StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CmdrWilkens wrote:

DG_Cal_Wright wrote: 17.28km is not face to face. Which is quite strange, because the shit faced EU sources say that the weapon emplacements used at Hoth by the Rebels had a maximum of 10km. Yet they were still striking the AT-ATs. Regardless, the AT-AT has one hell of a range.

For the record the ESB novelistion mentions that the AT-ATs opened fire on the Rebels while they were still unable to respond so the range differential (and I think the longer range weapons were about 12 Km) makes sense with that in evidence.

Where did you get that 10 km bullshit?

The Golanarms turret's range is 16 km.

It doesn't change the fact of course that the walkers were able to fire first.

Vympel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:I'd much rather have an AT-AT than a stupid hovertank.

Depends on what you're using it for. hovertanks couldn't pass through the shields. But I'd take them over an AT-AT for straight combat.

Assuming that it's a heavy hovertank. The light hovertanks we saw in TPM were too lightly armoured, given that speeder-mounted anti-tank guns could easily take them down.

Boba Fett wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:

DG_Cal_Wright wrote: 17.28km is not face to face. Which is quite strange, because the shit faced EU sources say that the weapon emplacements used at Hoth by the Rebels had a maximum of 10km. Yet they were still striking the AT-ATs. Regardless, the AT-AT has one hell of a range.

For the record the ESB novelistion mentions that the AT-ATs opened fire on the Rebels while they were still unable to respond so the range differential (and I think the longer range weapons were about 12 Km) makes sense with that in evidence.

Where did you get that 10 km bullshit?

The Golanarms turret's range is 16 km.

It doesn't change the fact of course that the walkers were able to fire first.

Essential Bull Shit that absolutely contradicts the movies Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Were else, a Barbra Hambly novel?

Darth Wong wrote:

Vympel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:I'd much rather have an AT-AT than a stupid hovertank.

Depends on what you're using it for. hovertanks couldn't pass through the shields. But I'd take them over an AT-AT for straight combat.

Assuming that it's a heavy hovertank. The light hovertanks we saw in TPM were too lightly armoured, given that speeder-mounted anti-tank guns could easily take them down.

Not to mention that if the other guy has an AT-AT he'll just step on you. LoL!!! Design flaw this!!!

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:

Boba Fett wrote: Where did you get that 10 km bullshit?

The Golanarms turret's range is 16 km.

It doesn't change the fact of course that the walkers were able to fire first.

Essential Bull Shit that absolutely contradicts the movies Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Were else, a Barbra Hambly novel?

You do realize you'd have hard time disproving them since ranges at which the Rebel guns fired were never given and all we know is that they opened up after the walkers who have a minimum range of 17.3 Km (roughly). In other words any number under 17 Km is acceptable.

Juggernat is because seeing a big wheeled thing coming at you at 400KM an hour and shrugging off all shots isn't as frightening as seeing a big lumbering walker coming towards you shruging off all shots.

Um i think seeing a vehicle roughly the same size of an AT-AT coming at me THAT fast would be scarrier than seeing the AT-AT coming at me at its much slower speed.

Moonshadow wrote:

Juggernat is because seeing a big wheeled thing coming at you at 400KM an hour and shrugging off all shots isn't as frightening as seeing a big lumbering walker coming towards you shruging off all shots.

Um i think seeing a vehicle roughly the same size of an AT-AT coming at me THAT fast would be scarrier than seeing the AT-AT coming at me at its much slower speed.

Juggernats arent as big as an AT-AT. AT-ATs are 100 foot tall.

I doubt a Juggernat is as frightening as a 100 foot tall metal beast.

The Juggernat is 15 meters high.

note to self. "The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels" is full of shit about AT-AT height.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:

Boba Fett wrote: Where did you get that 10 km bullshit?

The Golanarms turret's range is 16 km.

It doesn't change the fact of course that the walkers were able to fire first.

Essential Bull Shit that absolutely contradicts the movies Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Were else, a Barbra Hambly novel?

You do realize you'd have hard time disproving them since ranges at which the Rebel guns fired were never given and all we know is that they opened up after the walkers who have a minimum range of 17.3 Km (roughly). In other words any number under 17 Km is acceptable.

Actually, the gun emplacements were striking the walkers at the beginning of the battle. So they were well outside thier 17.28 distance to the power generators. According to the book, the magic 2kms is thier effective range and it is a struggle for even the best users to manage hits at 10km. So basically, it's bullshit about range.

Juggernaughts are great craft but they lack:

Range. Best listed is 6 KM.

Intimidation. The size of the AT-AT, the shape, and, worst of all, the earthquakes created by it's feet, are all factors.

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:

DG_Cal_Wright wrote: Essential Bull Shit that absolutely contradicts the movies Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Were else, a Barbra Hambly novel?

You do realize you'd have hard time disproving them since ranges at which the Rebel guns fired were never given and all we know is that they opened up after the walkers who have a minimum range of 17.3 Km (roughly). In other words any number under 17 Km is acceptable.

Actually, the gun emplacements were striking the walkers at the beginning of the battle. So they were well outside thier 17.28 distance to the power generators. According to the book, the magic 2kms is thier effective range and it is a struggle for even the best users to manage hits at 10km. So basically, it's bullshit about range.

The power generators where well behind the Rebel lines.

It could have been 15 kilometers from Trench line to walker, but 20 or more from walker to power generator

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:

DG_Cal_Wright wrote: Essential Bull Shit that absolutely contradicts the movies Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Were else, a Barbra Hambly novel?

You do realize you'd have hard time disproving them since ranges at which the Rebel guns fired were never given and all we know is that they opened up after the walkers who have a minimum range of 17.3 Km (roughly). In other words any number under 17 Km is acceptable.

Actually, the gun emplacements were striking the walkers at the beginning of the battle. So they were well outside thier 17.28 distance to the power generators. According to the book, the magic 2kms is thier effective range and it is a struggle for even the best users to manage hits at 10km. So basically, it's bullshit about range.

1) The novelisation tells us the walkers opened fire before the Rebel troops repsonded which matches what we saw in the movie (they don't start responding until about the time the speeders arrive).

2) The Rebel troops were well forward of the power generators so they would come into range of the walker's guns far sooner.

3) So they have at least a 10Km range at which they are losign accuracy rapidly, it fits well enough with the lack of any actual rebel hits on the walkers until LATE in the battle.

Hits were early in the battle. As soon as the Imperials were firing there were return shots. Not only that, they were consistently close to the cockpit.

The problem was not so much with the design of the AT-AT (though it does have its problems), it has more to do with the stupidity with which Hoth was fought.

Let's face the fact here there are 3 basic mission objectives:
1. Take the sheild generator offline.
2. Capture Luke and the others.
3. Eliminate opposition defending the base.

Objective 2 requires speed, and precludes the use of massive weaponry. 3 should be a cake walk (once the sheilds go down it is over).

So frankly any compotement commander would go for the quickest, cheapest way to knock out the sheild generator and then deploy some honest air/naval support to shread the rebs. A smart commander would have gone with artillery, hell today we can hit 50km out, moved under the sheild used a low parabolic shot and laid waste to the sheild generator rather than dicking with walkers which have to get within 17.28 km. Indirect fire is your friend, just lob some explosives onto the sheild generator and watch it fry. I fail to see any advantage of using LOS attack on Hoth over good old fashioned indirect fire against a frikking bigass stationary target.

Other major changes the Imps should have taken:
1. Dedicated AA. In the entire battle of Hoth we see no rear facing AA at all.
2. Dedicated close support for the ATAT's. Most armor can be defeated if you can get AT infantry close enough ... this is why tanks get close support. If you try to crawl on a real MBT somebody (most often another tank) will open fire with a machine gun. The tank is bulletproof you are not. Luke manages to get under the ATAT (bad), harpoon his way up to the cabin area (worse), all without even being shot at (worst). If the ATAT's had dedicated close support at Hoth it was either dead, ineffective, or dismissed prematurely.


Major reb changes:
1. After the first attack run you should be making your subsequent attack runs from the rear. Under no circumstance should you fly into a cross fire, if you have to attack head on ... try to keep all the AA guns to one side.
2. Use some of the X-wings for ground combat support. We know X-wings were at Hoth, we know X-wings are effective against walkers. Diverting even a few against the walkers would buy a helluvalot of time so you don't have to send ships up two at a time.
3. If possible don't provide the enemy with a nice flat and solid plain to walk across. Melt the ice, crater the place, etc. If you have to the means make the terrain less hospitable for the enemy.

As far as air support goes ... umm seriously what technobabble reason is there against strapping some VTOL fighters to a trailer and towing them under the sheild with the engines off (in other words they go under as cold lumps of metal)?

The biggest problems with the AT-AT are:
For being "All Terrain" it masses hellishly much. Just how "all terrain" can you be when you exert that much ground pressure.

The armor is not strong enough for its target profile, in Isard's Revenge we see that an X-wing (now imagine how much more powerful a land based gun could be) can "hole the fuel tank" and kill an AT-AT ... which leads to the most glaring fault ...

The things carry enough explosives (munitions or fuel or whatever) that they blow themselves apart if a single area is breeched. Sensible design would have some internal partitions so there is no single giant explosive on board, plus some mechanism to direct the explosion (like say away from crippling the vehicle) would be nice.

tharkûn wrote: 2. Use some of the X-wings for ground combat support. We know X-wings were at Hoth, we know X-wings are effective against walkers. Diverting even a few against the walkers would buy a helluvalot of time so you don't have to send ships up two at a time.

Do not function under a planetary shield, unlike speeders. X-Wings only flew when the shield was dropped. If they had dropped the shield, TIEs and TIE Bombers could've come in.

Don't know if there's an official source for this though. Some of the avid EU readers might know.

So frankly any compotement commander would go for the quickest, cheapest way to knock out the sheild generator and then deploy some honest air/naval support to shread the rebs. A smart commander would have gone with artillery, hell today we can hit 50km out, moved under the sheild used a low parabolic shot and laid waste to the sheild generator rather than dicking with walkers which have to get within 17.28 km. Indirect fire is your friend, just lob some explosives onto the sheild generator and watch it fry. I fail to see any advantage of using LOS attack on Hoth over good old fashioned indirect fire against a frikking bigass stationary target.

No evidence that such artillery weapons exist in Star Wars. At best, they have guided missiles, and we don't know that these are any more powerful than blasters, or that they'd destroy the shield generator.

Star Wars arty is purely direct fire, so it's not a question of competent *commanders*.

1. After the first attack run you should be making your subsequent attack runs from the rear. Under no circumstance should you fly into a cross fire, if you have to attack head on ... try to keep all the AA guns to one side.

In our previous discussion I already told you that the only weak spots to direct fire are on the frontal arc.

The armor is not strong enough for its target profile, in Isard's Revenge we see that an X-wing (now imagine how much more powerful a land based gun could be) can "hole the fuel tank" and kill an AT-AT ... which leads to the most glaring fault ...

The things carry enough explosives (munitions or fuel or whatever) that they blow themselves apart if a single area is breeched. Sensible design would have some internal partitions so there is no single giant explosive on board, plus some mechanism to direct the explosion (like say away from crippling the vehicle) would be nice.

No argument here. One of the reasons I hate the EU quite frankly. 'Hole the fuel tank' ...

Sea Skimmer wrote:

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: You do realize you'd have hard time disproving them since ranges at which the Rebel guns fired were never given and all we know is that they opened up after the walkers who have a minimum range of 17.3 Km (roughly). In other words any number under 17 Km is acceptable.

Actually, the gun emplacements were striking the walkers at the beginning of the battle. So they were well outside thier 17.28 distance to the power generators. According to the book, the magic 2kms is thier effective range and it is a struggle for even the best users to manage hits at 10km. So basically, it's bullshit about range.

The power generators where well behind the Rebel lines.

It could have been 15 kilometers from Trench line to walker, but 20 or more from walker to power generator

Exactly what I thought!

As for the "magic 2kms"... It's for the AT turrets, not for the Golanarms AP turrets...

tharkûn wrote:
The armor is not strong enough for its target profile, in Isard's Revenge we see that an X-wing (now imagine how much more powerful a land based gun could be) can "hole the fuel tank" and kill an AT-AT ... which leads to the most glaring fault ...

The things carry enough explosives (munitions or fuel or whatever) that they blow themselves apart if a single area is breeched. Sensible design would have some internal partitions so there is no single giant explosive on board, plus some mechanism to direct the explosion (like say away from crippling the vehicle) would be nice.

Four generations of Soviet tank designs would aruge with that. The main point being, if your armor is breached your fucked anyway so who cares if the crew is wiped out in the blast? Not like we've got a shortage of them...

Of course there fifth generation tank design has partitions.

Four generations of Soviet tank designs would aruge with that. The main point being, if your armor is breached your fucked anyway so who cares if the crew is wiped out in the blast? Not like we've got a shortage of them..
There is a giant difference between a 4 man tank and a structure big enough to hold 40 men and bikes (or whatever the full size is). For that size there is no bloody reason not to partition and direct the blast away from vital systems.

Of course there fifth generation tank design has partitions.
So I suppose this means the fifth is inferior to the previous?

Do not function under a planetary shield, unlike speeders. X-Wings only flew when the shield was dropped. If they had dropped the shield, TIEs and TIE Bombers could've come in.
Okay so you are telling me that the shield is dropped the entire time the x-wings are going from the ground to space and the Imps lack the wherewithal to friggin nail the sheild from orbit in that time? We saw how long it took Luke to make it off the planet, if Imperial gunners can't hit large stationary targets in that window of time, they suck. Yet somehow the ships inside the sheild in RotJ didn't suffer any of these calamities.

But I'm going to ask for evidence or a concession here.

No evidence that such artillery weapons exist in Star Wars.
Then they are morons. Honestly this is a simple parabolic shot against a stationary target. Do they have rail guns? How about simple chemical reactions? The principles behind artillerly with these types of ranges are strictly newtonian and any spacefaring civilization would have to be imbeciles not to know how to do it.

Star Wars arty is purely direct fire, so it's not a question of competent *commanders*.
So its the weapons designers who are morons? And no ground commander ever said gee indirect fire might be nice to have, could we explore using it? Nobody balks about having to use what amounts to a glorified death trap (excepting only the case where the enemy can't deploy basic fighters with standard guns) as your APC and crap artillerly?

In our previous discussion I already told you that the only weak spots to direct fire are on the frontal arc.
And I've already quoted official sources where the thing was blown apart from the backside, besides which they make a front on run into a crossfire when they want to harpoon the things ... that is moronic. Even if you have to run into the frontal arc you should still avoid the crossfire like the plague.

You've just harpooned a walker, you know said strategy works, you are trying it again do you:
1. Fly into the heaviest and most lethal possible AA?
Or
2. Take and run from the back where they can't touch you?

tharkûn wrote: There is a giant difference between a 4 man tank and a structure big enough to hold 40 men and bikes (or whatever the full size is). For that size there is no bloody reason not to partition and direct the blast away from vital systems.

Considering it needs a much more power realtive to its size then a tank, that may not be possibul. Considering the AT-AT's kiloton firepower and 60 kilomter per hour speed when its engine or fuel supple goes up your going to have a massive blast. Internal bulkheads of sufficent strength may very well detract too much from other features.

So I suppose this means the fifth is inferior to the previous?

Umm no. It means the Russian Federation noticed it didn't have the same resources the Union did, and they need the manpower and moral boost a tank that doesnt eject its turret when it would give. The Empire has absurd resources. Losing a million AT-AT's might delay the secret construct of the Death Star by a day or two.


And please actually use the quote feature, or at least have spacing.

tharkûn wrote: Then they are morons. Honestly this is a simple parabolic shot against a stationary target. Do they have rail guns? How about simple chemical reactions? The principles behind artillerly with these types of ranges are strictly newtonian and any spacefaring civilization would have to be imbeciles not to know how to do it.

Look up THEL, then consider what it could do if it used an E-WEB and Star Wars sensors.

Considering it needs a much more power realtive to its size then a tank, that may not be possibul. Considering the AT-AT's kiloton firepower and 60 kilomter per hour speed when its engine or fuel supple goes up your going to have a massive blast. Internal bulkheads of sufficent strength may very well detract too much from other features.

The empire has no problem getting more power per kg than modern tanks. Look at Luke's X-wing, then tell me how much power per kg you think it is putting out.

Look up THEL, then consider what it could do if it used an E-WEB and Star Wars sensors.

Umm don't tactical lasers require a warhead that explodes when heated? One of the old gun type tac nukes be more than sufficient for a target like the sheild generator and immune to THEL. As far as I know the MTHEL only works against shots that explode when heated (and its big claim to fame is against Katyushas). Wouldn't even a high KE shot be sufficient here?

No matter how good the defense is you can always overwhelm if you have sufficient rate of fire.

//edit misquote

Tharkun, will it fucking kill you to just quote correctly?

Especially now, considering you can edit your posts in PSW and PST.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Tharkun, will it fucking kill you to just quote correctly?

Especially now, considering you can edit your posts in PSW and PST.

You could be a little less insulting about it, Spanky.

Then again, Tharkun could take the effort to type 'quote' instead of 'i' (or hit the quote button instead of the I button), so I guess they cancel eachother out.

tharkûn wrote: Umm don't tactical lasers require a warhead that explodes when heated? One of the old gun type tac nukes be more than sufficient for a target like the sheild generator and immune to THEL. As far as I know the MTHEL only works against shots that explode when heated (and its big claim to fame is against Katyushas). Wouldn't even a high KE shot be sufficient here?

No matter how good the defense is you can always overwhelm if you have sufficient rate of fire.

No, mostly because THEL doesn't work by exploding the projectile. It cuts into it and air resistance tears the shell or rocket apart. Fitted with a blaster weapon it could just vaproize the inbound.

Which is going to fire faster, a big artillery peice or a medium auto cannon? The answer is the autocannon, which is basically what an E-Web is. Sure you can overwhelm any defence. But when one defensive emplacement can fire a couple hundred rounds per minute that gets rather hard. The emplacement would very likely be cheeper then a single gun as well.


The deployment of something like a Tactical High Energy Blaster is probably why we don't see ballistic artillery in Star wars combat. It would also explain why missiles flew such strange flight paths in AOTC.

After a point you must ask whats the pointo f tring to overwhelm these emplacements, why don't we just invest in LOS energy artillery or missiles which can evade the shots?

The result is things like the AT-AT, which has great height to provide greater range, and things like the Hailfire driod which fires large number of evasive missiles, and uses it speed to close the range.