GDI Mammoth MkII vs. Imperial AT-AT

[Sea Skimmer]

The GDI Mammoth MkII from the game Tiberian Sun vs. Imperial AT-AT as seen in ESB

Who wins on an open plain, would it make a difference if they where fighting in a canyon maze. Neither side has any outside support and the AT-AT has no embarked speeder bikes or troops. Further more, for the purpose of this debate well assume the Mammoths size is consistent with that seen in the cut sceans rather then in game.

[Howedar]

Unless the MMK2's range is orders of magnitude greater than shown ingame, the AT-AT bombards it with impunity. Considering the MMK2's sad speed (about walking pace), it couldn't get within range before being destroyed.

[SirNitram]

Yes, sadly, the MMIIk is outranged by a long shot. It could be brought into range quickly with help from GDI's powerful airforce, but it would probably lose the fight. Despite being immensely powerful, it is only a reflection of the AT-AT, not quite equal.

Now, the question is, can the Banshee Fighters take out an AT-AT?

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, sadly, the MMIIk is outranged by a long shot. It could be brought into range quickly with help from GDI's powerful airforce, but it would probably lose the fight. Despite being immensely powerful, it is only a reflection of the AT-AT, not quite equal.

Now, the question is, can the Banshee Fighters take out an AT-AT?

Limited Mk2 weapons Range is why I included the Canyon maze battlefield. I meant to imply pretty much point blank ranges in that situation.

And I think the Banshee's can take on an AT-AT, if only because there hidden base beats out a giant mech for coolness.

[Imperial Federation]

The AT-AT would annihilate it.
I've seen infantry take out Mammoth Mk2s, INFANTRY.

[Sea Skimmer]

The AT-AT would annihilate it.
I've seen infantry take out Mammoth Mk2s, INFANTRY.

That simply proves that game mechanics are screwy for balance and that the Mammoth is armed to destroy a few large targets rather then many tiny ones. After all, a modern 120mm Sabot round can destroy any tank, but would be hard pressed to kill two infantrymen in the open.

Star wars BTW also has infantry weapons which can kill its heavy armor.

[Darth Wong]

One more item to note: given the cluttered terrain in the scenario, the AT-AT's elevated gun position allows it to shoot down on the Mammoth before the Mammoth can even get a clear shot. And while there is some question about a Mammoth's ability to penetrate AT-AT armour, there is no question that an AT-AT would annihilate a Mammoth in a single shot.

[Sea Skimmer]

One more item to note: given the cluttered terrain in the scenario, the AT-AT's elevated gun position allows it to shoot down on the Mammoth before the Mammoth can even get a clear shot. And while there is some question about a Mammoth's ability to penetrate AT-AT armour, there is no question that an AT-AT would annihilate a Mammoth in a single shot.

I don’t think 5-10 meters of extra height is going to make a difference, The MkII is quite tall its self. And it can take hits from an ion cannon which demolished hardened missile silos..

[Imperial Federation]

I don’t think 5-10 meters of extra height is going to make a difference, The MkII is quite tall its self. And it can take hits from an ion cannon which demolished hardened missile silos..

Like you say, the game mechanics are screwy.
The Ion Cannon in the game itself is vastly less powerful than it should be, at least to me anyway.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don’t think 5-10 meters of extra height is going to make a difference, The MkII is quite tall its self. And it can take hits from an ion cannon which demolished hardened missile silos..

Like you say, the game mechanics are screwy.
The Ion Cannon in the game itself is vastly less powerful than it should be, at least to me anyway.

Given those original C&C cut scenes which showed it demolishing an entire base and later flattening the British parliament, yeah, it s pretty weak. What really messed up is that in both games its power level varies during the missions if its computer controlled.

That’s why for games in debates, only the manuals and cut scenes should be used for information beyond story line. Earth 2150 comes to mind. The ED had nuclear weapons which could alter the earths orbit, yet the in game ones have a blast radius of about 50 feet and cant destroy most heavy units, even though by all rights they should be vaporized.

[Kolinar Romanov]

Actually, I kinda disagree. Then again, I am a C&C FAN, so, I have to defend my game.

*speaks as Kolinar Koltrass*

To begin with, the Mammoth Mk 2 is equipped with a powerful rail gun. Sure, the AT-AT lasers are big, but the rail gun is BIGGER. COnsidering the fact that it fires only one shot, and can destroy entire buildings, IN A ROW, with one easy shot, makes it formidable. It also has missiles, allowing it to fire at the AT-AT from a distance.

Also, if you check the cutscenes, this beast is armed with rows of gatling guns, making it invincible to infantry, vehicles, and aircraft, provided they are lightlyay armoured.

Lastly, the Mammoth can withstand some tough damage, more then the A-AT.

So, ideally, when it attacks the AT-AT, it will sustain some heavy damage, get up close, and fire rail gun, missiles AND gatling guns, whereas the AT-AT only has lasers.

Outcome? DRAW.

But that's my opinion, as a Mentat.

[Howedar]

The problem is, we have the AT-AT firing from 17km distant, while the MMK2 must close the distance to (at most) 1km, at no more than 20km/h.

[SirNitram]

The problem is, we have the AT-AT firing from 17km distant, while the MMK2 must close the distance to (at most) 1km, at no more than 20km/h.

It will need rough territory or an airdrop to get in range. But if it's railgun swings around....

[Master of Ossus]

Not only is the AT-AT taller and has better firepower, but I am also not sure that the MK could destroy it, even with several shots. Remember that the AT-AT can withstand several megatons of destructive force without being disabled (ref. Isard's Revenge).

[Darth Wong]

How big is a Mammoth anyway? The Mammoth Mk1 was perhaps twice the size of an M1 and mounted a pair of 120mm smoothbores and an MLRS. If it's only twice the size of an M1, that would make it less than a tenth the mass of an AT-AT. The Mammoth Mk2 doesn't seem to be any bigger, so this would limit the impulse it could apply to any projectiles, regardless of whether they are railguns or not.

Let's not fall into the Trekkie trap of divining weapon firepower from names or mechanisms, with no regard for magnitude. The fact that the Mammoth Mk2 carries railguns is meaningless in and of itself; a railgun accelerates projectiles electromagnetically rather than chemically, but that fact alone hardly allows us to derive muzzle velocities or KE! The fact that a Mammoth is not hurled backward by its own railguns limits its muzzle velocity and therefore its hypothetical ability to do damage to an AT-AT.

The Mammoth Mk2 can take down perhaps 4 M-1 tanks at most, before being destroyed. An AT-AT could do this much more easily than the Mammoth, and not be destroyed. As for the fact that a Mammoth Mk2 can survive a hit from an orbital ion cannon, that's game mechanics, and if we're going to include game mechanics, Mammoths are not even immune to small-arms fire.

[Kolinar Romanov]

The problem is, we have the AT-AT firing from 17km distant, while the MMK2 must close the distance to (at most) 1km, at no more than 20km/h.

It will need rough territory or an airdrop to get in range. But if it's railgun swings around....

And that's where the true power of the Mammoth coms to play:

The railgun destroys almost EVERYTHING. Not even the AT-AT can stand a chance.

Besides, if anyone notices the, Mammoth has very, STOUT legs, while the AT-AT has THIN legs. One railgun at those legs..... you can guess.

[consequences]

If GDI airpower tried to airlift the mammoth, the AT-AT would obliterate it once it came into range. If they don't airlift it into the AT-ATs range, then they are of no use anyway. Besides, wasn't the battle supposed to be between the AT-AT and the Mammoth, not the AT-AT vs. the Mammoth and its GUARDS!!!!

[Howedar]

The Mammoth Mk2 can take down perhaps 4 M-1 tanks at most, before being destroyed. An AT-AT could do this much more easily than the Mammoth, and not be destroyed. As for the fact that a Mammoth Mk2 can survive a hit from an orbital ion cannon, that's game mechanics, and if we're going to include game mechanics, Mammoths are not even immune to small-arms fire.

Much as I hate to rely on game mechanics, the 120mm gun on a Titan medium mech does 70 damage per hit. The Railgun does 200 damage. Rate of fire is similar (60 for railgun and 70 for 120mm, larger being slower). The MMK2 has 800 hitpoints, and thus could absorb 11 hits from a M1, with the 12th destroying it.

[Darth Wong]

And that's where the true power of the Mammoth coms to play: The railgun destroys almost EVERYTHING. Not even the AT-AT can stand a chance.

Prove this. Do you have muzzle velocity and energy figures?

Besides, if anyone notices the, Mammoth has very, STOUT legs, while the AT-AT has THIN legs. One railgun at those legs..... you can guess.

I think the AT-AT's legs are thicker than the Mammoth's legs in absolute terms, even if they look spindly compared to its enormous bulk.

[Darth Wong]

Much as I hate to rely on game mechanics, the 120mm gun on a Titan medium mech does 70 damage per hit. The Railgun does 200 damage.

So its main armament is less than 3 times as powerful as an M-1 Abrams' 120mm smoothbore? The AT-AT will crush it effortlessly.

Rate of fire is similar (60 for railgun and 70 for 120mm, larger being slower). The MMK2 has 800 hitpoints, and thus could absorb 11 hits from a M1, with the 12th destroying it.

OK, let's do the scenario. 1 Mammoth against 4 M-1's. Everyone fires simultaneously. Mammoth takes 4 hits, but destroyed one M-1. Everyone fires again (you said their rate of fire was similar). Mammoth takes 3 hits, and destroys another M-1. Everyone fires a third time. Mammoth takes 2 hits, and destroys another M-1. Everyone fires a fourth time. Mammoth takes 1 hit, and destroys the last M-1. All told, the Mammoth took 10 hits. Therefore, 4 M-1's should be able to take out a Mammoth if they get the first shot, and 5 M-1's should be able to do it reliably.

In any case, this is well below AT-AT firepower.

[Sea Skimmer]

[quote="Darth Wong"]How big is a Mammoth anyway? The Mammoth Mk1 was perhaps twice the size of an M1 and mounted a pair of 120mm smoothbores and an MLRS. If it's only twice the size of an M1, that would make it less than a tenth the mass of an AT-AT. The Mammoth Mk2 doesn't seem to be any bigger, so this would limit the impulse it could apply to any projectiles, regardless of whether they are railguns or not.

The Mk.2 is much bigger. The Mk. Is related only in name, and in being the games most powerful ground it. The Mk.2 is a large four legged Mech, about 15-20 meters tall and about 30 long, or at least that’s what I'm estimating based off the cut scean, my height could be off by a fair bit.

Its also a lot bulkier then the AT-AT, much thicker legs and a bigger body. So its weight is going to be a lot more then 250 tons, at least a thousand. The railguns are of unknown size and the SAM's can't hit ground targets, making them irrelevant.

In such single shots from its weapons explode the Nods construction yard Refinery and War factory into flames. Quite a bit more then a couple M1A1's could manage, especially since no HE rounds exists for them.


But there's no point in debating further, I don’t expect the Mammoth to win my self, unless it got behind the AT-AT and jammed a leg joint or two with railguns hit.

GDI can use the Hunter Seeker to deal with the AT-AT using game mechanics anyway..

[Smiling Bandit]

The railgun destroys almost EVERYTHING. Not even the AT-AT can stand a chance.

*Snort*

OK, I'm with Wong on this one. That is another unsupported statement you made because you have no idea how powerful it is.

[Howedar]

In any case, this is well below AT-AT firepower.

You will notice that I made no claims to the contrary.

[Master of Ossus]

The problem is, we have the AT-AT firing from 17km distant, while the MMK2 must close the distance to (at most) 1km, at no more than 20km/h.

It will need rough territory or an airdrop to get in range. But if it's railgun swings around....

And that's where the true power of the Mammoth coms to play:

The railgun destroys almost EVERYTHING. Not even the AT-AT can stand a chance.

Besides, if anyone notices the, Mammoth has very, STOUT legs, while the AT-AT has THIN legs. One railgun at those legs..... you can guess.

WHAT? All of these points are COMPLETELY objective. You cannot say that an AT-AT would not stand a chance against a railgun unless you have evidence that it is true. Is a railgun capable of firing weapons in the multi-megaton scale? Because that's what it takes to knock out an AT-AT. You use the completely stupid argument that the AT-AT has "thin" legs (note the incredible subjectivity of such a statement), and then say that a railgun could knock out an AT-AT with no proof. Further, you completely ignore the range advantage of an AT-AT, and its advantages in firepower. I doubt not that massive groups of such tanks could defeat an AT-AT, but the cost of such an attack would be spectacularly high. If it takes a division of these tanks to knock down a walker, then even a small Imperial force would be able to utterly demolish all ground forces in C&C, at the least.

This was an utterly subjective post, and brings no relevent points up. Further, it completely ignores important points.

[Howedar]

Well, to be honest there are units in C&C that would stand a far better chance than the MMK2. It is a specialized base destroyer, but isn't that spectacular against long range weapons.