Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Closer to two feet by one, or 65-70 x 30-35 cms. Likely a maintenance hatch and possibly not for humans.Howedar wrote:If I remember correctly, it was probably three feet by two. Quite large enough to squeeze out of.
Actually i always tought it was quite obvious a hatch slide open. Never tought the underbelly would be weak (wouldnt make any sense make the underbelly of a how-many-metres high walker weak)Darth Wong wrote:Just an interesting observation from TESB. Not sure if anyone's noticed this before, but it is a widely held belief that AT-AT underbelly armour is extremely weak because Luke cut through it so easily.
One small problem: he didn't. If you carefully watch that scene, he does not cut through anything; he hits some kind of control device and you can see the hatch slide open on its own. Watch that scene carefully.
Just something to keep in mind the next time somebody talks about feeble AT-AT underbelly armour. The principal evidence used in support of this claim is being misrepresented.
Well, let's just say that it's a persistent claim.wautd wrote:Actually i always tought it was quite obvious a hatch slide open. Never tought the underbelly would be weak (wouldnt make any sense make the underbelly of a how-many-metres high walker weak)
ITs only an "Achilles heel" if the enemy happens to have a grappling hook, and that enemy happens to have a Lightsaber, and that enemy also has a heavy thermal dotonator.Murazor wrote:I had noticed too that the hatch opened itself. I agree: it would be stupid to make the underbelly of the AT-AT unarmoured (however, it seems that the AT-AT shares the stupid "Achilles heel" flaw seen way too often in sci-fi).
The AT-AT is designed I suppose to attack big ground defenses were the presence of artillery is almost a certainty. I suppose that the possibility of the underbelly region being open to fire from enemy batteries is small, but I think that the retractable hatch would be a lot safer in the back of the walker, which offers a very small target profile to any enemy (in the event of attack from the rearguard).Isolder74 wrote:ITs only an "Achilles heel" if the enemy happens to have a grappling hook, and that enemy happens to have a Lightsaber, and that enemy also has a heavy thermal dotonator.
how often is that ever going to happen?
What are you talking about? The hatch itself wouldn't be any smaller if it was on the back, so what difference does it make how big the entire face is? Moreover, the hatch in its current location is protected by the armour skirt, so you have to get very close to the walker in order to tag the lock (with a weapon that can melt blast doors, mind you), and then you still have to lob something inside. If it was on the back of the walker, you could hit it from very far away.Murazor wrote:The AT-AT is designed I suppose to attack big ground defenses were the presence of artillery is almost a certainty. I suppose that the possibility of the underbelly region being open to fire from enemy batteries is small, but I think that the retractable hatch would be a lot safer in the back of the walker, which offers a very small target profile to any enemy (in the event of attack from the rearguard).
Well... I suppose that melting blast doors it is possible for Rebel artillery. Anyway, although the location of that thing strikes me at odd, I won't argue with those with more knowledge than I in that field.Darth Wong wrote:What are you talking about? The hatch itself wouldn't be any smaller if it was on the back, so what difference does it make how big the entire face is? Moreover, the hatch in its current location is protected by the armour skirt, so you have to get very close to the walker in order to tag the lock (with a weapon that can melt blast doors, mind you), and then you still have to lob something inside. If it was on the back of the walker, you could hit it from very far away.