StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So walkers are sort of the "shock troopers" of armored vehicles? They rush in to achieve an immediate goal and then other forces go in to mop up? Then why would they have so many AT-ATs, but so little AT-STs in Bilzzard Force? Needless to say, a massive swarm of AT-STs could have probably got within firing range of the shield generator and destroyed or disabled it before General Veers' AT-AT did. Or is it that all but one AT-ST seen in TESB are off-screen? Or is it simply that the snowspeeders would have been able to easily pick them off?

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Needless to say, a massive swarm of AT-STs could have probably got within firing range of the shield generator and destroyed or disabled it before General Veers' AT-AT did. Or is it that all but one AT-ST seen in TESB are off-screen? Or is it simply that the snowspeeders would have been able to easily pick them off?

Probably a slew of reasons. The AT-STs are open-cockpit. Modifying them for extreme cold weather may not be simple or logistically efficient. AT-STs rely on short-lived power cells. Endurance may not have favored modified AT-STs on the trek toward the generator. AT-STs, especially modified ones, suffer more maintanence headaches due to being bipedal. The lighter AT-STs were more likely to be destroyed by Rebel fire which both could've resulted in more limited deployment and in more actually being destroyed than AT-ATs. Then of course, more AT-STs could be "off-screen" or lagging behind while the AT-ATs soaked up the futile frontal fire, and moving up against for support and escort of AT-ATs and disemarked troops once the shield, the trenches, and most of the speeders were neutralized. And of course, the AT-ST's meager armament was incompetant to harm the shield generator.

Shields vs. repulsorlifts/aircraft -
I find it extremely silly that the Empire did not make a ground-touching vehicle (wheel carriage?) to bring TIE Fighters under the shield. That would have made the Hoth battle a LOT easier.
The same stays true for repulsorlifts, as they can be brought in by simply putting them on a wheel carriage.
The "speed" of AT-AT "shock" troops is 60 kmph, while the TIE can have 1200 kmph. Now isnt' that silly - not to bring under the shield the small TIE FIghters at least? Even larger TIE Bombers are not a hard trick - just put them on top of a Juggernaut, they're not really that big
So why such a hard "walker-only" operation? TMM, the Imperials were either a bit dumb, or a bit overconfident, or whatever. Or the TIE Fighter is atmosphere incapable. And the Imps didn't have any aircraft, while the Rebels had lots of snowspeeders & some X-wings (atmosphere-capable). Silly.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Probably a slew of reasons. The AT-STs are open-cockpit.

The pilots prefer to keep the shutters open, but they don't need to- the original ICS says that viewscreens and holoprojectors allow the AT-ST to see ahead and behind at the same time- the device in between the two shutters is apparently the "forward sensor". Two green-hued screens in a smaller illustration of the cockpit may fulfill the function of display, but of course they probably don't match just looking through the window yourself.

Gil Hamilton wrote:The Rebel's snowspeeders didn't get fried by the Hoth shield when they went flying around looking for Luke and Han, or for that matter the floating probedroid that not only entered the shield but got close enough to the shield generator to take a picture of it to broadcast back to Vader.

1. The shield wasn't always up, it was only raised once the Imperial Fleet was detected, so.
2. The Probe Droid never encountered a shield of any kind.
3. We don't know the reach of the shield or wheter Luke was outside it, and as said in point 1 anyway the shield wasn't raised at all until the Imperials where detected so it would not have been a problem.

Stas Bush wrote:I find it extremely silly that the Empire did not make a ground-touching vehicle (wheel carriage?) to bring TIE Fighters under the shield. That would have made the Hoth battle a LOT easier

TIEs require dedicated launching facilities according to SW ICS. While the thought of a mated walker-TIE-carrier carrying specialized TIEs is fascinating (something to go in a future fanfic with the Marines attacking a theatre-shielded Rebel base, for certain), apparently the Empire ruled it out for cost and overspecialization, or it just never occured to them.

Wheels are out--mines.

Stas Bush wrote:The same stays true for repulsorlifts, as they can be brought in by simply putting them on a wheel carriage.

Mines.

Stas Bush wrote:The "speed" of AT-AT "shock" troops is 60 kmph, while the TIE can have 1200 kmph.

You just admitted that repulsorlift vehicles and TIEs couldn't fly under the shield. Do you think the aerodynamic bricks of TIE fighters would be so effective against snowspeeders, and Rebel laser batteries? It was the armor of the AT-AT which carried the day.

Stas Bush wrote:Now isnt' that silly - not to bring under the shield the small TIE FIghters at least? Even larger TIE Bombers are not a hard trick - just put them on top of a Juggernaut, they're not really that big

You're clearly not thinking. The entire problem was the dangerous shield perimeters are quite easy to mine. Ender worked out the calculations, but where a wheeled or tracked vehicle will get almost all of a 1 kiloton mine directly into its chassis, the AT-AT will recieve less than a blaster bolts across her chassis.

Stas Bush wrote:So why such a hard "walker-only" operation? TMM, the Imperials were either a bit dumb, or a bit overconfident, or whatever.

Mines and shield discharges. I said area effect weaponry used to clear a path through the minefields would work, but then you have to land that extra weaponry, take all the time to clear a wide-enough channel, and then you need superior forces, because it is quite easy for your enemy to slaughter you in such a narrow bottleneck, and you still don't have air support. During all that time, the Rebels and before them, Seperatists would have ample time to prepare a token defense or plan a thorough escape. The idea is to get through ASAP and stop them.

Stas Bush wrote:Or the TIE Fighter is atmosphere incapable. And the Imps didn't have any aircraft, while the Rebels had lots of snowspeeders & some X-wings (atmosphere-capable). Silly.

The snowspeeders were mostly ineffective, and TIEs are bricks in the atmosphere, not to mention there's no facilities to take them on a walker chassis. 'fraid you can't just glue on the legs.

Illuminatus Primus,

TIEs require dedicated launching facilities according to SW ICS

Point. But then, WHY did the Empire have NO other atmospheric craft?

Wheels are out--mines

OK, point.

Do you think the aerodynamic bricks of TIE fighters would be so effective against snowspeeders

TIE shield repelled 3 bolts from Falcon's guns, one of which was a hit, the snowspeeder mostly did not withstand the AT-AT guns even for 1 hit (aren't they puny in comparison with starship guns?).

the AT-AT will recieve less than a blaster bolts across her chassis

Dedicated walker carriages, must have some of those.

The snowspeeders were mostly ineffective

Accounting for loss of 1 AT-AT of the Blizzard force at least, well that's nice for the Empire which has lots of people, armor and tech, but still quite bad. (edit: the ESB novel ramming was rejected by LFL)

and TIEs are bricks in the atmosphere

Not so, TMM. In the Force Commander movie the TIE Bombers were more than capable of atmospheric maneuvers (and the Y-wings used by rebels, too). TIEs did not lose maneuvrability or speed when they chased the Falcon in ESB, as well. What makes you think TIEs are so bad?

not to mention there's no facilities to take them on a walker chassis

Theatre and planetary shields known to be used, why not make some?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:<snip>

Don't you understand? That charge would damn an AT-ST. Think about it. It's just like a lightning storm. There is a huge potential caused between the static charge caused by the shield (clouds create a similar static charge by friction) and the ground. The electricity wants to jump between the gap and get to the ground, but it can't, because it doesn't have quite enough potential. Now, electricity, like most things in physics, takes the path of least resistance. This is why lightning always strikes tall things that conduct, since there is a smaller gap and it can move easier along, say, metal than wood. This incidently is also why they say you shouldn't take cover under trees during thunderstorms. Lightning rods and grounding strips make use of this principle. They set up a low resistance path to ground, where the electricity has a stiffy to get to, so the electricity goes through it, rather than, say your house or tender body. Likewise a grounding strip may put you in series with an absurdly large resistant load (like a 1 MOhm resistor, for instance), making electricity want to have nothing to do with you. So we have this huge amount of static electricity and it wants nothing more to get to the ground. It can't do it, not enough potential.

Enter the AT-ST. This is exactly what the electric charge was waiting for. Between it and it's destination is something that makes it's life alot easier. One, it's pretty tall, so the electric has to go much less distance through uncooperative air. Secondly, it's made primarily out of metal, meaning that it's a conductor. Thirdly, it's relatively thin and has an edge on top, which is something that electricity digs. Not as much as a point on top, but better than a rounded surface. The electricity takes one look and goes "THAT'S BRISK BABY!" and jumps to the AT-ST, then to the ground, just like a lightning rod.

Now, a lightning rod will save your house from a hit, but what happens if you are the lightning rod? Suddenly, you've got stupid amounts of current shooting through your body. This heats you up amongst other things, which is why trees explode when they are hit, because the water in them boils violently. Secondly, if your "lightning rod" happens to have sensitive electronics in it, you might as well kiss them goodbye because that kind of induced current is going to be blowing components all over the place. You can see where I'm going with this. Oddly enough, the pilots might survive relatively unharmed (assuming the fall to the ground doesn't hurt them), because the electricity doesn't give a rat's ass about them when it's got a big metal path to shoot through, but the AT-ST itself is going to be in deep shit.

In short, an AT-ST walking between the sort of potential difference between shield and the ground is going to turn it into a giant lightning rod. Which is a tremendously bad thing for it to be, especially given StarWars systems lack of robustness in the face of such things, given how vulnerable they are to ion cannons.

Get my drift?

Stas Bush wrote:Point. But then, WHY did the Empire have NO other atmospheric craft?

I haven't the faintest fucking clue. They should've kept the LAAT/i, but we see it replaced by Lambda-class shuttles and the XG-1 Assault Gunboat.

Stas Bush wrote:TIE shield repelled 3 bolts from Falcon's guns, one of which was a hit, the snowspeeder mostly did not withstand the AT-AT guns even for 1 hit (aren't they puny in comparison with starship guns?)

Do not manufacture contradictions between the EU and movies. The fact that TIE sentries at the Death Star were equipped with shields does not mean that all TIEs everywhere, have shields.

Stas Bush wrote:Dedicated walker carriages, must have some of those.

Huh?

Stas Bush wrote:Accounting for loss of 1 AT-AT of the Blizzard force at least, well that's nice for the Empire which has lots of people, armor and tech, but still quite bad. (edit: the ESB novel ramming was rejected by LFL)

The ramming still occured (as a result, Veers was maimed and paralyzed from the waist-down). The downing of the first AT-AT was pure luck and inginuity by Rogue Squadron.

Stas Bush wrote:Not so, TMM. In the Force Commander movie the TIE Bombers were more than capable of atmospheric maneuvers (and the Y-wings used by rebels, too). TIEs did not lose maneuvrability or speed when they chased the Falcon in ESB, as well. What makes you think TIEs are so bad?

Because they're aerodynamically piss-poor. Do not strawman my argument. My point was dedicated aircraft such as snowspeeders would outperform totally unaerodynamic craft like TIEs, not that they were physically incapable of flight.

Stas Bush wrote:Theatre and planetary shields known to be used, why not make some?

Because they didn't feel it worth it? Who knows. All I know is they didn't.

Gil Hamilton wrote:*snip*

Given that these walkers are canonically the solution to the problems of charges, and only when the shield is "loaded" with extreme excess energy does it leap to things as short as trees. THAT IS THE CANON REALITY.

I'd imagine it requires a taller craft, such as a repulsorlift vehicle or an aircraft or fighter. The airspeeder itself is not as negatively or positively charged as the top of the theatre shield--the discharge is to the vehicle, not a go-between for the vehicle and the ground.

Repulsorlift vehicles trying to fly at the same height as walker chassis will require just as much armor but without a locomotive drive system, instead taxing the repulsorlift vehicle.

[i]Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections[/i], by Dr. Curtis Saxton, Ph.D., page 28 wrote:Incisive Vanguard
AT-TEs are effective at penetrating powerful energy shields. Walker movment uses simple surface traction, whereas the high-velocity exhausts which drive a speeder or starship 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 groundingprovides invulnerability against this effect. AT-TEs are also well-shielded against electromagnetic pulse weapons and ion cannon fire.

The text hints that Saxton believes theatre shields meet the ground, and a vehicle or aircraft imposed between the shield termination and the ground surface will be destroyed without grounding. I derive this from intent and from the particle shield bit. At the very least, this means no aircraft or TIEs regardless, because they'll lose propulsion while flying through the shield rim.

[i]Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections[/i], by Dr. Curtis Saxton, Ph.D., page 28 wrote:Effective Design
The AT-TE's combination of frontal and rear defensive guns makes it less vulnerable to close attakcs. In years to come, the success of the AT-TE will lead to havier designs, such as the towering AT-AT and AT-HE (All Terrain Heavy Enforcer) walkers. These craft will incorporate hulls raised above the reach of exploding mines, and greater vantage for their energy weapons.

A question, IP, for my own curiousity. Did you find anything scientifically wrong with my post above? Because you didn't actually address any of it. You never said why you thought that the AT-ST wouldn't act like a lightning rod.

Don't know if IP did, but I did. Specifically this.

Gil Hamilton wrote:This incidently is also why they say you should take cover under trees during thunderstorms.

You should never, ever, no matter what, take cover underneath single trees or small groups of trees during a thunderstorm because lightning will strike the tree and the tree will promptly blow up. No exaggeration. They do explode.

You likely meant to write "shouldn't," but you didn't.

Rogue 9 wrote:You should never, ever, no matter what, take cover underneath single trees or small groups of trees during a thunderstorm because lightning will strike the tree and the tree will promptly blow up. No exaggeration. They do explode.

You likely meant to write "shouldn't," but you didn't.

You nitpicked a typo, one that I make all the time. I even said in my post that trees explode when they get hit by lightning, due the the water in them violently expanding from being heated that quickly. Is the best you can do is nitpick typos or do you have a real complaint?

EDIT: I fixed the typo, happy?

Ender wrote:A repulser craft isn't grounded Gil. It would get fried by the static discharge from the atmospheric ionization the shield would be creating.

So why not bring them in on a truck?

Rev Prez

Gil Hamilton wrote:A question, IP, for my own curiousity. Did you find anything scientifically wrong with my post above? Because you didn't actually address any of it. You never said why you thought that the AT-ST wouldn't act like a lightning rod.

Because discharges in official examples only connected to objects at the AT-ST's height and even taller when it was being "loaded" by a massive turbolaser and ion cannon barrage of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

The enormous charge gradient must still be not enough for random discharges to objects of natural height. The danger must be for even higher-flying objects.

Or, you are right, but the original model I proposed is wrong, and it actually has more to do with physical ground contact, and superimposing between the shield and ground-termination that somehow is catastrophic. That only objects with grounding can penetrate shields. That's increasingly the vibe I get.

revprez wrote:

Ender wrote:A repulser craft isn't grounded Gil. It would get fried by the static discharge from the atmospheric ionization the shield would be creating.

So why not bring them in on a truck?

Rev Prez

Mines. As for why no one brings them in on a walker chassis, good question. Perhaps they simply thought it was overly complex.

Gil Hamilton wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:You should never, ever, no matter what, take cover underneath single trees or small groups of trees during a thunderstorm because lightning will strike the tree and the tree will promptly blow up. No exaggeration. They do explode.

You likely meant to write "shouldn't," but you didn't.

You nitpicked a typo, one that I make all the time. I even said in my post that trees explode when they get hit by lightning, due the the water in them violently expanding from being heated that quickly. Is the best you can do is nitpick typos or do you have a real complaint?

EDIT: I fixed the typo, happy?

I normally wouldn't have nitpicked it, but you did ask.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Because discharges in official examples only connected to objects at the AT-ST's height and even taller when it was being "loaded" by a massive turbolaser and ion cannon barrage of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

The enormous charge gradient must still be not enough for random discharges to objects of natural height. The danger must be for even higher-flying objects.

Or, you are right, but the original model I proposed is wrong, and it actually has more to do with physical ground contact, and superimposing between the shield and ground-termination that somehow is catastrophic. That only objects with grounding can penetrate shields. That's increasingly the vibe I get.

Physical ground contact won't save you. Trees are as grounded as you can get, much more so than any vehicle and they can and do get hit by lightning, for reasons I described above (they make it easier for potential energy to jump between the static of the clouds and the ground). And wood isn't particularly a very conductive substance, meaning it's not sexy to electricity. Unlike steel, I might add, which is a pretty conductive substance. When we've seen AT-STs go under shields, it was at Hoth. On an ice covered plain, with no tall objects, that AT-ST is going to be the tallest thing around, not to mention having characteristics that would make it attractive to an electrical discharge. We are talking about massive vehicle smashing super lightning, if I'm reading you right. That sort of charge would have a huge potential. At least as much as lightning from storms (considering that lightning from storms have been known to hit trees and people, even though neither make good lightning rods). Why wouldn't that electricity jump to a giant metal robot, touching the ground or not? Explain this please.

revprez wrote:Mines. As for why no one brings them in on a walker chassis, good question. Perhaps they simply thought it was overly complex.

Proximity mines are just as deadly to a truck as they are a mecha. In fact, a tank, being low to the ground and more heavily armored, would be much more likely to survive an explosion than a chicken walker with rather thin legs.

Gil Hamilton wrote:*snip*

Like I said, I'm beginning to think it has less to do with thunderstorm-style charge gradients and more to do with something more exotic. Either way, the ICS must be correct.

revprez wrote:Proximity mines are just as deadly to a truck as they are a mecha. In fact, a tank, being low to the ground and more heavily armored, would be much more likely to survive an explosion than a chicken walker with rather thin legs.

Curtis Saxton and canon disagree. As does Ender and his calcs.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Like I said, I'm beginning to think it has less to do with thunderstorm-style charge gradients and more to do with something more exotic. Either way, the ICS must be correct.

No matter what causes the static charge, it's still a static charge, which behaves with specific and very well understood rules. And incidently, what exactly is a "thunderstorm-style charge gradient"? I mean this gently, but it sounds like you are just making stuff up. I'm familiar with stuff like potential difference and the like, but I've never heard of that. Google hasn't either.

Anyway, this is boarding on dogma here. Parts of the ICS books have been rejected due to rampant silliness before (such as the panels on the sides of TIE fighters being solar panels that power the craft), yet we must now call them inerrent and perfect? What happened to critical thinking?

Curtis Saxton and canon disagree. As does Ender and his calcs.

But why? I'm trying to keep this as low key and friendly a debate as I can, but one thing that boils my bottom is when people resort to dogma rather than defend their position with good reasons. Please explain why a vehicle with an extremely low center of balance and covered in armor would be more vulnerable to explosives than a chicken-mech with an extremely high center of balance with long spindly legs and little armor. In fact, I dare you to go into HAB and make that claim. I'm sure the tank brigade would find it absolutely hilarious, before they crucified you as a traitor.

Gil Hamilton wrote:*snip*

Firstly, I came up with the thunderstorm analogy to explain the ICS. Its probably wrong. Again though, I point out that ridges, mountains, and the ICS say that even with that potential difference, there's usually not energy discharges with the lower-walkers. Do you have compulsive evidence that because it will fry repulsorlifts hundreds of meters above the ground, that it must fry the AT-ST? But as I said, it could be wrong.

Taken strictly, all it says is there are "energy discharges" associated with non-grounded vehicles at shield interfaces. It might not have to do with potential at all.

Secondly, you cannot prove that TIE panels have no solar energy-gathering capacity. You can certainly assert they don't drive the fighter, but you can't throw it out entirely.

Gil Hamilton wrote:But why? I'm trying to keep this as low key and friendly a debate as I can, but one thing that boils my bottom is when people resort to dogma rather than defend their position with good reasons. Please explain why a vehicle with an extremely low center of balance and covered in armor would be more vulnerable to explosives than a chicken-mech with an extremely high center of balance with long spindly legs and little armor. In fact, I dare you to go into HAB and make that claim. I'm sure the tank brigade would find it absolutely hilarious, before they crucified you as a traitor.

Because mines which are designed to be set-off by tanks are much less likely to be done-so by walkers due to foot area, and even if the mine does blow up under the walker--the tank will absorb 1 kiloton of upwardly focused energy. Ouch. The AT-AT's belly will absorb less energy over its surface than blaster bolts, due to proximity to the ground. The mine explosion's energy density is much lower once it envelops a target 30 meters off the ground.

Personally, I think that the AT-ST was a cost-cutting deal. The Grand Army originally designed the very well armored and armed AT-XT as her scout/support walker. The AT-ST was designed to replace it.

Most likely, the AT-AT is designed to pave through a minefield, detonating any it steps on, and AT-STs are supposed to follow their trails in. However, the density of mine coverage and the possibility of more undetonated mines makes it still too dangerous for wheeled or tracked armor.

I'm trying to come up with explanations without giving the finger to canon materials. Are you just going to bitch, or do you have alternative explanations?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Firstly, I came up with the thunderstorm analogy to explain the ICS. Its probably wrong. Again though, I point out that ridges, mountains, and the ICS say that even with that potential difference, there's usually not energy discharges with the lower-walkers. Do you have compulsive evidence that because it will fry repulsorlifts hundreds of meters above the ground, that it must fry the AT-ST? But as I said, it could be wrong.

I made the assumption that if powerful static charges can and do hit objects like trees and people, then an even more powerful vehicle wreaking monster charge would jump to an even more attractive target like an AT-ST. I don't see how this is unreasonable.

[quoteTaken strictly, all it says is there are "energy discharges" associated with non-grounded vehicles at shield interfaces. It might not have to do with potential at all.[/quote]
I'm going by Ender's statement that they work by the shield generating significant amounts of static electricity due to interaction with it's environment. Sort of like how storm clouds produce large amounts of static electricity via friction. Not the same thing, but static electricity is static electricity.

Secondly, you cannot prove that TIE panels have no solar energy-gathering capacity. You can certainly assert they don't drive the fighter, but you can't throw it out entirely.

Well, if we assume that the ICS books are perfect and inerrant and pure, then we have to assume that the TIE fighters are powered by those solar panels, no matter how silly that is. On Mike's Suspension of Disbelief page, however, the idea is wholly rejected as New Republic proaganda, because solar panels couldn't possibly produce the amount of energy we know TIE fighters need, because solar panels only produce as much power as they receive from radiation.

Gil Hamilton wrote:Because mines which are designed to be set-off by tanks are much less likely to be done-so by walkers due to foot area, and even if the mine does blow up under the walker--the tank will absorb 1 kiloton of upwardly focused energy. Ouch. The AT-AT's belly will absorb less energy over its surface than blaster bolts, due to proximity to the ground. The mine explosion's energy density is much lower once it envelops a target 30 meters off the ground.

That's why I said proximity mines. They don't need to be stepped on to explode. I want to know how you expect the AT-STs spindly legs to be able to take more punishment than the armored side/bottom of a tank.

Personally, I think that the AT-ST was a cost-cutting deal. The Grand Army originally designed the very well armored and armed AT-XT as her scout/support walker. The AT-ST was designed to replace it.

Most likely, the AT-AT is designed to pave through a minefield, detonating any it steps on, and AT-STs are supposed to follow their trails in. However, the density of mine coverage and the possibility of more undetonated mines makes it still too dangerous for wheeled or tracked armor.

You still haven't explained how the AT-STs legs are more durable and less vulnerable to explosions that an armored vehicle like a tank. Do you honestly think that if a bomb goes off next to an AT-ST, it's going to handle it better than a MBT made with the same technology?

I'm trying to come up with explanations without giving the finger to canon materials. Are you just going to bitch, or do you have alternative explanations?

Then prove your dedication. I want to see you go into the Heavy Armor Brigade forum and post a thread claiming that you think that chicken-walker mecha is much more protected and less vulnerable to bombs exploding under/next to it than a tank made with the same level of technology. If you are so sure about the superiority of mechas over tanks that you are willing to fight with me over this, you should have no trouble at all preventing the tankers from ripping your idea to shreds.

*slaps IP with a leather glove and drops it in front of him*

I challenge you, Sir! Prove your mettle!

Illuminatus Primus,

The fact that TIE sentries at the Death Star were equipped with shields does not mean that all TIEs everywhere, have shields

Oh what, I did not claim that. But shields can be equipped, which means nothing could prevent the Empire from having shielded atmospheric craft. Especially on board the ISDs of the elite (!) Death Squadron.

Huh?

Sorry. Walker chassis. To carry aircraft. If that walker stuff is really serious.

The ramming still occured (as a result, Veers was maimed and paralyzed from the waist-down).

The NECG is so lame... And what about Hobbie then? What were they thinking about?

Surviving the Battle of Hoth, Klivian went on to fly with Wedge Antilles in the Battle of Endor. He continued to serve with the legendary Rogue Squadron for years after the destruction of the second Death Star

Silly.

My point was dedicated aircraft such as snowspeeders would outperform totally unaerodynamic craft like TIEs

Yeah, probably they would, but that will not be relevant since the snowspeeder will not be able to cause TIEs, if shielded, any damage.

All I know is they didn't

That would only make sense if the use of walkers was cheaper and more effective than use of aviation. Which is disputable, although my point is that AFVs are cheaper than air support. In SW, of course.

Gil Hamilton wrote:I made the assumption that if powerful static charges can and do hit objects like trees and people, then an even more powerful vehicle wreaking monster charge would jump to an even more attractive target like an AT-ST. I don't see how this is unreasonable.

We don't know how SW shields work, but we can say that they are unlike any electrical device we know today. The fact is that walking battledroids were able to push their way through the Gungan theatre shield in TPM while the hovertanks were forced to stay outside. Ergo, a walker is apparently able to breach SW theatre shields while a hovertank cannot. It is reasonable to conclude that the prime distinction of walkers (the fact that they touch the ground) is the key ingredient.

Darth Wong wrote:We don't know how SW shields work, but we can say that they are unlike any electrical device we know today. The fact is that walking battledroids were able to push their way through the Gungan theatre shield in TPM while the hovertanks were forced to stay outside. Ergo, a walker is apparently able to breach SW theatre shields while a hovertank cannot. It is reasonable to conclude that the prime distinction of walkers (the fact that they touch the ground) is the key ingredient.

Well, that could easily be a problem with how the Battledroids engaged the battle. They lined up in a big human wave and marched rank and file in front of their tanks (which had taken more of an artillery role) into the Gungan battleline. Their battle tanks couldn't have moved into the shield without running over the Battledroids. It doesn't make much sense as a tactic and it was very fortunate that the Gungans didn't possess anything like E-Webs, but that's a different thread.

Incidently, I'm still going by Ender's original assertation that shields build up tremendous static charges via ionizing the air around them, ones powerful enough that they produce super death lightning powerful enough to destroy StarWars vehicles. His description being correct, then touching the ground wouldn't be very useful in protecting against discharges, unless I've made some scientific snafu that I'm sure you'll bluntly correct.

Besides, even with touching the ground being necessary, why use a chicken-walker mecha? Mines have been brought up, but I would think that a mine/bomb going off next to something with two thin legs would be more damaging than it would for a tank. Plus, they have all the problems with mechas that you are so famous for being disgusted with in other franchises. They greatly add the complexity and parts of a vehicle without significantly adding performance. The ICS entry on AT-STs itself says that the AT-ST requires an elaborate set of sensors, shocks, navigational computers, and gyros, along with an expert pilot feeding it constant input, to keep them erect. They also have a very high center of gravity and seem to be built fairly light.

Gil Hamilton wrote:Incidently, I'm still going by Ender's original assertation that shields build up tremendous static charges via ionizing the air around them, ones powerful enough that they produce super death lightning powerful enough to destroy StarWars vehicles. His description being correct, then touching the ground wouldn't be very useful in protecting against discharges, unless I've made some scientific snafu that I'm sure you'll bluntly correct.

To be brutally simple about it, if the description of the shield is correct, a hovering vehicle in contact with the shield is more likely to form a ground loop than one that is in conductive contact with the shield's common ground. Apparantly, the voltage drop across the body of a hovertank would produce a large enough current to do some damage.

Rev Prez