StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Spanky:
Bite me. I get sick and frikking tired of the hyperindentation of quoting previous quotes. Or do you lack the ability to tell the difference between italics and normal text? Tell me why in hell does it bother you?


Sea Skimmer:
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.

Assuming some cheap form of ray sheilding doesn't exist. From what I've heard of the MTHEL the thing cuts into rocket's propellant and blows it in flight. Of course that was from an informal conversation with an old friend.

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.

Have we ever seen a THEB in SW? We did see that the Gungans used some form of simplistic arty with giant blue balls.

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?
There is always the arty launched LOS weapon. I don't particulary care if it is missiles, dumbfire arty, or projectile LOS, you can couple these with sheilds, dense armor or whatever. Relying on a peice that has a target profile AT-AT size that can simultaneously be killed by the basic gun on enemy fighters ... not a good idea.

tharkûn wrote: 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?

You should know how fast SW ships go from ground to orbit, if you read the damn site.

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.

Yeah, several seconds, boy do they suck. Besides, did you perhaps consider that, knowing the firepower of Imperial capital ship weapons, they couldn't blow the generator to smithereens with WMD scale firepower for fear of killing the man they were there to capture?

Yet somehow the ships inside the sheild in RotJ didn't suffer any of these calamities.

And which ships were those? One shuttle. How do you know if the shield was up or down?

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

I don't have it personally.

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.

Yeah, sure. You done any calcs on how powerful the AT-AT maximum firepower blast was to destroy the shield generator?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=10360

Already done for you.

And Sea Skimmer has brought up the THEL example.

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?

Yes, 17.28km artillery is truly crap- modern artillery can go on average 7km further and not deliver the same force. Of course, you probably advocate using chemical explosive effects in the WMD range to get the job done so you can continue on your crusade on calling everyone in the entire fight stupid, which will work wonders for their chances of capturing Skywalker.

Tank designs until relatively recently also suffered catastrophic explosions if penetrated. The key was not to get penetrated. Considering how thick and dense AT-AT armor is, adding partitions might simply have been seen as inefficient, considering Imperial resources. I'm not saying that this was a good idea for the troops inside the AT-ATs though.

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 couldn't get good hits on the vulnerable spots unless you came from the frontal arc. Check screenshots on SWTC. As for harpooning, you act like this was a really easy thing to do- the other pilots may have decided they simply didn't have the skill to pull it off.

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?

Other walkers can still hit you from the rear. The 5 walkers were not all in a straight line, there were two columns. Besides, any walker could adjust it's rate of advance to support another walker.

tharkûn, the one too stupid to quote wrote:
Assuming some cheap form of ray sheilding doesn't exist. From what I've heard of the MTHEL the thing cuts into rocket's propellant and blows it in flight. Of course that was from an informal conversation with an old friend.

Your friend was working from very old information, THEL got alot more powerful then it was orginally thought was possibul. If you've forced your enemy to waste space and money shielding there artillery shells you've already won.

Have we ever seen a THEB in SW? We did see that the Gungans used some form of simplistic arty with giant blue balls.

Within an small energy sheild yes they did. But then the Gungans had shit for weapons anyway. More telling is the fact that the large well equiped driod army didn't deploy any artillery.

Three salvos from a 155mm battery could have wiped out most of the Gungan force once the driods had shot out the shields. But then if the army was meant ot fight people who could easily shoot down the shell, they wouldn't have a reason to have it now would they?

There is always the arty launched LOS weapon. I don't particulary care if it is missiles, dumbfire arty, or projectile LOS, you can couple these with sheilds, dense armor or whatever. Relying on a peice that has a target profile AT-AT size that can simultaneously be killed by the basic gun on enemy fighters ... not a good idea.

If you have LOS then a ballistic projectile doesnt have a point. Just use a blaster or turbolaser.

If an AT-AT was smaller it might be destroyed by the improvised weapons of a snow speeder, look what the little Naboo gun did to the Trade Federation tank in TPM.

Aircraft can blast modern armor very easily if they get LOS as well. Against Starwars sensors and off axil firing lasers its unlikley going smaller would save you. What will protect you is using combind arms. Active protection generaly beats out passive measures.

Rather then attempting to have a walker armored against X-wing fire, you could use the added resources to build somthing to shoot down the X-wing with.

Your friend was working from very old information, THEL got alot more powerful then it was orginally thought was possibul. If you've forced your enemy to waste space and money shielding there artillery shells you've already won.
Exactly how much does it cost to sheild the arty shell? Or perhaps make a shell that already burns away the outer layer as it flies.

Within an small energy sheild yes they did. But then the Gungans had shit for weapons anyway. More telling is the fact that the large well equiped driod army didn't deploy any artillery.
Large? Yes. Well equipped? My ass. The entire battle would have been over with maybe 10 droid losses if they used grenade launchers and fragmentation grenades. Hell even hand thrown grenades would have trashed the Gungan line with minimal losses. The droids were poorly equipped and moronically deployed.

If you have LOS then a ballistic projectile doesnt have a point. Just use a blaster or turbolaser.
This is more of the ballistic laser idea. Use an arty shot to loft a laser to the requisite height to get over the horizon LOS shots. This has already been done, but is not practical to use today. You can get the AT-AT's height without its target profile.

If an AT-AT was smaller it might be destroyed by the improvised weapons of a snow speeder, look what the little Naboo gun did to the Trade Federation tank in TPM.
Yes and look what two logs did to an AT-ST in RotJ. When the basic guns of a small fighter can kill you, you are screwed. If the rebels had spare x-wing guns they simply installed in a fix battery ... you are screwed. The armor is already crap and thus the AT-AT is only safe in the midst of a well balanced combined arms force or when the enemy has piss poor weaponry (i.e. Hoth).


Aircraft can blast modern armor very easily if they get LOS as well. Against Starwars sensors and off axil firing lasers its unlikley going smaller would save you. What will protect you is using combind arms. Active protection generaly beats out passive measures.
And yet AT-AT's routinely deploy without active measures. With their target profile it seems like it would be ludicriously easy to waste the thing with a camo AT gun.

You should know how fast SW ships go from ground to orbit, if you read the damn site.
Faster than it takes for a light TL blast to go the reverse direction? I think not. Look at the situation. You have a fixed target, you have a dozen ships, and once the sheild is down you push the button, wait out the shots ToF and boom. How long do you think it takes to push the fire button?

When you already have a firing solution it should take you know more than 3 seconds to fire.

Yeah, several seconds, boy do they suck.
Yes all they have to do is hit a bloody button. Hell given the firepower present they should have just been continiously firing at the sheild generator. How long do you think it takes modern naval gunners to fire when they have already:
1. Loaded
2. Aquired the target
3. Have a firing solution.
4. Have orders to fire when ready.

Besides, did you perhaps consider that, knowing the firepower of Imperial capital ship weapons, they couldn't blow the generator to smithereens with WMD scale firepower for fear of killing the man they were there to capture?

You mean they have no secondary guns (oh wait we SAW those in RotJ)? They have no support ships analogous to a frigate or destroyer? Get real. Not every ISD shot has to be a planet frying BDZ shot.

And which ships were those? One shuttle. How do you know if the shield was up or down?
Can't find the screenshot I want online so I'll just quote the script for now.

"There is a great deal of Imperial traffic in the area as construction proceeds on the Death Star. Transports, TIE fighters, and a few Star Destroyers move about. Now the huge Super Star Destroyer announces itself with a low roar and soon fills the frame."

"Shuttle Tydirium, deactivation of the shield will commence immediately. Follow your present course."

So yes there were ships, yes the sheilds were up, and no no mystic technobabble prevented said ships from working.

I don't have it personally.

Concession accepted.

Yeah, sure. You done any calcs on how powerful the AT-AT maximum firepower blast was to destroy the shield generator?
Let's go with 150 kilotonnes. Now SW has the ability to use anti-matter. So let's equip our shell with say 6 grams of anti-matter (more or less depending on efficiency) and let fly. Thus you have a shot with a maximum possible payload of 250 kilotonnes but a more realistic payload closer to the AT-AT payload.

It is frankly not that hard to get devices that hit with exactly the amoun of firepower you want. From nuclear artillerly to antimatter to Merr-Sonn thermal detonators.

Yes, 17.28km artillery is truly crap- modern artillery can go on average 7km further and not deliver the same force.
Modern arty can go 40 km (PzH2000) and that is without rocket assisted shots. Naval guns (5 inch) with rocket assistance and range goes up over 100 km. 17.28 km is pretty close range for high end artillery today.

Tank designs until relatively recently also suffered catastrophic explosions if penetrated. The key was not to get penetrated. Considering how thick and dense AT-AT armor is, adding partitions might simply have been seen as inefficient, considering Imperial resources. I'm not saying that this was a good idea for the troops inside the AT-ATs though.

Ways not to get penetrated:
1. Be small enough it is hard to hit you.
2. Angle the armor extensively so shots hit with a more optimal angle.
3. Kill the enemy before he gets into range.
4. Have enough armor to shrug off hits.

None of these are followed by the AT-AT. It's huge and an easy shot. The armor is flat so shots hit at close to orthogonal. It (and its supporting units) cannot kill enemy fighters before they are in range and and the armor can be holed by the basic guns on an airborn fighter.

You couldn't get good hits on the vulnerable spots unless you came from the frontal arc. Check screenshots on SWTC.

"Hobbie's attack ran from below the AT-AT's body up on the back, and at least one shot holed the fuel tank. Flaming fluid streamed down like a tail, then an explosion ripped the walker's back end open. The blast pitched the walker up into the air and through a somersault that landed it on its back."

I'm sorry you were saying something?


for harpooning, you act like this was a really easy thing to do- the other pilots may have decided they simply didn't have the skill to pull it off.
Look at the sequence of events:
1. The walker goes down.
2. Luke calls rouge two
3. Luke says, "We'll set harpoon. I'll cover for you."
4. Luke and rouge two begin an attack run.
5. Luke says, "Watch that cross fire, boys."
6. Our intrepid heros then fly directly into a cross fire and we watch em go down.

Again you are still missing the point. Once you have done the harpoon route you don't need to attack head on. It is pointless and suicidal. When you are forced to attack head on, use some bloody brains ... do not give the enemy a crossfire. Flying into a crossfire (which the Rogues explicitly did) is MORONIC. Approach on a vector that doesn't but you between two sets of guns so they can cross you. This is basic stuff here, not rocket science.

Other walkers can still hit you from the rear. The 5 walkers were not all in a straight line, there were two columns. Besides, any walker could adjust it's rate of advance to support another walker.
This suggest a REAL simple strategy ... begin at the back and work your way forward. In any event slowing the columns is EXACTLY what you want ... this is a delaying action.

Face the facts:
1. From an official source we know that AT-AT armor is not super strong as SW armor goes. It can be comprised by the X-wing's turbolaser (not the torps).
2. You have nothing that says X-wings can't operate under a sheild. We do have TIEs operating under a planetary sheild.
3. Making attack runs into a crossfire is suicide regardless. There is no reason to attack into a crossfire ... attack from behind or from an attack vector that leaves everything on one side.
4. There is no evidence of the rebels having or of ever having had an effective anti-artillerly system. Hell have we even seen an effective anti missile system?

tharkûn wrote: Large? Yes. Well equipped? My ass. The entire battle would have been over with maybe 10 droid losses if they used grenade launchers and fragmentation grenades. Hell even hand thrown grenades would have trashed the Gungan line with minimal losses. The droids were poorly equipped and moronically deployed.

And yet they won quickly and while losing one peice of heavy equipment.

This is more of the ballistic laser idea. Use an arty shot to loft a laser to the requisite height to get over the horizon LOS shots. This has already been done, but is not practical to use today. You can get the AT-AT's height without its target profile.

So your now firing dozens of artillery shells a minute, each of which is going to either be either huge and massively expensive, or far far weaker then the AT-AT's weaponry. Looks at the size of those blasters, now think about how big a shell you'd need to carry one and how huge a gun you'd need. The gun would easily be the size of a damn AT-AT, only much less effective.

Yes and look what two logs did to an AT-ST in RotJ. When the basic guns of a small fighter can kill you, you are screwed. If the rebels had spare x-wing guns they simply installed in a fix battery ... you are screwed. The armor is already crap and thus the AT-AT is only safe in the midst of a well balanced combined arms force or when the enemy has piss poor weaponry (i.e. Hoth).

Know what a 23mm cannon will do to a Stormer 30? Blast it to shit. A 50's AA guns can rape a modern heavy scout.

The AT-ST is a heavy hummer level vehicle, not a heavily armored assault unit. The fact that the support structure bulked under the impact of two huge logs is not surprising, nor would it easy destruction by light and medium blasters.

Anyway, notice how the armor crushed, it didn't get holes knocked in it. It's the same thing Wong talked about with kinetic energy against shield generators. The mounting lugs are the weak spot.

Against heavy shielded defenses the Empire would no doubt use a mix of walkers to achieve its goals. Notice the wide range of medium walkers on this page

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/walkers.html

And yet AT-AT's routinely deploy without active measures. With their target profile it seems like it would be ludicriously easy to waste the thing with a camo AT gun.

So what? Thats true of every peice of heavy military equipment today. The trick is acutally concealing your weapon until you can fire.

tharkûn wrote:Large? Yes. Well equipped? My ass. The entire battle would have been over with maybe 10 droid losses if they used grenade launchers and fragmentation grenades. Hell even hand thrown grenades would have trashed the Gungan line with minimal losses. The droids were poorly equipped and moronically deployed.

So they should use grenades in close quarters combat, where the fragmentation will hit them too? THAT'S moronic deployment. Given the shield, and the apparent fact the ground pressure is required to physically pass through the shield, grenades would have been worse than useless. Besides, surely the Gungans could do a Roman turtle maneuver with their shields.

This is more of the ballistic laser idea. Use an arty shot to loft a laser to the requisite height to get over the horizon LOS shots. This has already been done, but is not practical to use today. You can get the AT-AT's height without its target profile.

And you'll target this one-shot weapon how? Not only will it become more expensive due to the need to fit a targeting system on the shell, but the gun necessary will still be around the same size as an AT-AT.

Yes and look what two logs did to an AT-ST in RotJ. When the basic guns of a small fighter can kill you, you are screwed. If the rebels had spare x-wing guns they simply installed in a fix battery ... you are screwed. The armor is already crap and thus the AT-AT is only safe in the midst of a well balanced combined arms force or when the enemy has piss poor weaponry (i.e. Hoth).

So the Russian T-72 is crap because an A-10 can destroy it with its cannon? How little do you really know about military tactics and technology?

And yet AT-AT's routinely deploy without active measures. With their target profile it seems like it would be ludicriously easy to waste the thing with a camo AT gun.

Even though artillery bounced off it (figuratively speaking)...right .

Faster than it takes for a light TL blast to go the reverse direction? I think not. Look at the situation. You have a fixed target, you have a dozen ships, and once the sheild is down you push the button, wait out the shots ToF and boom. How long do you think it takes to push the fire button?

It's possible that they couldn't get a targeting lock on the generator while the shield was up.

Can't find the screenshot I want online so I'll just quote the script for now.

"There is a great deal of Imperial traffic in the area as construction proceeds on the Death Star. Transports, TIE fighters, and a few Star Destroyers move about. Now the huge Super Star Destroyer announces itself with a low roar and soon fills the frame."

"Shuttle Tydirium, deactivation of the shield will commence immediately. Follow your present course."

So yes there were ships, yes the sheilds were up, and no no mystic technobabble prevented said ships from working.

Wow...TIE fighters can fly outside a shield (no proof that they are under it), yet they had to DEACTIVATE the shield for the shuttle to dock...you just weakened your OWN POINT.

Concession accepted.

No, I think Sea should be the one saying that.

Let's go with 150 kilotonnes. Now SW has the ability to use anti-matter. So let's equip our shell with say 6 grams of anti-matter (more or less depending on efficiency) and let fly. Thus you have a shot with a maximum possible payload of 250 kilotonnes but a more realistic payload closer to the AT-AT payload.

It is frankly not that hard to get devices that hit with exactly the amoun of firepower you want. From nuclear artillerly to antimatter to Merr-Sonn thermal detonators.

Spherical blast radius. You're looking at a shot with a maximum effective payload of 125 kilotonnes. And you need to power the magnetic field of the shells. Power drops for an instant, and *boom* there goes your artillery vehicle, and likely any other portion of the army within a few square kilometers. I don't want to be a part of your military.

"Hobbie's attack ran from below the AT-AT's body up on the back, and at least one shot holed the fuel tank. Flaming fluid streamed down like a tail, then an explosion ripped the walker's back end open. The blast pitched the walker up into the air and through a somersault that landed it on its back."

Gee...so if you can get ABOVE the AT-AT, it's vulnerable...I wonder why none of the 2 meter tall infantrymen tried to get ABOVE the 30 meter tall AT-AT? And of course, you need X-Wing type guns.

tharkûn wrote: Yes and look what two logs did to an AT-ST in RotJ. When the basic guns of a small fighter can kill you, you are screwed. If the rebels had spare x-wing guns they simply installed in a fix battery ... you are screwed. The armor is already crap and thus the AT-AT is only safe in the midst of a well balanced combined arms force or when the enemy has piss poor weaponry (i.e. Hoth).

BS. Your precious BS EU 'hole a fuel tank' incident says nothing about whether an AT-AT could be killed from the front by X-Wing cannons mounted on the ground.

And yet AT-AT's routinely deploy without active measures. With their target profile it seems like it would be ludicriously easy to waste the thing with a camo AT gun.

What camo AT gun would that be?

You mean they have no secondary guns (oh wait we SAW those in RotJ)? They have no support ships analogous to a frigate or destroyer? Get real. Not every ISD shot has to be a planet frying BDZ shot.

Strawman. And no, you didn't see the FIREPOWER of the secondary guns in ROTJ, so you have no evidence.

Can't find the screenshot I want online so I'll just quote the script for now.

"There is a great deal of Imperial traffic in the area as construction proceeds on the Death Star. Transports, TIE fighters, and a few Star Destroyers move about. Now the huge Super Star Destroyer announces itself with a low roar and soon fills the frame."

"Shuttle Tydirium, deactivation of the shield will commence immediately. Follow your present course."

So yes there were ships, yes the sheilds were up, and no no mystic technobabble prevented said ships from working.

Nothing in that reference says that these ships were under the shield.

Concession accepted.

I guess.

Let's go with 150 kilotonnes. Now SW has the ability to use anti-matter. So let's equip our shell with say 6 grams of anti-matter (more or less depending on efficiency) and let fly. Thus you have a shot with a maximum possible payload of 250 kilotonnes but a more realistic payload closer to the AT-AT payload.

It is frankly not that hard to get devices that hit with exactly the amoun of firepower you want. From nuclear artillerly to antimatter to Merr-Sonn thermal detonators.

Dark alrady dealt with this.

Modern arty can go 40 km (PzH2000) and that is without rocket assisted shots. Naval guns (5 inch) with rocket assistance and range goes up over 100 km. 17.28 km is pretty close range for high end artillery today.

Incorrect: Rheinmetall has also developed a six-zone modular Propelling Charge System (MTLS) which is in compliance with the IBMOU. The MTLS provides for faster handling, less wear on the gun, lower sensitivity to ignition hazards and improved range. In the PzH2000, up to six MTLS modules form the propelling charge. The maximum range of the L52 gun using the maximum MTLS charges is 30km with the standard L15A2 round and up to 40km with assisted projectiles.

17.28km for a vehicle that isn't a dedicated arty piece is more than adequate.

Ways not to get penetrated:
1. Be small enough it is hard to hit you.
2. Angle the armor extensively so shots hit with a more optimal angle.
3. Kill the enemy before he gets into range.
4. Have enough armor to shrug off hits.

None of these are followed by the AT-AT. It's huge and an easy shot. The armor is flat so shots hit at close to orthogonal. It (and its supporting units) cannot kill enemy fighters before they are in range and and the armor can be holed by the basic guns on an airborn fighter.

Angling armor is a waste of time if you're not using ballisitic weapons. Ballisitic weapons are not used in SW.

"Hobbie's attack ran from below the AT-AT's body up on the back, and at least one shot holed the fuel tank. Flaming fluid streamed down like a tail, then an explosion ripped the walker's back end open. The blast pitched the walker up into the air and through a somersault that landed it on its back."

I'm sorry you were saying something?

I was going from canon. Regardless, you're right, if a vehicle is not 100% invincible, it must be crap

Again you are still missing the point. Once you have done the harpoon route you don't need to attack head on. It is pointless and suicidal. When you are forced to attack head on, use some bloody brains ... do not give the enemy a crossfire. Flying into a crossfire (which the Rogues explicitly did) is MORONIC. Approach on a vector that doesn't but you between two sets of guns so they can cross you. This is basic stuff here, not rocket science.

Good to see you restate your original position without modification.

This suggest a REAL simple strategy ... begin at the back and work your way forward. In any event slowing the columns is EXACTLY what you want ... this is a delaying action.

Obviously, your standard of military success is absolute perfection- every combat vehicle must be immune to tactics employed against it. No matter what anyone says, you'll be able to come up with a tactic to mitigate it- I can do the same thing with any vehicle you care to name.

1. From an official source we know that AT-AT armor is not super strong as SW armor goes. It can be comprised by the X-wing's turbolaser (not the torps).

And A-10s can kill tanks. So what?

2. You have nothing that says X-wings can't operate under a sheild. We do have TIEs operating under a planetary sheild.

No, we do not. Your reference says nothing of the sort. Regardless, a reason for why star fighters weren't deployed by both sides, with fighters only flying with the shield down, while air speeders were isn't unreasonable.

3. Making attack runs into a crossfire is suicide regardless. There is no reason to attack into a crossfire ... attack from behind or from an attack vector that leaves everything on one side.

Unless you're going for the vulnerable spots that your weaker blasters can't penetrate.

4. There is no evidence of the rebels having or of ever having had an effective anti-artillerly system. Hell have we even seen an effective anti missile system?

Official evidence (TIE Fighter, X-Wing Alliance) shows that capital ships use their guns and missiles to shoot down incoming missiles.

Oldest sci-fi debating fallacy in the book: if it's not totally invincible, it's shit

Let's go with 150 kilotonnes. Now SW has the ability to use anti-matter. So let's equip our shell with say 6 grams of anti-matter (more or less depending on efficiency) and let fly. Thus you have a shot with a maximum possible payload of 250 kilotonnes but a more realistic payload closer to the AT-AT payload.

So now what happens if a fire strike hits your artillery park? That's right, it explodes because the shells are unstable without a steady impulse of power.

Modern arty can go 40 km (PzH2000) and that is without rocket assisted shots. Naval guns (5 inch) with rocket assistance and range goes up over 100 km. 17.28 km is pretty close range for high end artillery today.

Know what base bleed is? That’s what PzH2000 and every other artillery piece that can reach past 30 kilometers must use to do so. As for 5/62 and ERGM, it uses stub wings to fly a non ballistic path, taking about 7 minutes to reach max range. It would be fodder to a THEL firing unit and hundreds could be brought down by a single Blaster anti artillery shell piece. The shell is very expensive and very specialized for one role.

However comparing the weapons of a heavy IFV to dedicated artillery is retarded. The Empire has dedicated turbolaser and missile artillery it can deploy. This is established both in the films and EU. The M1A2 can't hit targets beyound about 3-4 kilometers depending on conditions, yet the same military has the 115 kilometer range ERGM shell which uses GPS to land within a few feet of its target in all weather. Does that mean the M1 sucks?



There may be no hard evidence for a anti artillery blaster system. However we've never seen the rear areas of a major battle in any detail, THEL will be mounted on a 6x6 or 4x4 vehicle, and the Empire has even more miniature technology. These things would not be easy to notice with all the shooting at places like the Geonosis battle.

We also have Tyrants Test which establishes that they can shoot down concussion missiles and proton torpedoes, both of which are little bigger then a modern artillery shell, if not smaller.

Then we have the whole EU, which has one, maybe two examples of unpowered projectile artillery, one was a light mortar the other possibul is the weapon in Force Commander. But we have a score or more of turbolaser and missile artillery pieces on the books and in the films.

So building such a system is within there established capabilities, and shooting down projectiles is already known to be done. We also have an absence of tube artillery. All this suggest they deploy weapons or did so at some point, which could shoot down artillery shells leading to an abandnment of such weapons.

Darth Wong wrote:Oldest sci-fi debating fallacy in the book: if it's not totally invincible, it's shit

That and: If it has flaws found on every real piece of equivalent or near equivalent weaponry it also sucks.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Oldest sci-fi debating fallacy in the book: if it's not totally invincible, it's shit

That and: If it has flaws found on every real piece of equivalent or near equivalent weaponry it also sucks.

Maybe it's a good thing there aren't more films with non-fantasy battles, otherwise we'd hear more of "Yeah, those Abrams totally suck!! They had to deploy four of them to take over that base, and one got killed [disabled] by a measly shoulder-monuted weapon [in a critical spot]! Hell, they could have just sent 4 guys on horseback with sabres, so they could ride up alongside the tanks, open the top hatches, and kill the drivers!!!"

And yet they won quickly and while losing one peice of heavy equipment.

And the US could trash any of a dozens of armies without losing peice. Winning means you didn't lose. Tell me how many vehicles do you expect the US to lose against an army with small arms and artillerly peices weaker than the the vulcan on an F-18?


So your now firing dozens of artillery shells a minute, each of which is going to either be either huge and massively expensive
If the enemy has a THEB in their defenses. Of course we have never seen such a beast nor do we know how expensive a simply sheilding system for the shells.

or far far weaker then the AT-AT's weaponry. Looks at the size of those blasters, now think about how big a shell you'd need to carry one and how huge a gun you'd need. The gun would easily be the size of a damn AT-AT, only much less effective.
With SW level of thrust and power generation lofting a heavy shell does not take a mammoth gun. Look at the thrust on Luke's X-wing or on the torpedo. Hell think about how much muzzle velocity you can get with SW level power flowing in a magnetic gun.

Against heavy shielded defenses the Empire would no doubt use a mix of walkers to achieve its goals. Notice the wide range of medium walkers on this page
I'm not seeing all that many walkers better off than the AT-AT. The AT-AA is the only one I'd really put much stock in. The "ultra-heavy walker" might not suffer from the relatively weak armor of the AT-AT but other than that most of them seem to be bipedal brain bugs. Bipedal mecha are inherently a bad idea for most applications.

So what? Thats true of every peice of heavy military equipment today. The trick is acutally concealing your weapon until you can fire.
This is why it is important to have something that gives close support. Either the Imperials don't have it, or they weren't using it worth beans when Luke scaled the walker.

So they should use grenades in close quarters combat, where the fragmentation will hit them too? THAT'S moronic deployment. Given the shield, and the apparent fact the ground pressure is required to physically pass through the shield, grenades would have been worse than useless. Besides, surely the Gungans could do a Roman turtle maneuver with their shields.
1. The Gungans don't have sufficient sheilds for a turtle maneuver.
2. If they try it use a mix of concussion/frag grenades so they get knocked on their asses ... then fragged.
3. This close quarters stuff is BS. We are talking an engagement range of *metres*. How many rows of droids fit between the sheild wall and the Gungan line?
4. Even if you lose every droid ho goes in an launches grenades ... it still has FAR fewer casualties than they ended up suffering.
5. Even if you for some moronic reason don't feel like playing with frags and concessions ... how about flash-bangs? Blind and stunned Gungans would be even easier to crush.

And you'll target this one-shot weapon how?
Well let's see it is a fixed target with known position. Then of course there is the same way just about every indirect fire system works ... use a forward observer.

Not only will it become more expensive due to the need to fit a targeting system on the shell, but the gun necessary will still be around the same size as an AT-AT.
There is no need for a targeting system you can simply calculate the flight plan and when to fire. Now a cheap targeting system (as in a guns eye view - price tag nil) has its advantages, but it is not necessary.

As far as the size. BS. Luke's X-wing has the thrust and power to lift itself into orbit in a matter of seconds. The artillerly peice in question need not be larger as needs to loft a far smaller shot a far shorter distance (like say only a few dozen metres up). Look at the power flowing in SW, look at the thrust they routinely get from missiles and the like. They will have no problem lofting heavy shells.

So the Russian T-72 is crap because an A-10 can destroy it with its cannon? How little do you really know about military tactics and technology?
I know enough to realize that if a T-72 could be killed by the Vulcan on an F-18, said T-72 is indeed crap. Look is the X-wing a dedicated ground attack weapon? No. Is it a sluggish heavy ass plane that fires such powerful shots it visibly recoils the plane? No.

The X-wing is a dogfighter, its primary heavy weapon is the proton torpedo, when its guns are fired they don't noticeably alter the trajectory of the craft. The closest analogue woud be something the F-18 which can fight for air supremacy while still carrying a decent payload against hard targets.

If an X-wing, primarily a dogfighter, can punch through AT-AT armor ... what do you think a dedicated AT craft similar to the A-10 would do to the AT-AT.

Even though artillery bounced off it (figuratively speaking)...right
Sigh, learn to read:
"Hobbie's attack ran from below the AT-AT's body up on the back , and at least one shot holed the fuel tank. Flaming fluid streamed down like a tail, then an explosion ripped the walker's back end open. The blast pitched the walker up into the air and through a somersault that landed it on its back."

Remind me again how that shot bounced off it. The obvious conclusion is that the "artillery" in TESB is weaker than an X-wing gun. That perhaps said artillerly was designed with AP use in mind and was pressed into AT service as a last ditch effort.

It's possible that they couldn't get a targeting lock on the generator while the shield was up.

Newsflash you don't need a target lock against every target. It is a large, stationary target. Once you have a firing solution it works EVERY TIME.

Wow...TIE fighters can fly outside a shield (no proof that they are under it), yet they had to DEACTIVATE the shield for the shuttle to dock...you just weakened your OWN POINT.
Ohh I'm sorry I missed your wealth of evidence showing that they were above the sheild. How does Deactivating the sheild so Tyridium can MOVE THROUGH IT weaken the arguement. Sheild are built to stop things from moving through a specific barrier.

In any event I repeat my challenge:
You assert that a sheild means TIEs/ X-wings canoperate under it ... where is the proof?

You asser that the TIE fighters are above the sheild ... where is the proof?




No, I think Sea should be the one saying that.
Well let's see I asked Vympel for evidence or a concession, he didn't have the evidence. Hence he must concede the point.

Spherical blast radius. You're looking at a shot with a maximum effective payload of 125 kilotonnes. And you need to power the magnetic field of the shells. Power drops for an instant, and *boom* there goes your artillery vehicle, and likely any other portion of the army within a few square kilometers. I don't want to be a part of your military.
Umm most explosive warheads go boom if things screw up. Have you ever seen what happens when real explosive warheads cook off on the ground? Besides which why would you use magnetic containment when you can manipulate gravity? Seriously anti-matter is commonplace enough a cadet can steal a significant quantity of it and then go blow up a small orbiting asteroid. Anti-matter is mentioned as one choice among many. You aslo have things like tac nukes and of course the thermal detonators alleged to vaoprize everything in so many metres. It doesn't take that much mass to get high kilotonne blasts. Spherical blast radius implies the Imps don't have the wherewithal to shape their explosions.

Gee...so if you can get ABOVE the AT-AT, it's vulnerable...I wonder why none of the 2 meter tall infantrymen tried to get ABOVE the 30 meter tall AT-AT? And of course, you need X-Wing type guns.
It is not like the AT-AT was overflown numerous times in TESB ... oh wait it was. It is not like every game Lucasfilm has put out makes it ludicriously easy to overfly to overfly an AT-AT ... oh wait it is. It is not like we don't have numerous instances of AT-AT's being overflown in official sources ... oh wait we do.


As far as infantry ... its called an angled shot. It is called shooting off of the high ground, a builing window, etc. There is nothing in the quote to suggest this is some magic angle of attack and the shot can be fired from the ground at a high angle. If you have some evidence ... let's hear it.

What camo AT gun would that be?
Anything with the firepower of a gun off a dogfighter. Hell take a bady damaged X-wing, rip the guns off, mount them onto a Hummer type chassis. But some camo paint and and whatever other stealth systems you like onboard ... viola.

Honestly how hard is it to make land based gun with similar or superior firepower to a highly agile fighter?

Strawman. And no, you didn't see the FIREPOWER of the secondary guns in ROTJ, so you have no evidence.
Right those shots that shread Reb fighters were fired with the same amount of firepower required to BDZ a planet

The imps have no choices except to unleash a BDZ or not fire We never saw them disable a ship. We never saw them seek to use secondary guns to knock out ships. Despite hundreds of years of proven military use, the Imperial navy lacks the brains to have effective secondaries. The imps have never faced a situtuation that called for naval support, but not a please obliterate all life on the planet shot.

Nothing in that reference says that these ships were under the shield.
Nothing in the reference says they are over it. I'm sorry I don't have a screen by screen shot of RotJ on my computer. Of course you might try to explain to me what proof you have that fighters are forced to be grounded when planetary sheilds are up ... oh wait you HAVE NO EVIDENCE.


On the PzH:
My apologies that should have read with rocket assisted shots (to avoid confusion with lower max ranges for unassisted shots).

17.3 km is low for the AT-AT's size, target profile, and tech level. Look over the specs for any arty peice that shoots 20 km, compare their size to that of the AT-AT. Compare their ability to shoot and scoot to that of the AT-AT. Now add into the mix that the AT-AT has access power and thrust that dwarfs anything currently on the market. It has crap for range compared to even simple naval guns (which for its mass an AT-AT should be able to sport).

Angling armor is a waste of time if you're not using ballisitic weapons. Ballisitic weapons are not used in SW.
Bzzt wrong answer. Angling armor means a straight shot face armor which is facing effectively thicker armor for the most probable shot. If you shoot orthogonal the path through the armor is its thinnest. Shooting off that angle means you have to go through more armor to get through.
This is BASIC geometry.

I was going from canon. Regardless, you're right, if a vehicle is not 100% invincible, it must be crap
If it can be taken out in 1 shot by the guns on a dogfighter, is deployed with crap for visible AA, and its close support seems to be lacking ... yes.

Look most military targets require weapons designed specifically to take them out. The whole bloody concept of the A-10 is to provide close support because the guns on the fighter jets can't do it. It is further telling when you look at the size comparison. The fact that a ship which is designed to be light and agile can crush the thing does not bode well. If the enemy has any guns comparable to the X-wings you are not protected. However you are still a giant walking target.

Face it your whole critique comes down to this:
Some mystical THEB can be used against arty. We've never seen this, we know nothing about the cost or mass requirements of countermeasures ... but it MUST be effective.

Despite being nailed by a dogfighter, and not even with heavy weapons, it is more than appropriate to deploy this with no observed AA support (and the AT-AT itself can't fire behind itself), and close support that is either dead, prematurely dismissed, or was never there in TESB.

Good to see you restate your original position without modification.
When you say something of value I'll change it. Face the fact there is no reason to attack head on if you plan to harpoon the thing.

If you are going to attack head on why in hell are you running into a cross fire why not simply make your attack slightly to the left of one AT-AT (or the right, whichever) and prevent the cross fire from developing?

Obviously, your standard of military success is absolute perfection- every combat vehicle must be immune to tactics employed against it. No matter what anyone says, you'll be able to come up with a tactic to mitigate it- I can do the same thing with any vehicle you care to name.
The point is when modern militaries find a potentially lethal fault they take active measures to stop it. Which is why you want some type of real AA, for instance the Imperial AT-AA might have been prudent to deploy on Hoth. If you need close support, then it fires on infantry climibing on you.

These are BASIC things. Compotent combined arms tactics are called for, the imps did not exhibit these at Hoth (and the rebs were worse).

And A-10s can kill tanks. So what?
An A-10 is bigger than the tank. An A-10 was specifically designed to give close support support and wallows in the air. It in no way resembles a highly agile X-wing except the x-wing can kill a tank. Tell me when was the last time you saw an A-10 dogfight?

No, we do not. Your reference says nothing of the sort. Regardless, a reason for why star fighters weren't deployed by both sides, with fighters only flying with the shield down, while air speeders were isn't unreasonable.
Okay and the reason with evidential basis is?

Unless you're going for the vulnerable spots that your weaker blasters can't penetrate.
Seeing as it was EXPLICITLY STATED THEY WEREN'T ... red herring.

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Oldest sci-fi debating fallacy in the book: if it's not totally invincible, it's shit

That and: If it has flaws found on every real piece of equivalent or near equivalent weaponry it also sucks.

Maybe it's a good thing there aren't more films with non-fantasy battles, otherwise we'd hear more of "Yeah, those Abrams totally suck!! They had to deploy four of them to take over that base, and one got killed [disabled] by a measly shoulder-monuted weapon [in a critical spot]! Hell, they could have just sent 4 guys on horseback with sabres, so they could ride up alongside the tanks, open the top hatches, and kill the drivers!!!"

They will of course have never heard of a combat lock and then begin talking about mecha.

tharkûn wrote: I know enough to realize that if a T-72 could be killed by the Vulcan on an F-18, said T-72 is indeed crap. Look is the X-wing a dedicated ground attack weapon? No. Is it a sluggish heavy ass plane that fires such powerful shots it visibly recoils the plane? No.

False analogy. An F/A-18 whose primary weapon is its missiles compared to an X-Wing whose primary weapon is it's guns is hardly equivalent.

If an X-wing, primarily a dogfighter, can punch through AT-AT armor ... what do you think a dedicated AT craft similar to the A-10 would do to the AT-AT.

You're the one speculating now.

"Hobbie's attack ran from below the AT-AT's body up on the back , and at least one shot holed the fuel tank. Flaming fluid streamed down like a tail, then an explosion ripped the walker's back end open. The blast pitched the walker up into the air and through a somersault that landed it on its back."

It's too bad that if this incredibly brain dead, idiotic EU bullshit passage didn't exist, you would have no argument. Regardless, in March 1944 a German Pz.B-41 anti-tank rifle managed to penetrate the front lower hull of an IS-1. Needless to say, this was a freak occurence. I guess that means IS-1s can be killed by anything above oboselete ATRs.

Remind me again how that shot bounced off it. The obvious conclusion is that the "artillery" in TESB is weaker than an X-wing gun. That perhaps said artillerly was designed with AP use in mind and was pressed into AT service as a last ditch effort.

The P-Tower is an anti-armor weapon, says official evidence.

Ohh I'm sorry I missed your wealth of evidence showing that they were above the sheild. How does Deactivating the sheild so Tyridium can MOVE THROUGH IT weaken the arguement. Sheild are built to stop things from moving through a specific barrier.

Now you're being an idiot. You have no evidence that these ships were flying underneath a planetary shield whatsoever, especially considering STAR DESTROYERS are mentioned in that passage.

In any event I repeat my challenge:
You assert that a sheild means TIEs/ X-wings canoperate under it ... where is the proof?

You asser that the TIE fighters are above the sheild ... where is the proof?

Reasoning based on canon, until official evidence is found (I emailed Saxton and asked him). No spacecraft fly on Hoth unless the shield is down. Vader doesn't land directly at the Hoth base, until the shield is down. They spent time adapting T-47 speeders to the cold, which if they could just use X-Wings would be pretty dumb, no?

It is not like the AT-AT was overflown numerous times in TESB ... oh wait it was. It is not like every game Lucasfilm has put out makes it ludicriously easy to overfly to overfly an AT-AT ... oh wait it is. It is not like we don't have numerous instances of AT-AT's being overflown in official sources ... oh wait we do.

You ignored his point about X-Wing type guns. Try and be honest.

As far as infantry ... its called an angled shot. It is called shooting off of the high ground, a builing window, etc. There is nothing in the quote to suggest this is some magic angle of attack and the shot can be fired from the ground at a high angle. If you have some evidence ... let's hear it.

Actually, it's your burden of proof- you're the one trumpeting that vague idiotic quote. Please tell us where this magical fuel tank is (I don't see it anywhere on the ICS).

Anything with the firepower of a gun off a dogfighter. Hell take a bady damaged X-wing, rip the guns off, mount them onto a Hummer type chassis. But some camo paint and and whatever other stealth systems you like onboard ... viola.

Can be destroyed just like the other AT guns they deployed- the burden of proof is also on you to show how large such a system would be.

Honestly how hard is it to make land based gun with similar or superior firepower to a highly agile fighter?

I don't know, clearly that quote is retarded. Too bad it's official.

Right those shots that shread Reb fighters were fired with the same amount of firepower required to BDZ a planet

You love your strawmen don't you. The ICS says that the laser cannons of the Acclamator are 6 megatons. Concession Accepted.

The imps have no choices except to unleash a BDZ or not fire We never saw them disable a ship. We never saw them seek to use secondary guns to knock out ships. Despite hundreds of years of proven military use, the Imperial navy lacks the brains to have effective secondaries. The imps have never faced a situtuation that called for naval support, but not a please obliterate all life on the planet shot.

Stop being a retard, asshole.

Nothing in the reference says they are over it. I'm sorry I don't have a screen by screen shot of RotJ on my computer. Of course you might try to explain to me what proof you have that fighters are forced to be grounded when planetary sheilds are up ... oh wait you HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

Just canon speculation. Oh well.

On the PzH:
My apologies that should have read with rocket assisted shots (to avoid confusion with lower max ranges for unassisted shots).

17.3 km is low for the AT-AT's size, target profile, and tech level. Look over the specs for any arty peice that shoots 20 km, compare their size to that of the AT-AT. Compare their ability to shoot and scoot to that of the AT-AT. Now add into the mix that the AT-AT has access power and thrust that dwarfs anything currently on the market. It has crap for range compared to even simple naval guns (which for its mass an AT-AT should be able to sport).

It's an IFV. Not an SPG.

Bzzt wrong answer. Angling armor means a straight shot face armor which is facing effectively thicker armor for the most probable shot. If you shoot orthogonal the path through the armor is its thinnest. Shooting off that angle means you have to go through more armor to get through.
This is BASIC geometry.

Bzzzzzt. Sloping armor is effective against stopping KINETIC AP rounds by making sure they do not strike dead on, but are deflected by the sloping angle, reducing their penetration. Please provide evidence that energy weapons SW energy weapons follow this phenomennon.

If it can be taken out in 1 shot by the guns on a dogfighter, is deployed with crap for visible AA, and its close support seems to be lacking ... yes.

Continuing with your fallacious X-Wing=F/A-18 claim I see. What is the firepower of an X-Wing compared to the composite beam lasers of an LAAT, for example?

As for your 1 shot claim, I again refer you to the March 1944 IS-1 incident, and also point out that real warfare is not like combat in Red Alert. Vehicles don't have a health bar- they are either penetrated, or they are not.

Look most military targets require weapons designed specifically to take them out. The whole bloody concept of the A-10 is to provide close support because the guns on the fighter jets can't do it. It is further telling when you look at the size comparison. The fact that a ship which is designed to be light and agile can crush the thing does not bode well. If the enemy has any guns comparable to the X-wings you are not protected. However you are still a giant walking target.

Prove that an AT-AT can be destroyed by an X-Wings weapon at any range, from any angle of attack.

Face it your whole critique comes down to this:
Some mystical THEB can be used against arty. We've never seen this, we know nothing about the cost or mass requirements of countermeasures ... but it MUST be effective.

Liar. You have been provided with official evidence of lasers shooting down missiles.

Despite being nailed by a dogfighter, and not even with heavy weapons, it is more than appropriate to deploy this with no observed AA support (and the AT-AT itself can't fire behind itself), and close support that is either dead, prematurely dismissed, or was never there in TESB.

An X-Wings weapons aren't heavy? Have you ever seen ANH?

When you say something of value I'll change it. Face the fact there is no reason to attack head on if you plan to harpoon the thing.

In case you didn't notice, speeders were still performing gun strafes on them, despite Luke's encouragement to use harpoons and two cables.

If you are going to attack head on why in hell are you running into a cross fire why not simply make your attack slightly to the left of one AT-AT (or the right, whichever) and prevent the cross fire from developing?

Because then you couldn't get a top net shot from such an angle.

The point is when modern militaries find a potentially lethal fault they take active measures to stop it. Which is why you want some type of real AA, for instance the Imperial AT-AA might have been prudent to deploy on Hoth. If you need close support, then it fires on infantry climibing on you.

These are BASIC things. Compotent combined arms tactics are called for, the imps did not exhibit these at Hoth (and the rebs were worse).

I agree that more AA is needed.

An A-10 is bigger than the tank. An A-10 was specifically designed to give close support support and wallows in the air. It in no way resembles a highly agile X-wing except the x-wing can kill a tank. Tell me when was the last time you saw an A-10 dogfight?

No need to comment on this false analogy. See above.

Okay and the reason with evidential basis is?

I don't need an official source, especially one that claims fuel tanks throwing thousand ton combat vehicles up in the air, to hold my hand through everything. Why were T-47s being adapted to the cold when X-Wings could do the job? Why do we not see any fighters fly unless the shield was down?

Seeing as it was EXPLICITLY STATED THEY WEREN'T ... red herring.

What are you talking about?

Should've just read the damn ICS:

AT-TEs are effective at penetrating powerful energy shields. Walker movement uses simple surface traction, whereas the high-velocity exhausts that drive a speeder or startship are stifled by particle shields. Furthermore, flying craft can be damaged by energy discharges leaping from the ground at shield interfaces, but a walker's natural grounding provides invulerability against this effect.

Vympel wrote:

Bzzt wrong answer. Angling armor means a straight shot face armor which is facing effectively thicker armor for the most probable shot. If you shoot orthogonal the path through the armor is its thinnest. Shooting off that angle means you have to go through more armor to get through.

This is BASIC geometry.

Bzzzzzt. Sloping armor is effective against stopping KINETIC AP rounds by making sure they do not strike dead on, but are deflected by the sloping angle, reducing their penetration. Please provide evidence that energy weapons SW energy weapons follow this phenomennon.

You might also want to point out that when an object strikes a sloped surface, the sloped surface exerts reaction force roughly normal to its plane, hence you end up with vector addition adding a vertical component to its velocity and that's why it is more likely to ricochet off rather than penetrating. It's not just the thickness of the armour at that angle. Just a little more of that "BASIC geometry" he was trying to refer to but obviously hadn't studied.

tharkûn wrote: And the US could trash any of a dozens of armies without losing peice. Winning means you didn't lose. Tell me how many vehicles do you expect the US to lose against an army with small arms and artillerly peices weaker than the the vulcan on an F-18?

Vulcan won't bash though 6 inches of modern armor, which is a low-end estimate for how much that big blue ball went though. However if we create a better comparison with that many people with light weight anti tank rockets and some heavies, I'd expect quite a few disabled and destroyed tracks in a close range fight.

If the enemy has a THEB in their defenses. Of course we have never seen such a beast nor do we know how expensive a simply sheilding system for the shells.

We do know Personal shielding costs 5,000 credits and won't stop heavy blasters. A low-end star fighter costs about 40,000 for comparison. I doubt an even more miniature system that has similar strength requirements and much be able to take the stress and acceleration of being fired from a gun would be any cheaper.

With SW level of thrust and power generation lofting a heavy shell does not take a mammoth gun. Look at the thrust on Luke's X-wing or on the torpedo. Hell think about how much muzzle velocity you can get with SW level power flowing in a magnetic gun.

Somehow using a railgun gets rid of something called recoil and cooling requirements? That’s what makes artillery so big you know. You weren't by chance reading Dale Brown Warrior class, the one with the 1 pound mach 10 shells fired from infantry rifles where you?

I'm not seeing all that many walkers better off than the AT-AT. The AT-AA is the only one I'd really put much stock in. The "ultra-heavy walker" might not suffer from the relatively weak armor of the AT-AT but other than that most of them seem to be bipedal brain bugs. Bipedal mecha are inherently a bad idea for most applications.

Mecha are stupid in general. However with sufficiently advanced tech, above all shielding, they can be viable, a tank would just be far more effective by comparison.

This is why it is important to have something that gives close support. Either the Imperials don't have it, or they weren't using it worth beans when Luke scaled the walker.

There where AT-ST's about. A single downed pilot won't rate high on there list of targets though. More likely they where busy shooting down the speeders before they could repeat there two cable trick.

In Hoth both walkers that where lost died from clever tactics that will likely never work again.

The VC once knocked out several UH-1's in Veitnam by rigging claymore mines onto trees around the LZ and firing them all at once. But it never worked again as US tactics where adapted to counter the threat.

There is no need for a targeting system you can simply calculate the flight plan and when to fire. Now a cheap targeting system (as in a guns eye view - price tag nil) has its advantages, but it is not necessary.

Modern artillery must employ computers and sensors at the observer, battery and gun level to get its results.

I know enough to realize that if a T-72 could be killed by the Vulcan on an F-18, said T-72 is indeed crap. Look is the X-wing a dedicated ground attack weapon? No. Is it a sluggish heavy ass plane that fires such powerful shots it visibly recoils the plane? No.

Acutally you've shown you don't know shit. An F-18 has a M61 cannon as a minor secondary weapon, the A-10 has a far bigger GAU-8 as its primary. Interesting, the X-wing also uses big ass guns as its primary weapons.

The X-wing is a dogfighter, its primary heavy weapon is the proton torpedo, when its guns are fired they don't noticeably alter the trajectory of the craft. The closest analogue woud be something the F-18 which can fight for air supremacy while still carrying a decent payload against hard targets.

Neither do modern aerial guns. They might slow the plane a bit, but there not going to change the course. And the X-wings main weapon is its guns, not missiles. It's the reverse for a Hornet.

If an X-wing, primarily a dogfighter, can punch through AT-AT armor ... what do you think a dedicated AT craft similar to the A-10 would do to the AT-AT.

Destroy it most likely. Of course everything from a L-59 advanced trainer to a B-2 can destroy a
modern tank as well.

Umm most explosive warheads go boom if things screw up. Have you ever seen what happens when real explosive warheads cook off on the ground? Besides which why would you use magnetic containment when you can manipulate gravity?

Not easily however. Modern shell fillers are quite stable and must be heated to a high degree to exploded them or have the detonator activated. Detonators are kept removed until the rounds are needed. An anti matter shell will explode far far more readily no matter how you spin it.

It is not like the AT-AT was overflown numerous times in TESB ... oh wait it was. It is not like every game Lucasfilm has put out makes it ludicriously easy to overfly to overfly an AT-AT ... oh wait it is. It is not like we don't have numerous instances of AT-AT's being overflown in official sources ... oh wait we do.

Yes, by civilian spec speeders with light blasters hastly welded on. Might it be that the Imperials didn't really care, as the Speeders where known not to represent a threat? They won't got one walker, and only then via using a one off clever tactic.

Anything with the firepower of a gun off a dogfighter. Hell take a bady damaged X-wing, rip the guns off, mount them onto a Hummer type chassis. But some camo paint and and whatever other stealth systems you like onboard ... viola.

Nice big power signature to attract attention to it. You also assume a tiny 4x4 could support a kiloton range weapon normally mounted on an advanced starfighter. By that logic it should be easy to mount a GAU-8 on a real hummer, in reality it would be impossibul.

Honestly how hard is it to make land based gun with similar or superior firepower to a highly agile fighter?

Harder then you think. You'd need an M1 Abrams to haul around a GAU-8, and the A-10 can outturn any modern jet fighter.


.

On the PzH:
My apologies that should have read with rocket assisted shots (to avoid confusion with lower max ranges for unassisted shots).

That proves that your military knowledge is poor at best. Base Bleed and rocket assist are not the same damn thing.

17.3 km is low for the AT-AT's size, target profile, and tech level. Look over the specs for any arty peice that shoots 20 km, compare their size to that of the AT-AT. Compare their ability to shoot and scoot to that of the AT-AT. Now add into the mix that the AT-AT has access power and thrust that dwarfs anything currently on the market. It has crap for range compared to even simple naval guns (which for its mass an AT-AT should be able to sport).

The only piece of significant artillery that can fire on the move is Crusader, in its original incarnation. I don't know of any which can fire 16-kiloton shots while transporting a platoon of infantry.

Of course the AT-AT IS NOT A FUCKING ARTILLERY PIECE. It's a damn IFV, making your bullshit null and void.

I was going from canon. Regardless, you're right, if a vehicle is not 100% invincible, it must be crap
If it can be taken out in 1 shot by the guns on a dogfighter, is deployed with crap for visible AA, and its close support seems to be lacking ... yes.

In other words. "Every modern tank is crap in my fantasy land because aircraft weapons can destroy them".

I think that about sums it up. Your faked Knowledge of military matters has been shattered and flinging bullshit is your only hope.

tharkûn wrote:And the US could trash any of a dozens of armies without losing peice. Winning means you didn't lose. Tell me how many vehicles do you expect the US to lose against an army with small arms and artillerly peices weaker than the the vulcan on an F-18?

Quite possibly a rather large number. A Stryker (new armored vehicle) is currently vulnerable to 14.7mm HMGs, which are weaker than the Vulcan on an F-18. HMMWVs are even lighter armored.

The Dark wrote:So they should use grenades in close quarters combat, where the fragmentation will hit them too? THAT'S moronic deployment. Given the shield, and the apparent fact the ground pressure is required to physically pass through the shield, grenades would have been worse than useless. Besides, surely the Gungans could do a Roman turtle maneuver with their shields.

1. The Gungans don't have sufficient sheilds for a turtle maneuver.
2. If they try it use a mix of concussion/frag grenades so they get knocked on their asses ... then fragged.
3. This close quarters stuff is BS. We are talking an engagement range of *metres*. How many rows of droids fit between the sheild wall and the Gungan line?

Are you aware of the blast radius of modern grenades? The M26 hand grenade has a blast radius of 25 metres. That was Vietnam-era, and would be far weaker than a blaster bolt.

Well let's see it is a fixed target with known position. Then of course there is the same way just about every indirect fire system works ... use a forward observer.

And of course the shell will fire its beam perfectly on target without a targeting system. Come on, use that piece of meat on your shoulders. Any gun (like your "artillery shell with a laser") requires some sort of targeting system, whether Eyeball Mk I or phased radar arrays.

The Dark wrote:So the Russian T-72 is crap because an A-10 can destroy it with its cannon? How little do you really know about military tactics and technology?

I know enough to realize that if a T-72 could be killed by the Vulcan on an F-18, said T-72 is indeed crap. Look is the X-wing a dedicated ground attack weapon? No. Is it a sluggish heavy ass plane that fires such powerful shots it visibly recoils the plane? No.

I see. So our Abrams is also crap, as are many naval vessels. Armored vehicles generally are not intended to be armored up top, because they battle ground threats, and added mass up top decreases stability and the armor that can be placed against ground threats.

The Dark wrote:It's possible that they couldn't get a targeting lock on the generator while the shield was up.

Newsflash you don't need a target lock against every target. It is a large, stationary target. Once you have a firing solution it works EVERY TIME.

And we have what evidence that they knew the exact location of the shield generator before Veers and his crew saw it? Oh, that's right...NONE. Prove that the ISD can lock its weapons on in a handful of seconds against a white target on a snowfield that is not emitting energy at the time and may or may not be significantly warmer than the surrounding area.

[quote="The Dark"Wow...TIE fighters can fly outside a shield (no proof that they are under it), yet they had to DEACTIVATE the shield for the shuttle to dock...you just weakened your OWN POINT.

Ohh I'm sorry I missed your wealth of evidence showing that they were above the sheild. How does Deactivating the sheild so Tyridium can MOVE THROUGH IT weaken the arguement. Sheild are built to stop things from moving through a specific barrier.[/quote]I'm sorry I missed your argument that the TIEs and Star Destroyers were under the shield.

An A-10 is bigger than the tank. An A-10 was specifically designed to give close support support and wallows in the air. It in no way resembles a highly agile X-wing except the x-wing can kill a tank. Tell me when was the last time you saw an A-10 dogfight?

When a single A-10 defeated FOUR F-16 Falcons in wargames. Seems rather impressive for an airplane that "wallows" to outfight what is considered the most maneuverable Western fighter in service.

Tharkun seems to have some mighty unrealistic notions about how easily one can destroy a km-long shield generator facility.

Mike, what the fuck is an AT-SE?

I think they mean AT-TE, which was the six legged walker in AotC. I could be wrong.

All-Terrain Tactical Enforcer, IIRC

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:I think they mean AT-TE, which was the six legged walker in AotC. I could be wrong.

It was just a typo- AT-TE

I want someone to come up with photos of the Empire's AT-HE (All Terrain Heavy Enforcer) mentioned in passing in the ICS.

Jesus Christ, is Tharkun deliberately trying to enlarge his posts and make them difficult to read? He must have gone to the RSA school of "complicating a debate for others."