Defending the Federation(RAR)

[The Romulan Republic]

I will personally criticize the AT-AT not because I think its flaws are nessissarily going to turn the tide of a battle, but because its a flawed design on its own (and hey, every little bit helps). In any case, the Federation guys could be using sticks and stones and the point that the AT AT is "slow and unwieldy with poor defenses" remains an accurate description. Questionable firing arcs, absolutely no weaponry underneath (cost them a walker on Hoth that did), slow as hell.

Furthermore:

a) Starfleet personel have shown awareness of the concepts of "cover" and "guerilla warfare".

b) phasers are equivalent to tasers? I hope you're joking. If not, source for a taser that can disintegrate someone please.

c) how often does the Empire deploy chemical weapons? Other than the Noghiri homeworld, I can't think of a single example in canon. What you propose seems rather outside their usual MO.

Yes, the Empire has more powerful ground forces. You're still wrong on a fair number of points, I believe.

Edit: it is also doubtful that no Trek force uses armor. At the very least, I recall reference is made to Cardassian armor.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I believe his comment about Tasers was an analogy: If the Imperials are the US Army, then in relation to that the Federation troops are rent a cops with Tasers.

And incidentally, the Noghri homeworld was devastated by chemical contamination from a crashed starship from the Clone Wars (a Lucrehulk Coreship IIRC) rather tan chemical weapons.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

[FedRebel]

I will personally criticize the AT-AT not because I think its flaws are nessissarily going to turn the tide of a battle, but because its a flawed design on its own (and hey, every little bit helps). In any case, the Federation guys could be using sticks and stones and the point that the AT AT is "slow and unwieldy with poor defenses" remains an accurate description. Questionable firing arcs, absolutely no weaponry underneath (cost them a walker on Hoth that did), slow as hell.

Problem is that, it's rxtremely petty to agrue...

Yep, the Empire would squash the Federation in ground combat, but look at their silly weapons! LOL! ROTFL!

In that vain, the Argo is a POS only useful for running away, given that it's ONLY weapon is rear mounted and the gunner and driver are FULLY exposed.

I don't argue that though because it's nitpicking, and ground war doesn't rely on one keystone element. The AT-AT's are but a small component in a larger system that incorporates supports walkers infantry and air support, the AT-AT's weakness are covered by the larger system

a) Starfleet personel have shown awareness of the concepts of "cover" and "guerilla warfare".

That's why organized groups will recieve chemical warfare treatment and bombing

The Empire counters guerrilla warfare with terror, how long will your rip-snort'n xenobiologist put up with a colony being razed after a hit and run on an Imperial patrol?

They won't, the price is too great

b) phasers are equivalent to tasers? I hope you're joking. If not, source for a taser that can disintegrate someone please.

It was an analogy, it's a sound example of the equipment and training disparity between starfleet and the Empire. In ground combat it's the total system that matters not a single element

Edit: it is also doubtful that no Trek force uses armor. At the very least, I recall reference is made to Cardassian armor.

By "armor" I meant Tanks and mobile artillery not "clothing"

[the atom]

In all fairness, Trek armor support was seen in the game Ster Trek: New Worlds. I can't remember if it's cannon though.

[The Romulan Republic]

First off, apologies for the delayed reply. In my defence, I was sick, in the hospital for about a week, and then my computer was in the store for repairs.

Problem is that, it's rxtremely petty to agrue...

Yep, the Empire would squash the Federation in ground combat, but look at their silly weapons! LOL! ROTFL!

In that vain, the Argo is a POS only useful for running away, given that it's ONLY weapon is rear mounted and the gunner and driver are FULLY exposed.

I don't argue that though because it's nitpicking, and ground war doesn't rely on one keystone element. The AT-AT's are but a small component in a larger system that incorporates supports walkers infantry and air support, the AT-AT's weakness are covered by the larger system

Let me be very clear on this point: I am not arguing that the Federation is going to win the ground war based on the flaws of the AT-AT. If at any time I argued that, or appeared to do so, I apologize. The only point I intend to defend here at this time is that the AT-AT is a piece of shit design.

That's why organized groups will recieve chemical warfare treatment and bombing

Possibly, though as I noted chemical warfare is not the Empire's usual MO. As for bombardment, I suspect it largely depends on weather there's anything in the area (hostages, prisoners, resources, data, etc.) that they wish to capture intact.

The Empire counters guerrilla warfare with terror, how long will your rip-snort'n xenobiologist put up with a colony being razed after a hit and run on an Imperial patrol?

Hah hah. I get your point, but Federation guys aren't all scientists. They do have soldiers, of sorts. Underequipped ones, but experienced combat personel nonetheless. And that's not even getting into any ex-Marquis or Bajoran resistance fighters, who are very familiar with enemies who counter guerrilla warfare with terror.

They won't, the price is too great

People say this, but you could make the same argument for resistance fighters opposing the Nazis. A lot of people will cower and surrender. Others will fight. How many choose fighting, even if it means death, probably depends on just how intolerably brutal Imperial rule is.

It was an analogy, it's a sound example of the equipment and training disparity between starfleet and the Empire. In ground combat it's the total system that matters not a single element

I'm not going to argue that a massive disparity exists.

By "armor" I meant Tanks and mobile artillery not "clothing"

And I recall reading a reference (somewhere on these forums I think) to Garrak claiming to have served in a mechanized Cardassian force. Unfortunately I don't have the exact quote, but that's what I was referring to, I think.

And they do, canonically, have some artillery, even if it is pretty damn minimal.

Look, I'm not saying the Empire isn't stronger. It obviously is. I'm just saying its not quite as one-sided as some make it appear.

Edit: and to answer the previous post, no, I do not believe Trek games are canon, as a policy. Pity for the Trek side.

[Darth Tedious]

Possibly, though as I noted chemical warfare is not the Empire's usual MO.

Too true. IIRC, the Seperatists employed chemical weapons occasionally, which was countered by the Clone armour being gas-proof (it'd certainly explain why we didn't see it in use much). Given that Stormtrooper armour is also gas-proof, I'm actually surprised the Empire doesn't use chemical weapons. But as a patrioic Imperial* I can attest, it's not the way we do things.

People say this, but you could make the same argument for resistance fighters opposing the Nazis.

I'd say that's a slightly false analogy- as a resistance fighter against the Nazis, you knew the Allies were out there. Fighting the Empire in the situation we're talking about would be more akin to being a resistance fighter against the Nazis minus the comforting factor of the Russian, British and US militaries sharing an enemy with you...
However, I agree with your actual point. Some people will resist, even when there is no hope.

* Don't give me any of that "Imperial apologist" crap, you're all Rebel Scum sympathisers...

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, a Federation resistance fighter would know the Rebels were out their, for example, which might be some small comfort. Of course, the Rebel Alliance is in the same position, more or less- they're just a slightly bigger and better armed resistance group. But at least they have Star Wars grade capital ships and Hyperdrive.

[Mihael_Keehl]

I will personally criticize the AT-AT not because I think its flaws are nessissarily going to turn the tide of a battle, but because its a flawed design on its own (and hey, every little bit helps). In any case, the Federation guys could be using sticks and stones and the point that the AT AT is "slow and unwieldy with poor defenses" remains an accurate description. Questionable firing arcs, absolutely no weaponry underneath (cost them a walker on Hoth that did), slow as hell.

Um, that was Luke Skywalker who took out that one though.

[Stofsk]

No, weapons underneath would have guarded the AT-AT Wedge and Janson took down as well.

[Captain Seafort]

No, weapons underneath would have guarded the AT-AT Wedge and Janson took down as well.

Or shot away its own legs as it tried to track them.

[Stofsk]

Well if it shot away its own legs it wouldn't have to worry about the Rebels tripping them would they?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm sure they could program the fire-control system to not shoot the vehicle, or friendlies. It can't be that hard.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm sure they could program the fire-control system to not shoot the vehicle, or friendlies. It can't be that hard.

If the weapons were automated, sure. If they were manual turrets they could very easily be in trouble - during the war, aircraft carriers were known to have their flight decks shot up by their own overenthusiastic AA gunners.

[Batman]

Child's play even for a manual turret. Just set it up so the gun won't fire if it's going to hit one of the legs. The Falcon's ventral turret is explicitly mentioned to be rigged that way in either the first Han Solo or the Lando Calrissian trilogy.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Damn, batman beat me to it. It certainly wouldn't be difficult. Heck, we have bloody computer games with fire control smart enough not to shoot itself. If we can do it, the Empire certainly can.

[Metahive]

Lockable embrasures wouldn't have been a bad idea either and cheaper than gun turrets, especially on the underside of the walker.

[Darth Tedious]

It is highly possible Luke was only able to hack into the underside of it because he was using a lightsaber...

"I don't think the Empire had Jedi in mind when they designed this thing..."

[Metahive]

The underside of the AT-AT is less armored and more vulnerable since there are the hatches through which the troops inside leave the transporter. There do exist hand-held AT weapons in SW so they shouldn't just have been concerned about Jedi coming along to slice the belly of the beast open.

[Darth Yoshi]

Actually, the EGVV says that AT-AT troop hatches are on the sides.

[Metahive]

Really? In EAW stormtroopers fast rope out of the underside of the AT AT. I thought that was more sensible than hatches on the sides since the underside is less probable to come under fire and enemies have a harder time to shoot through the opened hatches into the unprotected innards when those are facing down. One more strike against SW engineering then.

[Darth Yoshi]

That's actually noted in the various EAW wiki articles as an inconsistency between EAW and other sources. The side hatches do work as a docking point with landing platforms like the one on Endor (I believe that's what Luke disembarked from when he met with Vader), but honestly you probably wouldn't want to drop troops while under fire anyway.

[Metahive]

Well, the AT-AT's puprose is supposedly to transport troops into combat zones and either needing high platforms to load/unlead the thing or forcing it crouch down (can it even bend its legs that far?) seems impractical to me. I still wonder why they ditched the much more practical AT-TE for this "elephant".

[HMS Sophia]

Well, the AT-AT's puprose is supposedly to transport troops into combat zones and either needing high platforms to load/unlead the thing or forcing it crouch down (can it even bend its legs that far?) seems impractical to me. I still wonder why they ditched the much more practical AT-TE for this "elephant".

It can kneel like a camel. I used to have a picture book that showed it doing so (which would be uncomfortable for the troops, but not deadly).

[Metahive]

I didn't argue the kneeling itself would be deadly. Depending on how quick the walker can get down or up it would leave it a sitting duck and open to artillery strikes, bombing runs or flanking attacks for a considerable amount of time. Then again the walker isn't all that fast, maneuverable or stealthy anyway so maybe it doesn't matter.

[HMS Sophia]

I didn't argue the kneeling itself would be deadly. Depending on how quick the walker can get down or up it would leave it a sitting duck and open to artillery strikes, bombing runs or flanking attacks for a considerable amount of time. Then again the walker isn't all that fast, maneuverable or stealthy anyway so maybe it doesn't matter.

Sorry, I wasn't saying you were arguing that. It's just from what I remember of camels they can be a bit... bumpy when they stand or kneel.
And yeah, I think they are relying on armour to resist any arty or air strikes. They do seem to be reasonably tough...