the lack of broadside armament and assorted other problems, but I do see the point about the aesthetics- though the Emperor titan is a cherry-picked example of Imperial design at its worst.

Actually if it comes down to walkers, the AT-Te looks much better in that regard than the At-AT does. the AT-AT really just looks like a lumbering monster, which is what the modellers were going for when they made them for TESB as I recall.

[Shroom Man 777]

Right. Basically, AT-ATs are pretty obviously designed to be air-dropped near a place that you want destroyed, then to walk the last distance on foot. They're faster than a man on foot, though not as much faster as any number of other ground vehicles.

Weird. Since that's like saying an M1 Abrams, or a Paladin being dropped by a C-5 quite near the front lines and just moving a few klicks to get into the danger zone. But then again, Dreadnoughts get dropped in space capsules right in the middle of the battlefield. So, eh.

If the AT-AT's support systems make it actually feasible in combat, then that would mitigate its disadvantages. "It's too slow!" will be answered by "It'll get air-dropped right in front of the battle field!" and "It doesn't have any weapons aside from those fixed on its face" will be responded to with "It's got an entire army of troopers covering its behind".

In which case, it won't matter if the AT-AT is the single shittiest vehicle in existence, or if it's the awesomest thing since slicing bread and toasting it at the same time with a lightsaber. Since it's got an entire army to back it up.

Then again, this IS the whole idea of combined arms warfare.

But then again-again, that's like answering the question of "American tanks versus Iraqi anti-armor weapons" with "Apache gunships will cover the tanks and mow down any Reuters journalists with cameras Iraqis sneaking with RPGs".

My spiels aren't really directed towards you, it is towards them.

And yet you proceed to spiel about what I say as much as about what they say. [/quote]

I could be answering anyone and I'd still be harping about clear glass canopies and dirt runways, even if the person I am directly conversing with wasn't saying stupid shit like Sarevok.

Yes. And the AT-AT itself is poorly suited for this. It would rely heavily on escorts, and would prefer to stay out of situations where it's likely to get bazookaed from the flanks, preferably by staying comfortably out of range where it can use its big honking guns to best advantage. In this respect it is a terrible choice for carrying infantry into a ground assault, sigh.

The whole rapelling off AT-ATs or AT-ATs bending over to disgorge/accept troops is also silly.

Yes. The only mitigating factor is the sheer durability of AT-AT armor, which appears to resist vehicle mounted heavy weapons pretty effectively- I mean, maybe the guns on those snowspeeders are shit, but if they were that shitty, you'd think the Rebels would have just detached a couple of X-Wings to do a proper job of killing the AT-ATs (and stalling the Imperial ground advance) to buy more time for the evacuation transports. Because ultimately what screws up the evacuation is the AT-ATs overrunning the Rebel trenches and blowing up the shield generator; killing those AT-ATs early in the battle would make a huge difference.

I think the X-wings were unavailable at that time (frozen up or some shit?), which was why the pilots had to use the snowspeeders, a craft that they don't normally use. Though I don't know if this was in the movie, or it was another novel's justification/answer to that question.

Why go through all the trouble with rope cables when they could've just proton torpedoed the AT-ATs?

Well, in that case, the job of countering them goes to the Imperial artillery- massed fire from indirect-fire guns and superheavy ground units- including Titans which are like AT-ATs only bigger and beefier and harder to kill, and also things like the Shadowsword which would probably make you a very happy Shroomy if you saw it.

BUT THOSE THINGS ARE SLOWER AND HAVE LESS FIREPOWER THAN WW2 NAZZIE VEHICULS! UUUURGH![/Private Last Class Piles Sarevokerritch]

I think I was also asking "hey guise what examples of SW anti-armor weapons are there, so we can compare/look for something corresponding in 40k" too. So... don't ask me. Maybe Sarevok knows. He seems to know about non-AT-AT "obscure vehicles known only to some geeks" from the Star Wars Extroverted Ureter novels.

True. Incidentally, that AT-AA he showed is, I'm pretty sure, from a video game. Galactic Battlegrounds or something, it was basically the Age of Empires II engine only with Star Wars graphics and planes thrown in.

God, what an obscure and shitty vehicle. No wonder why that dumb thing didn't become an icon of science fiction.

Actually if it comes down to walkers, the AT-Te looks much better in that regard than the At-AT does. the AT-AT really just looks like a lumbering monster, which is what the modellers were going for when they made them for TESB as I recall.

The AT-TE does look more like a badass fighting vehicle. Except for that goddamn clear glass canopy in front of it. WTH.

[Sea Skimmer]

Skim, the thing is, tanks and other normal vehicles can easily turn their entire bodies around to face their sides/rears and reorient themselves thanks to their treads.

The legged AT-AT would have a harder, and longer, time to do this.

No doubt on that; however since most tanks have such a vast disparity in armor protection between the front and the sides, as well as a far larger target profile when seen from the side, turning away from the frontal enemy in ordered to counter an enemy to the side or rear can be very undesirable. The best solution is an attack with considerable depth and count on mutual support A German tank battalion on the offensive in WW2 for example would have a depth of up to 1,500 yards, with two companies side by side forward and two more stacked behind those each several hundred yards apart. Supporting infantry would advance about 150-200 yards behind the lead tank companies if directly attached, or depending on the situation they might be upwards of a thousand yards behind the rearmost tank company extending the attack depth to some 2,500 yards. That’s just for a front wave battalion, never mind that whole army corps could be stacked up behind it waiting to come forward. Today distances could be potentially be double this in flat open terrain like Hoth or in the desert; though of course they may also be become compressed such as in urban battles.

Tactics like this no only ensure you can effectively mop of enemy stay behind parties or unexpected threats, it also means if the lead vehicles get ambushed the entire unit can’t easily be decimated. Such as if the rebel had had an heavy anti tank weapon dug into one of those snowy mountain slopes that flanked the Hoth battlefield that could one shot kill walkers every eight seconds regardless of angle. Boy would that have made the Imperials look stupid real fast. The Imperial walker attack on Hoth actually did have some considerable depth, Luke clearly attacks one of the rear wave of walkers, but they should have had more then that and the AT-ST we see charge happily along in the background could have been doing that. Stay behind, give cover fire. Attack depth as well as defensive depth should be proportional to ones own capabilities and SDN commonly accepts the Imperials being able to fire at 17.6km…. In general even the worst armored vehicle, is still an armored vehicle, if you use it an a sound manner. Some exceptions apply like the LVPT5 with convenient gasoline tanks under flooring for enhanced explodability. People ended up riding on the roof.

[Darksider]

The AT-TE does look more like a badass fighting vehicle. Except for that goddamn clear glass canopy in front of it. WTH.

The SW universe has some sort of clear armor called Transparisteel that they use for view ports and cockpit canopies and such. supposedly it's not exactly as strong as the standard armor durasteel, but it still offers a much larger degree of protection than standard glass or even modern safety glass. Having clear canopies might not be as much of a problem for the SW universe as it is in real life.

[Simon_Jester]

Right. Basically, AT-ATs are pretty obviously designed to be air-dropped near a place that you want destroyed, then to walk the last distance on foot. They're faster than a man on foot, though not as much faster as any number of other ground vehicles.

Weird. Since that's like saying an M1 Abrams, or a Paladin being dropped by a C-5 quite near the front lines and just moving a few klicks to get into the danger zone. But then again, Dreadnoughts get dropped in space capsules right in the middle of the battlefield. So, eh.

Yep, it's weird. That's what you get in a setting with ridiculously cheap spacelift.

In which case, it won't matter if the AT-AT is the single shittiest vehicle in existence, or if it's the awesomest thing since slicing bread and toasting it at the same time with a lightsaber. Since it's got an entire army to back it up.

Then again, this IS the whole idea of combined arms warfare.

Yeah. Basically, AT-ATs only make any damn sense as a combined-arms thing: they're the big honking gun platform. Which makes the way we see them used, and all the ICS portrayals of them as troop transports, doubly foolish- got no sensible explanation of that, and I doubt there is one.

I could be answering anyone and I'd still be harping about clear glass canopies and dirt runways, even if the person I am directly conversing with wasn't saying stupid shit like Sarevok.

Eh, true.

I think the X-wings were unavailable at that time (frozen up or some shit?), which was why the pilots had to use the snowspeeders, a craft that they don't normally use. Though I don't know if this was in the movie, or it was another novel's justification/answer to that question.

Why go through all the trouble with rope cables when they could've just proton torpedoed the AT-ATs?

Yeah, that's what's bugging me. I mean, they could fly the X-Wings out of the base to escort the transports, why couldn't they fly the X-Wings out of the base to attack the AT-ATs?

To me, it feels like the most reasonable explanation is that this wouldn't have made much difference- the snowspeeder laser cannon aren't actually a whole lot weaker than X-Wing laser cannon or anything. And who knows if the Rebels actually had any proton torpedoes or bombs or whatever available on their fighters- maybe they didn't have time to put any of those on board because they were in such a hurry or something.

Well, in that case, the job of countering them goes to the Imperial artillery- massed fire from indirect-fire guns and superheavy ground units- including Titans which are like AT-ATs only bigger and beefier and harder to kill, and also things like the Shadowsword which would probably make you a very happy Shroomy if you saw it.

BUT THOSE THINGS ARE SLOWER AND HAVE LESS FIREPOWER THAN WW2 NAZZIE VEHICULS! UUUURGH![/Private Last Class Piles Sarevokerritch]

[Watches Shadowsword rumble into range with ridiculously large laser cannon]

[laughs at the UUUURGHing]

Actually if it comes down to walkers, the AT-Te looks much better in that regard than the At-AT does. the AT-AT really just looks like a lumbering monster, which is what the modellers were going for when they made them for TESB as I recall.

The AT-TE does look more like a badass fighting vehicle. Except for that goddamn clear glass canopy in front of it. WTH.

I'd say the AT-TE beats the AT-AT, the AT-AT beats something that walks around with a damn cathedral on its back. It's like rock paper scissors, only without "scissors beat paper" or whatever.

[Purple]

Yeah. Basically, AT-ATs only make any damn sense as a combined-arms thing: they're the big honking gun platform. Which makes the way we see them used, and all the ICS portrayals of them as troop transports, doubly foolish- got no sensible explanation of that, and I doubt there is one.

Well, actually there are a few ways that could make sense. I can name two of them right off the top of my head and will do so now. Note, the options are not exclusive as in any or all of them could be true in any combination.

1. The troops are carried for self defense. We know modern artillery batteries usually have a squad of infantry attached to them just in case so this is highly possible.

2. The AT-AT is not a traditional transport, but acts more like a base of operations for a platoon/company sized unit consisting of infantry (carried inside) and its escorts. This one makes the most sense to me personally as I can completely imagine an AT-AT with several AT-ST and AT-PT units marching as a small coherent unit. The AT-AT acting as the equivalent of company support mortars and assault gun while the lighter walkers move in with the infantry.

Yeah, that's what's bugging me. I mean, they could fly the X-Wings out of the base to escort the transports, why couldn't they fly the X-Wings out of the base to attack the AT-ATs?

I thought that the X-wings use the same what ever engine stuff that makes imperial landers go. And that the shield that stopped the empire landing right on top of echo base also stopped the rebels from flying X-wings in that area. But this is unreliable guessing at best.

I'd say the AT-TE beats the AT-AT, the AT-AT beats something that walks around with a damn cathedral on its back. It's like rock paper scissors, only without "scissors beat paper" or whatever.

Well, I know this is from way old cannon as I have not read anything recent. But unless they changed something Imperator Titans are not only massive engines of war but also moving fortresses holding a whole regiment of infantry inside that can not only fire out and use the titan as a base of operations but also fight against boarding. So the whole cathedral thing, for all we know there might be an actual cathedral built into the monsters.

[Srelex]

Yeah, that's what's bugging me. I mean, they could fly the X-Wings out of the base to escort the transports, why couldn't they fly the X-Wings out of the base to attack the AT-ATs?

To me, it feels like the most reasonable explanation is that this wouldn't have made much difference- the snowspeeder laser cannon aren't actually a whole lot weaker than X-Wing laser cannon or anything. And who knows if the Rebels actually had any proton torpedoes or bombs or whatever available on their fighters- maybe they didn't have time to put any of those on board because they were in such a hurry or something.

As schizo as videogames can get regarding Hoth, Rogue Squadron seems to make out that the fighters were tied up covering the transports from air attacks.

[Wing Commander MAD]

FYI, the AT-AA is was first introduced in Star Wars: Force Commander, which I believe predates Galatic Battlegrounds (AoEII knockoff). I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it wasn't mentioned or shown in a comic first.

Regarding X-wings at Hoth, I probably go with Simon_Jester theory of them not terribly outclassing the snowspeeders in firepower*.

* Note: Except for expendable munitions, though I seem to remember something about severly limited supplies of torpedoes due to expense. I can't rememeber if that was mentioned somewhere, or merely speculation.

[Agent Sorchus]

Limited Torpedoes is mentioned in ANH (or in some of the stuff, which might be based on the novelization), where the alliance could only scrape a pair of torpedoes up for each fighter.

[Shroom Man 777]

Do those snowspeeders have the energy to fly into space, sport shield generators, and do hyperjumps? If not, then that means the X-wing may have superior power generation capability, which may allow them to fire more powerful shots.