StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Actually the mecha fixation could be said to have cost them the battle.

Picture if you will:
All AT-ATs are replaced by a 50-50 mix of AC-130s and C-130s
All AT-STs are replaced by A-10s
Any remaining transport volume goes towards more C-130s and A-10s
(All US craft upgraded/re-engineered to SW technology standard, naturally)

They do the drop, but now instead of having their painfully slow (watch how long it takes for the walker to close with and step on Luke's speeder, and notice how he's able to keep up with it) walkers go through the shields and plod towards the base we have our A-10, AC-130s, and C-130s taxi through the theater shield, and take off. So now instead of somewhere around 15 mph, we're looking at hundreds of miles per hour speed to get on to target.

A-10s would be loaded with DPICMs cluster bomb equivalents, and at least six AIM-9X equivalents (Concussion Missiles) on the wing pylons.

So now instead of slogging towards a prepared defense, while the snow speeders are able to knock out a few of the Empire's units, the Empire knocks out their defenses and shields before any of the Snowspeeders manage to get out of the hangar and are basically suppressed by the AC-130s. Afterall trying to fly out of that hangar once it's already covered by guns would be suicide. Not to mention I now also have loads and loads of paras streaming down onto the base.

Any power concerns would go doubly so for the much smaller starfighters. Not to mention these aircraft can go higher, without presenting as big a profile to target let alone a stationary one.

The only real mission AT-ATs can do is one like Hoth. They're too big to be effectively used in most terrain, and too slow for maneuver warfare. Attacking an enemy under a theater shield with the orbital ships suppressing attempts to flee is about all it can do. It's to slow and ponderous to be useful for much else. There job could be done just as well if not better by conventional Airborne, Infantry, or Mechanized units as all are significantly faster then the walkers.

Howedar wrote:Read: handwaving. I can't think of a similar loading condition and application anywhere in the field of mechanical engineering. Feel free to correct me, my knowledge isn't exactly encyclopedic, but I don't think you can come up with one either.

Given some sort of shock-absorber mechanism to change the timeframe of the impact loading, it's really not that extraordinary. There are plenty of applications in engineering where great cyclic force is applied over a small area for thousands or even millions of cycles without the need for significant maintenance. The widely used 1500 ton injection moulding presses for example, which apply all of their force onto a single mould. The question is how much the entire AT-AT body is accelerating up or down with each footfall, since that controls the level of force required.

FOG3 wrote:Actually the mecha fixation could be said to have cost them the battle.

Picture if you will:
All AT-ATs are replaced by a 50-50 mix of AC-130s and C-130s
All AT-STs are replaced by A-10s
Any remaining transport volume goes towards more C-130s and A-10s
(All US craft upgraded/re-engineered to SW technology standard, naturally)

They do the drop, but now instead of having their painfully slow (watch how long it takes for the walker to close with and step on Luke's speeder, and notice how he's able to keep up with it) walkers go through the shields and plod towards the base we have our A-10, AC-130s, and C-130s taxi through the theater shield, and take off. So now instead of somewhere around 15 mph, we're looking at hundreds of miles per hour speed to get on to target.

There is a runway conveniently set up for them? Or do you figure the ice and snow would suffice for that purpose?

A-10s would be loaded with DPICMs cluster bomb equivalents, and at least six AIM-9X equivalents (Concussion Missiles) on the wing pylons.

So now instead of slogging towards a prepared defense, while the snow speeders are able to knock out a few of the Empire's units, the Empire knocks out their defenses and shields before any of the Snowspeeders manage to get out of the hangar and are basically suppressed by the AC-130s. After all trying to fly out of that hangar once it's already covered by guns would be suicide. Not to mention I now also have loads and loads of paras streaming down onto the base.

Why would the snowspeeders necessarily be caught on the ground? If they're in the air, they can shoot down these aircraft far more easily than they killed the walkers.

Any power concerns would go doubly so for the much smaller starfighters. Not to mention these aircraft can go higher, without presenting as big a profile to target let alone a stationary one.

The snowspeeder weapons couldn't penetrate AT-AT armour. They could make mincemeat out of A-10s and AC-130s.

The only real mission AT-ATs can do is one like Hoth. They're too big to be effectively used in most terrain, and too slow for maneuver warfare. Attacking an enemy under a theater shield with the orbital ships suppressing attempts to flee is about all it can do. It's to slow and ponderous to be useful for much else. There job could be done just as well if not better by conventional Airborne, Infantry, or Mechanized units as all are significantly faster then the walkers.

They lack the firepower of the walkers, which is necessary for destroying the shield generator complex. They also lack the walkers' survivability, and would all be shot down by the snowspeeders and any air defenses that the base had (we never saw them in the original battle because they never came into play, but it seems logical that they would have some).

Anguirus wrote:They can't be tripped, they can have heavier armor and weapons, and they have greater capacity. I can't prove the statement except to point out, as I already have, the many vulnerabilities of the AT-AT design that no Juggernaut shares. Moreover, we've never seen them take a shot from anything heavier than an Atgar P-Tower, which is generally considered (EGWT) to be obsolete rubbish, and regardless is very small compared to other Star Wars heavy weapons we've seen.

If you can't prove it, why bother? I've previously listed the many weaknesses of the Juggernaut, which are all much more damning than those of the AT-AT.

Anguirus wrote:I know this. EIGHT walkers still takes up more space than one A6.

An A6 can only carry 300 troops by giving up nearly all of its cargo, and the AT-AT also carries four speederbikes. Plus, it's not good to have all your eggs in one basket.

Anguirus wrote:This makes perfect sense for small walkers, but the AT-AT has to keep three legs on the ground, because it's huge, and has very little choice in where to put its leg down for the next stride. Its flexibility beyond what we could do with modern technology, but still very limited.

WOTC wrote:Juggernaut can only move in a straight line at any speed over 25 km/h

That's just one out of many problems.

Anguirus wrote:All good points. However, what we see in the films is AT-ATs outpacing any support units, aside from one AT-ST.

We don't see any other support units, but we know they were there from lit. Why they aren't seen is a source of some speculation, but outpacing doesn't seem like a good reason considering how slowly the AT-ATs were moving over some parts of terrain. Specifically, when Luke could run up to one.

Anguirus wrote:On Hoth, this was clearly the thing to do, since the AT-ATs were armed and armored so heavily that the Rebels couldn't stop them. However, if you need troop transports, the Empire has other craft. If you need high-LOS artillery to hang back and pound Rebels, the Empire has other craft. The only thing the AT-AT seems to do is combine decent armor, a few squads of troops, and medium artillery (what fits under its *chin*) into one package. In standard battle conditions, why is this combination of roles into one vehicle effective?

That should be obvious. It is very resistant to anti-armour fire, can provide medium-range artillery support, carry troops into battle, traverse difficult terrain, pass energy shields, and ignore most mines. The A6 can do three of those... maybe.

So let's compare shall we? Compared to an AT-AT, an A6 has much lower manuverability and fire range. Assuming it is at all similar to an A5, it also has a manned sentry fire control tower which is easily destroyed, minimal operation range, very prone to breakdown and is very difficult to repair. It also has considerably poorer terrain handling capacity, as noted in that AT-ATs could walk on Hoth, while DH features a Jugg getting stuck in mud. The A6 require a crew of 20, while an AT-AT makes do with 2.

Defences aren't clear cut so I'll leave that part aside. It seems likely, however, that if proton torpedoes are effective against AT-ATs, they will also be effective against Juggernauts, because PTs can also be used against Star Destroyers.

Anguirus wrote:Which novel makes it uncertain? Also, I gave you a source on X-wing filleting AT-ATs--Isard's Revenge.

Noted. It's one of the Rouge Squadron novels, I don't recall which one at the moment.

Anguirus wrote:The only artillery used on Hoth were P-Towers (which suck) and misused antipersonnel turrets.

So what do you have that can destroy AT-ATs? PTs, which are starship-assault weapons, and X-Wing lasers, which could make huge fireballs on an armoured battlestation, or blow up shield towers in a few shots. A Jugg's supposed to be better armoured than that?

[/quote]I mentioned the ESB "lean." I'll rewatch it when I get the chance, but from memory, it wasn't much of a turn where the legs were concerned. It can turn, but it certainly couldn't execute a quick 180 if the Rebels had attacked from behind. They would be totally dependent on AT-ST support and whatever armor they had in that eventuality.[/quote]

Granted, but A6s are even less capable of making a 180 unless it uses the auxilliary cockpit, which is there precisely for that reason. The A6 only has one turret that can effectively fire on air units.

Anguirus wrote:If you can point out where the exposed fuel tank and the Explodo-Neck are on the Juggernaut design, or produce an example of someone blowing the front half off with a grenade, then I will happily concede this line of argument.

Every vehicle has a fuel tank which is a vulnerable point. And since when is a belly tank exposed? Seems like the best place for it if you ask me. The "explodo-neck" which has been long taken for certain among fans was not too long ago disagreed on at sw.com. It's in their new answers section which replaced the "Ask the Jedi Council". The new answer is that the AT-AT was already going to blow up from its own powerplant. Conseqently, the neck is not as vulnearble as previously thought... as if you could consider it much of a weakness anyway given how a comparably small and diffiuclt target it is. Furthermore all vehicles are subjective to at the very least a misson kill if you throw in a grenade in them, nevermind a nuclear tipped one.

The A6 Jugg also has a fuel tank which will destroy it if blown, and it will most certainly be destroyed from a thermal detonator blwoing up inside it. It has a fire control mast which is a place to put the trooper you like the least in, and it loses much of its targeting capacity if hit (which it frequently was). If you ask me, the Jugg's the more vulnerable vehicle. Bigger target, too.

Anguirus wrote:I'm sorry, if your idea of proof is for me to produce a Hailfire blasting an AT-AT to scrap, then we both know I can't do that. I've produced evidence, however, of smaller missiles and medium energy weapons doing so. It's also perfectly clear that Hailfires can out maneuver AT-ATs effortlessly, and since AT-ATs have no all-around weapons coverage...

That would be nice

But it would be enough if can show that these weapons will not destroy a Juggernaut just as easily. Then you'd have a point.

This statement does not apply to Juggernauts, or in fact any other ground vehicle because?

Anguirus wrote:Jugs have no vulnerable areas

Proved wrong.

Anguirus wrote:J, all-around weapons coverage

Okay, but it isn't evenly distributed by any means.

Anguirus wrote:greater speed

Twice the top speed, in fact. Too bad it can only use it on flat ground and in a straight motion, and only for less than 20 mins before it stops flat.

Anguirus wrote:, and since they don't have to be lifted off the ground by legs they can mount far heavier weapons and armor.

This is where I'd like you to show that it actually sports "far heavier weapons and armor". Because it sure looks like the opposite to me. Flying Fortresses has heavy armor and weapons without touching the ground at all. The A6 appears to have sacrificed firepower and armour in order to carry more troops and have a more diversed weaponry.

Anguirus wrote:I'm sure a Hailfire would stil be a threat to a Juggernaut, but if it rolls around to attack from behind the Jug can simply shoot the unarmored thing.

The Jugg's got precisely one weapon that can fire to the rear, but fair enough, it can. AT-ATs would in this case rely on combined arms support. Again, specialized > generalized.

To return to the walker engineering issue, the biggest problem with that class of mechanisms is the absurd level of energy consumption required in order to life and move those massive legs. That's something that would not change even with SW technology, although I suppose one might argue that they just don't care about wasting energy because they have some sort of vast or extremely dense fuel supply.

Wheels work better than legs because they're far more efficient, as anyone who has ever hauled bricks with a wheelbarrow instead of a backpack can attest. But in a wheeled vehicle, all of the weight is actually carried on the tiny little bearings around the axles of the wheels, which are in turn composed of little rings with even tinier rolling bits of metal rolling around in them. And those things last a surprisingly long time, even when driving over lousy terrain that repeatedly causes serious shock loading to the whole mechanism.

It is counter-intuitive, but over rough terrain a wheeled vehicle can actually experience much more shock loading than a walking vehicle, simply by virtue of the way a wheeled vehicle will tend to fall into every dip in the surface and jolt over every protrusion (think of the way it feels when your car hits a huge pothole or drives over a curb). A walking vehicle can smooth out those kinds of problems.

Darth Wong wrote:

FOG3 wrote:Actually the mecha fixation could be said to have cost them the battle.

Picture if you will:
All AT-ATs are replaced by a 50-50 mix of AC-130s and C-130s
All AT-STs are replaced by A-10s
Any remaining transport volume goes towards more C-130s and A-10s
(All US craft upgraded/re-engineered to SW technology standard, naturally)

They do the drop, but now instead of having their painfully slow (watch how long it takes for the walker to close with and step on Luke's speeder, and notice how he's able to keep up with it) walkers go through the shields and plod towards the base we have our A-10, AC-130s, and C-130s taxi through the theater shield, and take off. So now instead of somewhere around 15 mph, we're looking at hundreds of miles per hour speed to get on to target.

There is a runway conveniently set up for them? Or do you figure the ice and snow would suffice for that purpose?

1) The design of both is already setup for short and rough runways, and Hoth was relatively flat with rather solid ground. Those AT-ATs weren't exactly sinking in the snow much. It's not like it wasn't permissible for some machinary to quickly do what Seabees do, if necessary.
2) Almost all other flying vehicles in SW use Repulsors to fly period. If upgraded to SW standard, they would naturally have some level of Repulsor to get them airborne if needed. Who needs an strip when you have perfect VTOL?

Darth Wong wrote:

A-10s would be loaded with DPICMs cluster bomb equivalents, and at least six AIM-9X equivalents (Concussion Missiles) on the wing pylons.

So now instead of slogging towards a prepared defense, while the snow speeders are able to knock out a few of the Empire's units, the Empire knocks out their defenses and shields before any of the Snowspeeders manage to get out of the hangar and are basically suppressed by the AC-130s. After all trying to fly out of that hangar once it's already covered by guns would be suicide. Not to mention I now also have loads and loads of paras streaming down onto the base.

Why would the snowspeeders necessarily be caught on the ground? If they're in the air, they can shoot down these aircraft far more easily than they killed the walkers.

They'd be in the hangar because historically they didn't manage to get deployed until the Walkers were already landed and close enough to be spotted by their ground pounders. This would allow the Empire to already be onsite about when Leia is briefing the pilots. I fail to see why their reaction time should be any faster, they had no reason to dilly dally. Around twenty times the speed, means a twentieth of the time for the Rebels to respond after the barges land.

I wouldn't necessarily say they'd be easier to take out. Racks of short range highly maneuverable SWs missiles and rapid firing blaster cannons replacing guns should be quite effective in shooting back. Plus as a purpose designed combat vehicle they should have better performance characteristics then modified civilian Speeders. The Walkers on the other hand couldn't really do anything to a snow speeder looping around their legs.

Darth Wong wrote:The snowspeeder weapons couldn't penetrate AT-AT armour. They could make mincemeat out of A-10s and AC-130s.

RL vehicles, true but I'm basically using them as models as there is no in universe equivalent vehicle. Hence, I make a big point of upgraded to SW tech standard. Seems as how they'd have that, they'd have better deflector screens then those snow speeders had or starfighters have. Certainly better then Clone Trooper Gunships had they managed to get away with them in much higher threat enviroments. They'll be fine.

Darth Wong wrote:

The only real mission AT-ATs can do is one like Hoth. They're too big to be effectively used in most terrain, and too slow for maneuver warfare. Attacking an enemy under a theater shield with the orbital ships suppressing attempts to flee is about all it can do. It's to slow and ponderous to be useful for much else. There job could be done just as well if not better by conventional Airborne, Infantry, or Mechanized units as all are significantly faster then the walkers.

They lack the firepower of the walkers, which is necessary for destroying the shield generator complex. They also lack the walkers' survivability, and would all be shot down by the snowspeeders and any air defenses that the base had (we never saw them in the original battle because they never came into play, but it seems logical that they would have some).

If a starfighter cannon can penetrate the armor on the most heavily armored battlestation in the Empire's inventory and shoot up stuff, why would a bigger more powerful Laser cannon have any problem with that shield generator? Even if it would theoretically have a problem, that just means an extra missile added to the loadout, no biggie. With ground pounders, if you can make an effective Hellfire droid, you sure as heck can make an effective MLRS equivalent. A Cavalry recon vehicle could get into a position to spot that Shield Generator much faster then those Walkers and relay the fire mission.

They're easily more surviveable then Walkers. Walkers weren't able to do jack to a modded civilian speeder, which was able to use a simple utility device to down multiple Walkers. They would have significantly more going for them then Clone Trooper Gunships and related equipment which survived just fine in higher threat environments. Could some get knocked out? Sure, it is however far from the certainty you declare it to be.

The damning thing is though that the key to the entire operation was SPEED. The more time they gave the rebel, the more time they had to get setup to escape. The faster they could secure that facility at any level the better able they are to accomplish their mission objectives.

Darth Wong wrote: Wheels work better than legs because they're far more efficient, as anyone who has ever hauled bricks with a wheelbarrow instead of a backpack can attest. But in a wheeled vehicle, all of the weight is actually carried on the tiny little bearings around the axles of the wheels, which are in turn composed of little rings with even tinier rolling bits of metal rolling around in them. And those things last a surprisingly long time, even when driving over lousy terrain that repeatedly causes serious shock loading to the whole mechanism.

Actually in wheeled armoured vehicles the hubs don't last too long without careful maintenance. The LAV series (Bison, AVGP, Coyote and LAV III) used by the Canadian Forces require you to change the gear oil in the wheel hubs every hundred hours of run time to prevent burn out and seizing the whole assembly. Obviously you can fudge that in combat conditions but it's got to be done eventually or you'll be dragging some tires. It's a major pain in the ass because gear oil drains so slowly but it's better than swapping tracks.

I've previously listed the many weaknesses of the Juggernaut, which are all much more damning than those of the AT-AT.

Well, you mentioned low speed and endurance, but aren't those numbers from the smaller A5? Besides which, they make almost no sense because the AT-AT can operate for longer with a far more energy-intensive mode of transportation. If these are weaknesses of the Juggernaut in production, they should be easy to remedy while keeping the same basic design.

An A6 can only carry 300 troops by giving up nearly all of its cargo

Who cares? What other cargo does it need to carry on the battlefront? I doubt that you can simply pack extra missiles and power plants into the areas for troops.

and the AT-AT also carries four speederbikes.

Ooo.

hy they aren't seen is a source of some speculation, but outpacing doesn't seem like a good reason considering how slowly the AT-ATs were moving over some parts of terrain. Specifically, when Luke could run up to one.

Beats the hell out of me.

That should be obvious. It is very resistant to anti-armour fire, can provide medium-range artillery support, carry troops into battle, traverse difficult terrain, pass energy shields, and ignore most mines. The A6 can do three of those... maybe.

The A6 is larger and more stable, thus it almost certainly has heavier armor. I don't have the ICS with me to confirm, but if it doesn't a designer needs to be shot and a second one needs to design a variant that doesn't suck. The Juggernaut can be quite dense because it has a larger surface on which to support its weight.

It can provide medium range artillery support with its heavy laser turret, which has a clear line-of fire in all directions and it actually positioned higher than AT-AT guns. In addition, it can shoot missiles all over the place.

Carry troops is a given. It's probably easier to deploy them as well.

I expect that each vehicle is better at traversing certain types of terrain. A walker is better at avoiding mines and is probably far better on slippery terrain. A Juggernaut would probably be better at rocky or hilled terrain, simply because it cannot be tripped up. It would probably be less likely to bog down in beach (RotS), swampy, sandy, or other soft terrain, though it still wouldn't be ideal.

Why can't the A6 pass energy shields? Ground contact.

Mines...got me there. I will note that if a Juggernaut hits a mine, it will simply be rendered immobile, whereas if an AT-AT fails to avoid a mine it might lose a foot, creating a risk to the entire crew of toppling.

Anyway, that just comes back to my point of "why combine artillery and troop transport?" Everyone's telling me "specialization > generalization" to defend a vehicle that sticks together two not very compatible roles. Should the AT-AT head forward and deploy troops, or hang back and hit the enemy? The closer it gets to enemy troops, the more vulnerable it is without good defensive weapons, as Luke showed us.

So what do you have that can destroy AT-ATs? PTs, which are starship-assault weapons, and X-Wing lasers, which could make huge fireballs on an armoured battlestation, or blow up shield towers in a few shots. A Jugg's supposed to be better armoured than that?

Better-armored than an AT-AT, probably. Certainly not invulnerable. It would stand a better chance, I imagine.

Granted, but A6s are even less capable of making a 180 unless it uses the auxilliary cockpit, which is there precisely for that reason.

Exactly!

(Why on earth this is a point against my argument I have no idea. Of course the Juggernaut can't make a quick 180, but the designers actually made it so it never needs to.

And since when is a belly tank exposed?

Since it's located right between the legs without significant armor plating around it. Sure, it's better than bolting it to the side, but it's not great either.

I can't see a fuel tank on the outside of thte Jug, so I presume it's located deep inside the beast. Again, lacking the ICS unfortunately.

The new answer is that the AT-AT was already going to blow up from its own powerplant.

Sounds good to me. Of course, that's ANOTHER weakness of the design then. A significant impact will blow it sky high! So tripping won't just take it out of the fight, but have a good chance of killing everyone aboard.

The A6 Jugg also has a fuel tank which will destroy it if blown, and it will most certainly be destroyed from a thermal detonator blwoing up inside it. It has a fire control mast which is a place to put the trooper you like the least in, and it loses much of its targeting capacity if hit (which it frequently was). If you ask me, the Jugg's the more vulnerable vehicle. Bigger target, too.

What's sad is that considering how much more stable it is, it's not even that much more of a target. Same height. Significantly greater length, but in terms of Star Wars weaponry, basically, both vehicles will be easily hit.

As for grenades, they may be very powerful in Star Wars but the Jug is less approachable (more close in blasters), harder to get into for a foot soldier (you'd have to go over the wheels) and the Jug not only has more internal volume, but a backup control center, lessening the impact.

As for the fire control mast, I doubt significantly that the poor bastard getting shot will make the gunners cry that much. They have good visibility from heights of roughly 25 meters, they have targeting computers, their turrets are manned, and they presumably have missiles that can track. The mast seems like little more than a place for unusually stupid commanders who want to see the whole battlefield.

I suppose there's some retarded EU source out there that says it's "essential to fire control" but in that case I recommend shooting the designer's dead body and getting a guy to install decent targeting computers in every goddamn tank.

This is where I'd like you to show that it actually sports "far heavier weapons and armor". Because it sure looks like the opposite to me. Flying Fortresses has heavy armor and weapons without touching the ground at all. The A6 appears to have sacrificed firepower and armour in order to carry more troops and have a more diversed weaponry.

Don't have the ICS with me, again, but how does an FF have more armor than a 100 foot tall "rolling slab" of durasteel? 300 troops on benches is not a huge portion of the internal volume, and the heavy laser turret on top of the tank is about as heavy a weapon as I'd imagine you would possibly need. If that's ever not the case, you could stick nukes in the missile tubes and just roll around razing cities.

What ground vehicle in Star Wars has more armor than the A6, and how do we know this? My default assumption was seeing how it's the largest and it rolls right on the ground with wheels, that it has the heaviest armor. That doesn't make it invulnerable, it's just another point in its favor.

The Jugg's got precisely one weapon that can fire to the rear, but fair enough, it can. AT-ATs would in this case rely on combined arms support. Again, specialized > generalized.

That still doesn't answer the question of why the AT-AT exists, given the vulnerabilities of the design, the existence of heavier armored vehicles, the existence of dedicated troop transports, the existence of dedicated artillery, etc., etc. If specialized > generalized, why was the AT-AT made in such numbers?

I also count at least four weapons, including the primary weapon and a turret "rapid repeating laser cannon" that can fire to the rear on the A6, not counting the missiles.

As for the front, the missile launchers are mounted there, the side turrets and heavy turret can shoot in that direction as well, and right in the chin there are antipersonnel lasers.

By the way, Wookieepedia lists the A6's speed as "only" 160 km/h. Does the ICS back this up? It also notes "thick armor" and says nothing about the necessity of the fire-control mast or the vehicle's allegedly short endurance. DOES anybody have a source for these noted flaws?

(BTW, the Battle of Kashyyyk must have lasted hours or days before Yoda was attacked, and Juggernauts are advancing just as this is happening. I suppose they could have been running back to the Star Destroyer a lot...)

Anguirus wrote:

They're slow but unstoppable: the rebel artillery would have simply shot Juggernaut wheels away, even if the wheels could handle the terrain (the 'ridge' they crossed) anyway.

Oh, I'd LOVE to see support for that.

Fuck off and die. You're the guy who thinks you can't use a big wheeled vehicle in an urban setting, so how about you shut the fuck up Mr 'Wookiepedia as a source'. Oh noes, the ridge is in the novel, it's not good enough for wiki-wankers like you!

They're WHEELS. Wheels are a vulnerable system. Unless they're superconductive shielded like AT-AT armour now! And I bet the tyres and wheeled suspension will handle impacts et al really well right?

So how about you shut the fuck up about 'loller evidence', Mr 'Hailfire droids will teh rule AT ATs because I say so'. The AT-ATs were engaged at long range, and only survived because they're so heavily armoured.

HOW WILL YOU ARMOUR WHEELS AGAIN. Tell me. I've tried to be nice to you, but you're so fucking biased it's not funny. You're not interested in a discussion.

For people who can actually discuss evidence, it's clear that the 160km/h speed is only for roads. How do people think huge wheels will handle rough terrain? They're independently sprung, but aren't even specifically designed wheeled vehicles poor offroad?

Also, does the EU troop-load stats make sense? Apparently the 300-man thing is squeezing them in, so isn't saying the AT-AT can carry 40 bullshit, since you could take out the 'cargo' (light vehicles, speeders, etc) and squeeze more men in?

Oh sorry, I just noticed Anguirus being dishonest again. But hey, he's so stupid he thinks seeing armoured vehicles with low endurance in action days into a battle is a contradiction! What's the endurance on an M1A1 again? I bet they stopped using them in Iraq instead of using fuel dumps and shit right?

Is there any base for his 'Juggernauts are more armoured than AT-AT' claim? I mean, we all know he isn't presenting any evidence and he's probably arguing from his own special world, but surely there are stats or some example that can be used? Aside from the wheels, of course.

Anguirus wrote:Well, you mentioned low speed and endurance, but aren't those numbers from the smaller A5? Besides which, they make almost no sense because the AT-AT can operate for longer with a far more energy-intensive mode of transportation. If these are weaknesses of the Juggernaut in production, they should be easy to remedy while keeping the same basic design.

The vehicles are closely related in design. If the A6 is so good as you belive, you should start asking yourself why it's not prominent over the AT-AT rather than trying to convince everyone else that it is.

Anguirus wrote:Who cares? What other cargo does it need to carry on the battlefront? I doubt that you can simply pack extra missiles and power plants into the areas for troops.

How about equipment for the troops. Supplies, grenades, extra ammo, food, oxygen in some cases, field gear, spare helmets, the list goes on.

Anguirus wrote:Beats the hell out of me.

One bit of reasoning that has been done previously on these forums is that the rebel artillery and snowspeeders may have been more effective against the support walkers.

Anguirus wrote:The A6 is larger and more stable, thus it almost certainly has heavier armor. I don't have the ICS with me to confirm, but if it doesn't a designer needs to be shot and a second one needs to design a variant that doesn't suck. The Juggernaut can be quite dense because it has a larger surface on which to support its weight.

A plausible argument doesn't hold much more weight than a possibility. You could be right, you could be wrong. We may be able to determine two things, however - whether 300 troops is realistic, and if the A6 has more room for armour. This doesn't mean it actually has more armour, but it would give it the possibility that it does. Note that I'm just eyeballing now rather than doing actual scales. If you have better figures, feel free to come up with them.

The transport box seem to be about 35x15x10, which gives us 5250 m3, or 17.5 m3 per trooper, not counting crew. That's a space of little less than 2.6 m in all three directions per trooper. Plus a 5 ton cargo room left which can't be used by troops. The size of this compartment is enough for 50 more troops if it could be used, going by WOTC's figures for it. So we'll divide 5250 with 350 and arrive at 15 m3 per trooper, or just under 2.46 m in all directions. The remainder (edit for clarity: of what the trooper plus gear takes up) could be used for among other things armor.

An AT-ATs transport box is about 12x5x7.5 which gives us 450 m3, or 11.25 per trooper. Which is 2.24 m in all directions.

You get 9% more armour on the A6. But I can't say for sure, that's within the margin of error really. The A6, as you have pointed out, carries additional weapons such as a top turret which reasonably must take away space. The AT-AT doesn't have those. I deem it's quite possible that the A6 has no advantage in armour. Even if you are right, the difference is small.

Anguirus wrote:Carry troops is a given. It's probably easier to deploy them as well.

A 9 m high rear ramp. I can't see any other way unless they have grav-belts or something...

Anguirus wrote:I expect that each vehicle is better at traversing certain types of terrain. A walker is better at avoiding mines and is probably far better on slippery terrain. A Juggernaut would probably be better at rocky or hilled terrain, simply because it cannot be tripped up. It would probably be less likely to bog down in beach (RotS), swampy, sandy, or other soft terrain, though it still wouldn't be ideal.

Agreed, although I think you overestimate the chances of tripping an AT-AT. It wasn't that easy on Hoth, and they can walk with spread legs if necessary. An AT-ST isn't a very good comparison, I know, but those were highly agile on Endor.

Anguirus wrote:Why can't the A6 pass energy shields? Ground contact.

I said three things, maybe. I don't regard this point as a maybe.

Anguirus wrote:Mines...got me there. I will note that if a Juggernaut hits a mine, it will simply be rendered immobile, whereas if an AT-AT fails to avoid a mine it might lose a foot, creating a risk to the entire crew of toppling.

Those feet are both huge and massive. A blast that will render an A6 immobile might not do anything to an AT-AT. Probably why the A6 has plenty of wheels - they are vulnerable.

Anguirus wrote:Anyway, that just comes back to my point of "why combine artillery and troop transport?" Everyone's telling me "specialization > generalization" to defend a vehicle that sticks together two not very compatible roles. Should the AT-AT head forward and deploy troops, or hang back and hit the enemy? The closer it gets to enemy troops, the more vulnerable it is without good defensive weapons, as Luke showed us.

Ideally, AT-ATs would charge forward with all kinds of support in combined arms. Air, arty, infantry. The same goes for a Jugg. They are only a little less dependant on support.

Anguirus wrote:Better-armored than an AT-AT, probably. Certainly not invulnerable. It would stand a better chance, I imagine.

See above. The difference is relatively small, if there even is one.

Anguirus wrote:Exactly!

(Why on earth this is a point against my argument I have no idea. Of course the Juggernaut can't make a quick 180, but the designers actually made it so it never needs to.

How about making a 90? Now who's going to win the turn race?

Anguirus wrote:Since it's located right between the legs without significant armor plating around it. Sure, it's better than bolting it to the side, but it's not great either.

If you can find a better place for it, let me know.

Anguirus wrote:I can't see a fuel tank on the outside of thte Jug, so I presume it's located deep inside the beast. Again, lacking the ICS unfortunately.

Now wouldn't that be convenient for your argument. Unless the A6 has the same extremely poor range as the A5, the fuel tank pretty much would have to be located... at the bottom.

Anguirus wrote:Sounds good to me. Of course, that's ANOTHER weakness of the design then. A significant impact will blow it sky high! So tripping won't just take it out of the fight, but have a good chance of killing everyone aboard.

First of all, a "significant impact" is bad for any vehicle. You're still assuming it's easy to trip an AT-AT, even though it was calculated you'd need a nuke to do it with an explosion. Of course, we don't have the actual mass of an AT-AT, but we can make certain estimates. Until you have something to back it up with, I'd suggest you to stay away from taking baseless assumptions as god's given truth. Granted, it trips easier than an A6, but that's not saying much.

starwars.com wrote:Q. In The Empire Strikes Back, Luke tells the Rogue pilots that the AT-AT's armor is too strong for blasters. Yet after they take one down using a tow cable, it takes only two shots to destroy the whole thing. Why is this?

A. In the National Public Radio dramatization of The Empire Strikes Back, Wedge identifies the cause of the explosion. "I think its power plant is about to rupture, Luke," says Wedge in the fourth episode, "Fire and Ice." That snowspeeder strafing run may speed up the explosion by a few seconds, but it is more for show.

Based on that precedent, a number of spin-off books have noted that the AT-AT walker's neck assembly is more vulnerable to cannon fire than the rest of its armor. While that is true, it doesn't mean that a shot to the neck will result in an explosion every time. (If that were the case, surely more than one intrepid snowspeeder pilot would have given it a go.)

To re-create the excitement of the Battle of Hoth, several LucasArts video games (such as Shadows of the Empire) allow players to rope AT-ATs and shoot' em while they're down, with satisfyingly explosive results. Those are game mechanics designed to make play more exciting, however, and shouldn't be construed as indicative of what would "really" happen if you went for the throat of an AT-AT.

Anguirus wrote:What's sad is that considering how much more stable it is, it's not even that much more of a target. Same height. Significantly greater length, but in terms of Star Wars weaponry, basically, both vehicles will be easily hit.

Based on my previous calculation, the A6 has 12 times as much surface area.

Anguirus wrote:As for grenades, they may be very powerful in Star Wars but the Jug is less approachable (more close in blasters), harder to get into for a foot soldier (you'd have to go over the wheels) and the Jug not only has more internal volume, but a backup control center, lessening the impact.

Surely you aren't suggesting that an average trooper could reenact Luke's stunt.

Anguirus wrote:As for the fire control mast, I doubt significantly that the poor bastard getting shot will make the gunners cry that much. They have good visibility from heights of roughly 25 meters, they have targeting computers, their turrets are manned, and they presumably have missiles that can track. The mast seems like little more than a place for unusually stupid commanders who want to see the whole battlefield.

Game mechanics aren't really canon, but they can be used for estimates according to Chee. According to that, loss of the sentry is a drop of 25% fire control, crew ability included. Otherwise it's 33%.

Anguirus wrote:I suppose there's some retarded EU source out there that says it's "essential to fire control" but in that case I recommend shooting the designer's dead body and getting a guy to install decent targeting computers in every goddamn tank.

Apparently the EU wasn't so retarded this time.

Anguirus wrote:Don't have the ICS with me, again, but how does an FF have more armor than a 100 foot tall "rolling slab" of durasteel? 300 troops on benches is not a huge portion of the internal volume, and the heavy laser turret on top of the tank is about as heavy a weapon as I'd imagine you would possibly need. If that's ever not the case, you could stick nukes in the missile tubes and just roll around razing cities.

What ground vehicle in Star Wars has more armor than the A6, and how do we know this? My default assumption was seeing how it's the largest and it rolls right on the ground with wheels, that it has the heaviest armor. That doesn't make it invulnerable, it's just another point in its favor.

I believe I covered this above.

Anguirus wrote:That still doesn't answer the question of why the AT-AT exists, given the vulnerabilities of the design, the existence of heavier armored vehicles, the existence of dedicated troop transports, the existence of dedicated artillery, etc., etc. If specialized > generalized, why was the AT-AT made in such numbers?

It combines good qualities. It's not easy to trip at all, and high centre of gravity is offset by the long range it gives. If you put A6 Juggernauts on Hoth, it's not even certain that they could get to Echo Base. Sometimes A6s would be a better choice, but obviously not all the time. Maybe not even very often. Shall we take a look?

Tatooine - A6. The AT-AT has much greater fire range, but here maybe the A6 could get up to fair speed. Dantooine - neither, really. I'd take a repulsorlift. Coruscant - AT-AT, because of "tank hinders" and smaller size. Endor - AT-AT. Both can simply run down trees, but the AT-AT offers superior view, and range, when applicable. Hoth - AT-AT, obviously. Geonosis - depends on where.

Anguirus wrote:I also count at least four weapons, including the primary weapon and a turret "rapid repeating laser cannon" that can fire to the rear on the A6, not counting the missiles.

As for the front, the missile launchers are mounted there, the side turrets and heavy turret can shoot in that direction as well, and right in the chin there are antipersonnel lasers.

You'd shoot your own vehicle if you 180 the primary turret. Unless you want to target clouds? I guess I was supposed to count 135 degrees as "rear", but the AT-AT can do that. Hell, the top turret has the same problem - it can barely fire downwards. Seems more like an anti-air turret.

Remember, it's 'probably' easier to deploy troops, it 'probably' has better armour, the AT-AT reactor is 'probably' more dangerous than the similar A6 one. All with zero evidence.

See a pattern? That's right, he constantly assumes everything bad for the AT-AT and good for the A6. Do we have a word for this, kids?

It's hilarious that he takes the computer game idea that tripping AT-ATs is easy to do and easily contrived on the battlefield. The entire defence of Echo Base (crewed by awesome, galaxy-famous pilots in some cases) versus six AT-AT's tripped ONE. Wowz0r. The defence force was, needless to say, UTTERLY ANNIHILATED.

Stark wrote:It's hilarious that he takes the computer game idea that tripping AT-ATs is easy to do and easily contrived on the battlefield. The entire defence of Echo Base (crewed by awesome, galaxy-famous pilots in some cases) versus six AT-AT's tripped ONE. Wowz0r. The defence force was, needless to say, UTTERLY ANNIHILATED.

You know, I hate that brainbug. Especially in the Rogue Squadron games where they actually say that the tow cables were specifically designed to kill AT-ATs. It wasn't actually a couple of the best, hot-shot pilots improvising on the spot in the face of desperate odds. No sir.

Cao Cao wrote:You know, I hate that brainbug. Especially in the Rogue Squadron games where they actually say that the tow cables were specifically designed to kill AT-ATs. It wasn't actually a couple of the best, hot-shot pilots improvising on the spot in the face of desperate odds. No sir.

These are the same people who can watch ESB and describe the AT-AT as unable to hit fighters, remember. Because they blew the shit out of speeders, with torso-swinging snapshots so they obviously can't hit fighters am I right?

Fuck off and die. You're the guy who thinks you can't use a big wheeled vehicle in an urban setting, so how about you shut the fuck up Mr 'Wookiepedia as a source'. Oh noes, the ridge is in the novel, it's not good enough for wiki-wankers like you!

Excuse me? Wiki wanker? I noted that the only "source" I had access to was the wiki, and asked if anyone could confirm.

You'd have to have prety wide streets or pretty small buildings to use a tank that size in an urban setting. Any armored vehicle of tremendous size is going to run into problems using the boulevards.

They're WHEELS. Wheels are a vulnerable system. Unless they're superconductive shielded like AT-AT armour now! And I bet the tyres and wheeled suspension will handle impacts et al really well right?

The Juggernaut's wheels look like they are made of some sort of composite, and the axle assembly is buried in a very large and bulky box underneath the main body of the tank. We're not talking about a damn monster truck here. Is it a vulnerable spot? Certainly. But less so than the AT-AT's exposed drive system + fuel tank.

Mr 'Hailfire droids will teh rule AT ATs because I say so'. The AT-ATs were engaged at long range, and only survived because they're so heavily armoured.

What would an AT-AT DO against a Hailfire? You seem to think that it's obvious, yet you have produced no worthwhile response. Can it just sit there and take missiles from it indefinately? If so, what makes you think this? These missiles blow AT-TEs to shreds.

The AT-ATs are heavily armored enough to survive P-Tower and snowspeeder fire. These are hardly heavy equipment. The P-Tower is 2.8 meters tall. That is not heavy artillery.

For people who can actually discuss evidence, it's clear that the 160km/h speed is only for roads. How do people think huge wheels will handle rough terrain? They're independently sprung, but aren't even specifically designed wheeled vehicles poor offroad?

What kind of road can handle an A6?

A wheeled vehicle will always be significantly better on roads or flat terrain, but with the sheer size and apparent strength of the Jug's wheels, it could roll right over obstacles that would stop a modern MBT.

Also, does the EU troop-load stats make sense? Apparently the 300-man thing is squeezing them in, so isn't saying the AT-AT can carry 40 bullshit, since you could take out the 'cargo' (light vehicles, speeders, etc) and squeeze more men in?

Couldn't answer this one without the ICS. You'd think you could indeed fit more into the AT-AT. Whether you could fit more than in the Juggernaut is a different question.

I was under the impression that both vehicles usually carried speeder bikes.

Oh sorry, I just noticed Anguirus being dishonest again. Rolling Eyes But hey, he's so stupid he thinks seeing armoured vehicles with low endurance in action days into a battle is a contradiction! What's the endurance on an M1A1 again? I bet they stopped using them in Iraq instead of using fuel dumps and shit right?

Conceded.

but you're so fucking biased it's not funny. You're not interested in a discussion.

Do you actually think I have a stake in this? Please. I'm just not convinced yet why the AT-AT is so common. (Though I'm getting there...see below.)

As for how you armor wheels, you can't really, but making them out of solid material would seem to be a good start. They certainly do not have tires, or resemble conventional terrrestrial wheels.

The vehicles are closely related in design. If the A6 is so good as you belive, you should start asking yourself why it's not prominent over the AT-AT rather than trying to convince everyone else that it is.

I'm trying to figure out the in-universe reason for the AT-AT to be dominant, if there is one. I just happen to think that the given EU reasons for it (such as the need for "more versatility and agility") are bullshit.

How about making a 90? Now who's going to win the turn race?

Probably the AT-AT, but that's hardly the same as saying the Juggernaut is incapable of doing so. Again, I refer to the thing dodging an AT-AP. It executed a 45-degree-ish turn at pretty decent speed.

How about equipment for the troops. Supplies, grenades, extra ammo, food, oxygen in some cases, field gear, spare helmets, the list goes on.

Good point, but one would think that this would be a job for dedicated transports.

One bit of reasoning that has been done previously on these forums is that the rebel artillery and snowspeeders may have been more effective against the support walkers.

Not really backed up by the movie...but it certainly is by the video games!

Either way, the AT-ATs were certainly the vanguard. But, on Hoth, that was the right call. They guessed correctly that the Rebels had a fairly weak force on the ground.

A plausible argument doesn't hold much more weight than a possibility. You could be right, you could be wrong. We may be able to determine two things, however - whether 300 troops is realistic, and if the A6 has more room for armour. This doesn't mean it actually has more armour, but it would give it the possibility that it does. Note that I'm just eyeballing now rather than doing actual scales. If you have better figures, feel free to come up with them.

The transport box seem to be about 35x15x10, which gives us 5250 m3, or 17.5 m3 per trooper, not counting crew. That's a space of little less than 2.6 m in all three directions per trooper. Plus a 5 ton cargo room left which can't be used by troops. The size of this compartment is enough for 50 more troops if it could be used, going by WOTC's figures for it. So we'll divide 5250 with 350 and arrive at 15 m3 per trooper, or just under 2.46 m in all directions. The remainder (edit for clarity: of what the trooper plus gear takes up) could be used for among other things armor.

An AT-ATs transport box is about 12x5x7.5 which gives us 450 m3, or 11.25 per trooper. Which is 2.24 m in all directions.

You get 9% more armour on the A6. But I can't say for sure, that's within the margin of error really. The A6, as you have pointed out, carries additional weapons such as a top turret which reasonably must take away space. The AT-AT doesn't have those. I deem it's quite possible that the A6 has no advantage in armour. Even if you are right, the difference is small.

First of all, thanks a lot for the numbers. I'll concede this point as well, because I underestimated the space required for troops. Again we see the "generalization" of Star Wars armored vehicles...a "Heavy Assault Vehicle" devotes a comparable amount of space to troop transport as an "All-Terrain Troop Transport." Curious.

A 9 m high rear ramp. I can't see any other way unless they have grav-belts or something...

Oof, I see what you mean. Clearly my brain was not working when I wrote that.

Now wouldn't that be convenient for your argument. Unless the A6 has the same extremely poor range as the A5, the fuel tank pretty much would have to be located... at the bottom.

Perhaps inside the large drive-assembly box? I can't see how you'd get underneath that thing, though, or target it from the outside. Since there is no external fuel tank, you'd have to pierce most of the thing in order to hit it, which makes it prety dead anyway.

First of all, a "significant impact" is bad for any vehicle. You're still assuming it's easy to trip an AT-AT, even though it was calculated you'd need a nuke to do it with an explosion. Of course, we don't have the actual mass of an AT-AT, but we can make certain estimates. Until you have something to back it up with, I'd suggest you to stay away from taking baseless assumptions as god's given truth. Granted, it trips easier than an A6, but that's not saying much.

Why are you assuming that it's either a snowspeeder or a nuke? If you have any advance notice of AT-ATs coming, all you'd have to do is rig up something to shoot the cable across their path. Even if it doesn't trip it, it would stop it and cause it to have to step over it or have troops take it down. You could set up a field of crisscrossing cables for virtually no cost and force the Imperials to waste valuable time blasting the cables.

We do know for sure that once the cable is in place, only one attempted forward step will cause it to topple, and then it will violently explode seconds later.

Based on my previous calculation, the A6 has 12 times as much surface area.

Indeed, but like I said, in either case no one is going to be *missing* these things.

Surely you aren't suggesting that an average trooper could reenact Luke's stunt.

Why not? If there aren't troops around, the AT-AT itself can't stop you. The only thing Luke had that another soldier wouldn't have is the lightsabre, and a shaped charge could have taken that hatch.

Luke's not the only one with magnetic grappling skillz. It seemed to be standard kit for troops deploying from AT-ATs and LAATs.

Apparently the EU wasn't so retarded this time.

So you're saying that the Juggernaut requires a guy in a mast to hit anything, despite the fact that this is a civilization where every craft has a targeting computer and satellites are ubiquitous?



Even if this was somehow a problem, it could easily be solved without changing the Juggernaut design.

It combines good qualities. It's not easy to trip at all, and high centre of gravity is offset by the long range it gives. If you put A6 Juggernauts on Hoth, it's not even certain that they could get to Echo Base. Sometimes A6s would be a better choice, but obviously not all the time. Maybe not even very often. Shall we take a look?

Tatooine - A6. The AT-AT has much greater fire range, but here maybe the A6 could get up to fair speed. Dantooine - neither, really. I'd take a repulsorlift. Coruscant - AT-AT, because of "tank hinders" and smaller size. Endor - AT-AT. Both can simply run down trees, but the AT-AT offers superior view, and range, when applicable. Hoth - AT-AT, obviously. Geonosis - depends on where.

How does an AT-AT have superior view? SWTC pegs it at about 23 meters tall. And range? How do you figure that?

You'd shoot your own vehicle if you 180 the primary turret. Unless you want to target clouds? I guess I was supposed to count 135 degrees as "rear", but the AT-AT can do that. Hell, the top turret has the same problem - it can barely fire downwards. Seems more like an anti-air turret.

The primary turret (which is the primary turret) obviously isn't for close-in fighting...that's what all the smaller cannons are for. It can engage targets at range in a 360 degree radius.

Similarly, the AT-AT can only fire its light cannons directly downward. I doubt that's usually a problem for it.

I'm searching for the "nuke to topple AT-AT" thread now. Does anyone have any idea what the title was, or when it was? It would help, I expect.

These are the same people who can watch ESB and describe the AT-AT as unable to hit fighters, remember. Because they blew the shit out of speeders, with torso-swinging snapshots so they obviously can't hit fighters am I right? Rolling Eyes

The same speeders that were consistently dumb enough to attack from the front and that have a shitty flight ceiling?

(edited back to original post)

Shitty flight ceiling... BECAUSE OF THE SHIELD? Don't tell me, they could have used Xwings if they hadn't needed them for 'escort' to orbit right?

AT AT can only fire it's light cannons down? What are you even talking about?

Oops, I claimed shitty flight ceiling before I remembered that EGVV claims it to have a pretty decent one. I edited, but you responded, so I'll edit it right back in a bit.

For whatever reason, the speeders flew at low altitude and right towards the front of the walkers. This, of course, is stupid, and just because a walker can hit those doesn't mean it would land many hits on a starfighter.

The AT-AT can only fire its light cannon straight downward, because they're on turrets. It can't lower its head 90 degrees and shoot. Of course, this has NO effect on their combat capability. Similarly, the heavy top turret on the Juggernaut doesn't need to be able to land fire very close to the Jug's main body. It does have LOS towards anything that's a decent distance away.

Yeah, it's stupid (they had the whole bloody plain).

What light guns are you talking about? The cheek guns are on turrets with vertical and possibly outward motion, and the whole head is flexible. It seems to me those guns can fire up, down, and to either side.

What light guns are you talking about? The cheek guns are on turrets with vertical and possibly outward motion, and the whole head is flexible. It seems to me those guns can fire up, down, and to either side.

Yeah. The cheek guns are the lighter guns, and they have a very wide field of fire in the frontal arc. The chin guns are slightly more restricted, but are still fine for fire at range.

Similarly, the Jug's top turret is fine at hitting targets at range in a 360 degree arc, and it has a number of close-in weapons that mitigate the fact that the heaviest cannon is slightly restricted by the body of the tank.

Anguirus wrote:For whatever reason, the speeders flew at low altitude and right towards the front of the walkers. This, of course, is stupid, and just because a walker can hit those doesn't mean it would land many hits on a starfighter.

IIRC there's been speculation that they were attacking the little vents on the front-top of the AT-ATs. Needless to say they weren't very successful, the whole thing was really just a suicidical harassing mission to buy time. IIRC we see one speeder smacked down while trying to make a run on the vents, then when an AT-AT is taken down, a speeder lines up and hits the vents, exploding it.

Having read through the rather long winded debate, I get the impression that the AT-AT should be a relatively rare Imperial vehicle, in comparison to Imperial ground armour that have repulsor drives and even caterpillar tracks, since the AT-AT is fairly specialised for breaking through theatre shields and transporting strike teams over rugged trench lines. But since most EU writers as unimaginative, they see the AT-AT as a very standard and common vehicle, just by seeing one isolated incident that occured in the entire era of the very late Republic and Palapatine's Empire.

I guess it's akin to seeing Imperial Stormtroopers as very standard Imperial infantry, even though there is the bulk of the Imperial Army, Imperial law enforcement, paramilitary units and regional auxiliary militias that are perhaps far more common Galactic Empire soldiers (but in most WWII movies you only see elite German Army or Waffen-SS soldiers, not the Romanian or Hungarian militaries, Slovakian auxiliaries or Orpo police officers, so WWII movies are striken with a similar brainbug).

Anguirus wrote:I'm trying to figure out the in-universe reason for the AT-AT to be dominant, if there is one. I just happen to think that the given EU reasons for it (such as the need for "more versatility and agility") are bullshit.

In that case you should've gone directly to combat theatres and tried to determine if an A6 Jugg could do a better job at the task at hand. I agree that the AT-AT dominance is a brain bug (albeit an understandable one - fans want to read about the things they recognize from the movies) I disagree that the Juggernaut is a significantly better concept for the task. In some situations it would no doubt be better. In all? Hell no. In most cases? Doesn't seem like it.

Anguirus wrote:Probably the AT-AT, but that's hardly the same as saying the Juggernaut is incapable of doing so. Again, I refer to the thing dodging an AT-AP. It executed a 45-degree-ish turn at pretty decent speed.

Anguirus wrote:Good point, but one would think that this would be a job for dedicated transports.

So, what is a Juggernaut A6 with 300 troops capacity if not a transport?

Anguirus wrote:Not really backed up by the movie...but it certainly is by the video games!

Either way, the AT-ATs were certainly the vanguard. But, on Hoth, that was the right call. They guessed correctly that the Rebels had a fairly weak force on the ground.

Not contradicted by the movie either. But it's still speculation, of course.

Anguirus wrote:First of all, thanks a lot for the numbers. I'll concede this point as well, because I underestimated the space required for troops. Again we see the "generalization" of Star Wars armored vehicles...a "Heavy Assault Vehicle" devotes a comparable amount of space to troop transport as an "All-Terrain Troop Transport." Curious.

It is certainly easy to be lead astray by assumptions. That's why it's a good thing to run some numbers from time to time, inaccurate as they may be.

Anguirus wrote:Oof, I see what you mean. Clearly my brain was not working when I wrote that.

Gotcha.

Anguirus wrote:Perhaps inside the large drive-assembly box? I can't see how you'd get underneath that thing, though, or target it from the outside. Since there is no external fuel tank, you'd have to pierce most of the thing in order to hit it, which makes it prety dead anyway.

Note that you could say that the fuel tank on the AT-AT should be deep inside with the same bit of reasoning. It looks like the fuel tank on the A6 should be located at the bottom, although it doesn't have to be in the extreme. In any case, you can't just assume the most favourable situation for your argument unless you can back it up.

I would point out that the fuel tank vulnerability on the AT-AT is exaggerated as well. Just how much fire would it take from directly beneath it? Not a lot. Infantry is in danger of being trampled, or even be caught in the explosion, if they actually manage to blow it up.

Anguirus wrote:Why are you assuming that it's either a snowspeeder or a nuke? If you have any advance notice of AT-ATs coming, all you'd have to do is rig up something to shoot the cable across their path. Even if it doesn't trip it, it would stop it and cause it to have to step over it or have troops take it down. You could set up a field of crisscrossing cables for virtually no cost and force the Imperials to waste valuable time blasting the cables.

A network of cables would probably be more detectable, wouldn't you say. Plus of course, it's not like you can't set up hinders for A6 Juggs easily enough. Like any minefield or tank hinder, they slow down the enemy. That's what they're made for.

Anguirus wrote:We do know for sure that once the cable is in place, only one attempted forward step will cause it to topple, and then it will violently explode seconds later.

A stunt trick, and a single AT-AT blowing isn't exactly setting a very reliable 100% per cent precedence. I agree that it's at least a mission kill if they can pull it off, happy?

Anguirus wrote:Indeed, but like I said, in either case no one is going to be *missing* these things.

It might make a difference in an ECM-rich environment.

Anguirus wrote:Why not? If there aren't troops around, the AT-AT itself can't stop you. The only thing Luke had that another soldier wouldn't have is the lightsabre, and a shaped charge could have taken that hatch.

Luke's not the only one with magnetic grappling skillz. It seemed to be standard kit for troops deploying from AT-ATs and LAATs.

Firstly, the AT-AT in question was going very, very slowly, about 5 km/h. A little faster and no regular trooper could run up to it with gear and all. This is also requiring that no other AT-AT takes a pot shot at you, or that it doesn't have any support vehicles or infantry. Basically, it has to ignore you completely. Next you'll have to wind up to the hatch, place your charge while it's moving, wind down so you don't get caught in the blast, finally wind up again, throw in a thermdet or other heavy explosive, wind down and escape.

Yes, it's doable. It's also hinging on perfect conditions. Very few AT-ATs would ever be lost to such sabotage, and if the method should become common, it seems likely that the Empire would take any out of many possible simple steps to prevent it. Such as actually shooting at the tiny little guys running around them. You might notice that while the other rebels used the cable trick, no one attempted a similar run-up and disable.

Anguirus wrote:So you're saying that the Juggernaut requires a guy in a mast to hit anything, despite the fact that this is a civilization where every craft has a targeting computer and satellites are ubiquitous?



Even if this was somehow a problem, it could easily be solved without changing the Juggernaut design.

It was, eventually. The guy in the mast was replaced by a computer-controlled camera. But the Clone Wars also featured the AT-TE with an exposed gunner, a completely open scout walker (AT-RT), and an AT-AT equivalent with open sky (AT-OT).

Anguirus wrote:How does an AT-AT have superior view? SWTC pegs it at about 23 meters tall. And range? How do you figure that?

Fine, the A6 has a better view if the mast is still sticking on, with a still unshot trooper in it. Better fire range simply comes from location. The A6's weapons, AA top turret aside, have a shorter horizon. EU numbers for both vehicles are very short, so let's not touch them unless we have ti.

Anguirus wrote:The primary turret (which is the primary turret) obviously isn't for close-in fighting...that's what all the smaller cannons are for. It can engage targets at range in a 360 degree radius.

Yes, but your original statement was as far as I could tell that it had 360 with pretty much all weapons. This is patently untrue. Not a single weapon on the A6 can fire 360 except the top turret which covers sky. Together the weapons have fair 360 cover, yes.

The AT-AT has a 270 degree fire range, and it can traverse the remaining 90 degrees in 6 seconds or less. Hoth was very poor terrain and hardly an upper benchmark on AT-AT performance.

Anguirus wrote:Similarly, the AT-AT can only fire its light cannons directly downward. I doubt that's usually a problem for it.

I'm guessing that you're saying that the cheek guns can only rotate downwards. First of all, I'm watching the movie now and I can say that I distinctly saw them pointed upwards by approximately 15 degrees more than once - secondly, the head can "look up". Finally, the snowspeeders mostly kept to zero altitude, even lower than the AT-ATs height, so there was almost no reason for the guns to point upwards, only the occasional Snowspeeder looping away.

I could even make the argument that the Snowspeeers attacked at such low altitude to avoid counter-fire which could only come from the cheek guns. It's very clear from the movie that the cheek guns are trying to track the attacking Snowspeeders. Quite sucessfully, by the way. When Luke and Co flies in for a second attack, their fronts fill up with numerous blasts that must be shield hits from said guns. Luke even tells Wedge and the others to stay low at this point. I would say the AT-ATs are helluva better at tracking flying vehicles than usually credited for (there is also the small fact that we see three Snowspeeders shot down by AT-ATs).

[Edit] Summary of my argument: AT-ATs are way better than you claim, and A6 Juggs aren't nearly as good as you claim. I believe I have proved the point. Consequently, there isn't nearly as much reason to exchange AT-ATs for Juggernauts as you would have us believe. Personally I would say that AT-ATs look like the better vehicle.

^ I'm fine with most of your post, but I wanted to point out a few things:

The A6's weapons, AA top turret aside, have a shorter horizon.

The top turret is NOT an AA weapon. It is the primary weapon. It is the equivalent of the AT-AT's heavy cannons.

It would certainly be capable of AA if it can be fired quickly enough, but I expect that the repeating turret on the top rear of the craft and the side turret blasters are more heavily employed for this work.

I'm guessing that you're saying that the cheek guns can only rotate downwards

Certainly not!

I could even make the argument that the Snowspeeers attacked at such low altitude to avoid counter-fire which could only come from the cheek guns. It's very clear from the movie that the cheek guns are trying to track the attacking Snowspeeders. Quite sucessfully, by the way. When Luke and Co flies in for a second attack, their fronts fill up with numerous blasts that must be shield hits from said guns. Luke even tells Wedge and the others to stay low at this point. I would say the AT-ATs are helluva better at tracking flying vehicles than usually credited for (there is also the small fact that we see three Snowspeeders shot down by AT-ATs).

Luke's order still doesn't make very much sense unless he was going in for a cable run, unless the snowspeeders are so slow and altitude-restricted that they must zoom around the walkers' legs to be safe. All they had to do to minimize incoming fire was execute strafing runs against the rear of the walkers.

There's nothing wrong with the cheek guns, they are excellent anti-air weapons. The AT-AT just lacks all-around coverage.

As for everything else, good points. Thanks for the discussion, it's been a pleasure.

Anguirus wrote:^ I'm fine with most of your post, but I wanted to point out a few things:

The A6's weapons, AA top turret aside, have a shorter horizon.

The top turret is NOT an AA weapon. It is the primary weapon. It is the equivalent of the AT-AT's heavy cannons.

It would certainly be capable of AA if it can be fired quickly enough, but I expect that the repeating turret on the top rear of the craft and the side turret blasters are more heavily employed for this work.

Well, I think we have a little miscommunication here. I was referring to the top-most weapon, not the heavy turret on top of the cockppit. So we are actually saying the same thing here.

I'm guessing that you're saying that the cheek guns can only rotate downwards

Certainly not!

I could even make the argument that the Snowspeeers attacked at such low altitude to avoid counter-fire which could only come from the cheek guns. It's very clear from the movie that the cheek guns are trying to track the attacking Snowspeeders. Quite sucessfully, by the way. When Luke and Co flies in for a second attack, their fronts fill up with numerous blasts that must be shield hits from said guns. Luke even tells Wedge and the others to stay low at this point. I would say the AT-ATs are helluva better at tracking flying vehicles than usually credited for (there is also the small fact that we see three Snowspeeders shot down by AT-ATs).

Luke's order still doesn't make very much sense unless he was going in for a cable run, unless the snowspeeders are so slow and altitude-restricted that they must zoom around the walkers' legs to be safe. All they had to do to minimize incoming fire was execute strafing runs against the rear of the walkers.

There's nothing wrong with the cheek guns, they are excellent anti-air weapons. The AT-AT just lacks all-around coverage.

As for everything else, good points. Thanks for the discussion, it's been a pleasure.[/quote]

You're welcome. I learned something in the process, so it was all good. Thanks for a good exchange.