StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Wait all I'm getting is a black bar were the video should be. just in case you guys get that to hears a link to the trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frdj1zb9sMY

What I like about this trailer is that it seems genuinely different than the OT while still using the same general appearance of things. As opposed to the remake style of TFA.

Meest wrote:Looking better, just one part really has my Mary Sue alerts going. The TIE fighter hovering in front of Jyn, she better not go 1on1 with a TIE with a blaster pistol and win. Guess one more thing is they don't seem to be doing much spying or infiltrating so far, would think it would be dangerous to be this overt an operation.

That part isn't as visually interesting for a trailer, but I suspect there is plenty of it as they recruit the team. Though if you wanted subdued espionage, don't watch Star Wars. Any genre crossover in Star Wars always involves blasters.

As for Jyn vs the TIE, I suspect something else will occur rather than having her take it out directly. Or it will be a question of surviving rather than winning. Which also seems to be the case against the AT-ATs.

Adam Reynolds wrote:Or it will be a question of surviving rather than winning. Which also seems to be the case against the AT-ATs.

Speaking of which, have we ever seen anything in SW canon like the shoulder-launched missile used to give that one AT-AT a good solid whack upside the head? Neat, but IMHO it behaved a bit too much like a RL modern wire-guided missile.

The Battlefront games all did, there was the PLEX missile shown in the old EU, as well as the rockets shown used by both sides in Clone Wars. They all loosely seem analogous to the modern Javelin, able to hit both armored vehicles and aircraft, though to a greater degree than the Javelin against aircraft in most cases.

Oddly enough both sides seem to use the same weapon(s) in virtually all examples.

There are ion torpedo's in the new Star Wars Battlefront but I doubt its that since the visuals look different. Also that is not an AT-AT its an AT-ACT.

Meest wrote:Looking better, just one part really has my Mary Sue alerts going. The TIE fighter hovering in front of Jyn, she better not go 1on1 with a TIE with a blaster pistol and win.

Maybe it's her death scene

I really enjoyed this trailer, moreso than for Force Awakens. The reason is probably expectations - the Force Awakens was supposed to be part of an ongoing legend, so its mediocrity was the result of the shoes it tried walking in.

In this case, they're sidestepping the formula of the main epic story to give us something that *feels* like a fresh perspective, so I'm less leery about how it will turn out.

Balrog wrote:Cautiously optimistic after watching the trailer. More ISDs, more action shots, a better idea of the team they're putting together. Thinking the blind staff-wielder, if not a Jedi, might be Force-sensitive/trained? Makes up for beating down Stormies with a stick.

According to his Databank entry on the OS, Chirrut Îmwe lacks Force abilities: StarWars.com

This is looking goooood. I'm totally up for the more street-level approach to the Galactic Civil War it's going for and the combat that comes with it.

My favourite part - the bazooka bitchslapping the AT-AT, no question. Made my inner 10 year old scream with happiness

The trouble being of course that all the heavy cannons the Rebellion could muster at Hoth couldn't touch the damn things. Then again I don't recall any ever hitting the weapons as opposed to just slugging away at the armored hull and legs.

Lagmonster wrote:I really enjoyed this trailer, moreso than for Force Awakens.

I was fully expecting to prefer a movie set during the OT years than one set 30 years later under unfamiliar circumstances.

Rogue 9 wrote:The trouble being of course that all the heavy cannons the Rebellion could muster at Hoth couldn't touch the damn things. Then again I don't recall any ever hitting the weapons as opposed to just slugging away at the armored hull and legs.

This is an AT-ACT, a cargo variant, maybe they aren't as well protected as the standard AT-ATs.

eMeM wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:The trouble being of course that all the heavy cannons the Rebellion could muster at Hoth couldn't touch the damn things. Then again I don't recall any ever hitting the weapons as opposed to just slugging away at the armored hull and legs.

This is an AT-ACT, a cargo variant, maybe they aren't as well protected as the standard AT-ATs.

The reason it worked here and not on Hoth was because of the angle needed for a hit. The Hoth guns were attacking an AT-AT frontally at a distance, which makes it much harder to hit the side of the head. The Rebels here were shooting from point blank range and slightly from the side, in which they could get a clearer shot against the guns.

And we also see no evidence that the walker is outright destroyed from this hit.

Adam Reynolds wrote:

eMeM wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:The trouble being of course that all the heavy cannons the Rebellion could muster at Hoth couldn't touch the damn things. Then again I don't recall any ever hitting the weapons as opposed to just slugging away at the armored hull and legs.

This is an AT-ACT, a cargo variant, maybe they aren't as well protected as the standard AT-ATs.

The reason it worked here and not on Hoth was because of the angle needed for a hit. The Hoth guns were attacking an AT-AT frontally at a distance, which makes it much harder to hit the side of the head. The Rebels here were shooting from point blank range and slightly from the side, in which they could get a clearer shot against the guns.

And we also see no evidence that the walker is outright destroyed from this hit.

I'm fully expecting it to turn it's head and blast the guy.

eMeM wrote:This is an AT-ACT, a cargo variant, maybe they aren't as well protected as the standard AT-ATs.

I know the Empire (or SW in general) isn't know for it's great design practicality but why would you use the AT-AT chassis as cargo hauler? Isn't the point of the AT-AT that it is so heavily armoured it can shrug off most hits? What would be the point of using that design then stripping protection from it?

Carry a greater weight of cargo? Use a more fuel-economical power plant?

Adam Reynolds wrote: The reason it worked here and not on Hoth was because of the angle needed for a hit. The Hoth guns were attacking an AT-AT frontally at a distance, which makes it much harder to hit the side of the head. The Rebels here were shooting from point blank range and slightly from the side, in which they could get a clearer shot against the guns.

And we also see no evidence that the walker is outright destroyed from this hit.

This post pegged my BS meter full over.

1.) We see the AT-ATs take hits all over their flanks from snow speeder rounds. Given what we know about the effects of star fighter weaponry I feel no need to degrade it relative to ground turrets.

2.) Range has nothing to do with warhead yield. In fact, for such a weapon close range can only hurt it if it is supposed to reach a particular velocity or attack angle. The only benefit close range provides is that it may not give CIWIS type defenses a chance to counter it.

That's missing the point of my question though. Literally any vehicle can carry more and is more economic if you strip things off/out of it. Why use that chassis for cargo? What purpose does the AT-AT chassis serve as a cargo hauler? What does it do that a standard shuttle/flying vehicle couldn't? I get there's an argument for actual combat vehicles (something to do with repulsor lifts and shields I believe) that justifies walkers in combat but cargo haulers? Does the empire really need to be bringing in large payloads of cargo before they've secured an area so much they'll build custom heavy walkers?

In the real world most fully tank designs have ammo carrier, engineering, and other versions based on the same chassis. This can be for a lot of reasons to include commonality of maintenance training and spare parts within a unit, economies of scale during production, or if you expect an entire unit to face similar threats without the benefit of a safe rear area.

It could happen.

Patroklos wrote:

Adam Reynolds wrote: The reason it worked here and not on Hoth was because of the angle needed for a hit. The Hoth guns were attacking an AT-AT frontally at a distance, which makes it much harder to hit the side of the head. The Rebels here were shooting from point blank range and slightly from the side, in which they could get a clearer shot against the guns.

And we also see no evidence that the walker is outright destroyed from this hit.

This post pegged my BS meter full over.
1.) We see the AT-ATs take hits all over their flanks from snow speeder rounds. Given what we know about the effects of star fighter weaponry I feel no need to degrade it relative to ground turrets.

Sure, but those speeders weren't targeting very accurately as a result of the speed they needed to fly at to avoid being shot down. Hitting the small target of the guns without being hit by by other walkers is rather difficult, especially given that the neck is a more valuable and larger target. And when we see a speeder try just that, the walker pivots and blows it away because it was too slow to dodge.

2.) Range has nothing to do with warhead yield. In fact, for such a weapon close range can only hurt it if it is supposed to reach a particular velocity or attack angle. The only benefit close range provides is that it may not give CIWIS type defenses a chance to counter it.

Given that there weren't any missiles shown at Hoth, that wasn't what I was talking about there. But the issue of point defenses cannot be discounted. It is likely that the Empire has some defense against missile attacks, given how effective they could be against Republic walkers in AOTC.

Patroklos wrote:In the real world most fully tank designs have ammo carrier, engineering, and other versions based on the same chassis. This can be for a lot of reasons to include commonality of maintenance training and spare parts within a unit, economies of scale during production, or if you expect an entire unit to face similar threats without the benefit of a safe rear area.

It could happen.

It is likely the Imperial version of an MRAP, giving much greater survivability than the dedicated cargo haulers that get taken out by blaster fire. Like the MRAP, they used an existing design rather than a better one, though in this case it is that of a proper armored vehicle that is worse for carrying cargo rather than the other way around.

Kojiro wrote:That's missing the point of my question though. Literally any vehicle can carry more and is more economic if you strip things off/out of it. Why use that chassis for cargo? What purpose does the AT-AT chassis serve as a cargo hauler? What does it do that a standard shuttle/flying vehicle couldn't? I get there's an argument for actual combat vehicles (something to do with repulsor lifts and shields I believe) that justifies walkers in combat but cargo haulers? Does the empire really need to be bringing in large payloads of cargo before they've secured an area so much they'll build custom heavy walkers?

Could be the Imperial Navy version of the CBS a combination construction crew and combat battalion have a lot of equipment that serves due roles allowing them to hold out until reinforcements can arrive.

I guess the parallel that best fits to me would be making a space marine land raider cargo hauler.

I did find this:

So they're definitely different beasts (which actually rules out the continuity of maintenance to some extent). What advantages are there to the walker design for a cargo vehicle?

Operation in non-repulsorlift-friendly territory - I think some planets have magnetic fields which disrupt them, and maybe under or through some shield barriers? - is immediately obvious. Logistical simplification, as discussed; the appear to use the same leg assembly and possibly other internal parts. Dual-purpose; a walker is always intimidating and relatively durable, even of it's less so than the combat variant. Docking with certain platform designs, say if the Endor shield platform is a standard model. Dropship simplication isn't anything to sneeze at either; this way you only need one (class of) landing barge. That's a few off the top of my head.

The only thing that ever bothered me about AT-ATs is that, as a Canadian, I know what it's like to walk through a shit-ton of snow. I remember thinking that they probably should have gotten stuck WAY before anyone figured out the cables trick.