StarDestroyer.Net BBS

First off, a thought regarding the predominance of LOS weaponry (blasters) versus ballistic and guided/semi-guided munitions. I wonder if it’s simply not a case cost. Energy seems to be pretty damn cheap for the Star Wars cultures to produce. It may simply be that a blaster type weapon of a given yield is far cheaper to produce and keep operational, than more standard munitions, to say nothing of the variable yield capability. This isn't even considering the issues of depleted ammunition stores during a battle. Notice that we rarely if ever, hear about vehicles/ships needing to refuel, at inconvenient times (i.e. mid battle). This along with the ability to actually intercept munitions, and higher speed of the "shots" is about the only in universe reason I can think of for the prevalence of blaster weaponry.

Now for AT-ATs. Here's a rather radical departure for their roles, let’s forget about them as an assault vehicles or gun platform. They are very large, yet for a troop transport of that size (even if a secondary role), they carry very few troops ~50 if I recall or about a platoon. Whereas the A6 Juggernaught while larger, but not massively so, seems to be able to carry up to 300 troops depending on configuration. We know ISD I & ISD II class ships apparently carry prefabricated garrison bases for deployment on worlds. What if the AT-AT is not an assault vehicle, but a force projection system? A mobile barracks on legs if you will. Equipment and supplies for extended patrols would help account for the seemingly poor troop capacity (I admit I may be underestimating the amount of volume needed drive equipment). Likewise, the presence of speeders (I assume similar to the speeder bikes we see on Endor) would further allow for patrolling away from the main vehicle. Basically, most of the internal space is taken up by supplies. I can’t really explain the use of legs other than for height and making it more imposing.

I would like to take a moment to comment on the fact that supposedly you can fit two AT-ST sized walkers at the expense of troop carrying capacity. The only way I can see this is if the actual volume of the vehicle not taken up by its drive, energy, etc. systems is somewhat modular in design. In other words you have a module that’s like a mini-barracks I outlined above for long patrols, a troop transport module lacking supplies for extended deployment, while allowing for increased troop capacity or fewer troops with improved speed (presumably this would be used at Hoth), and a more boxcar like variant used to carry smaller vehicles to a position. The only way I can really rationalize carrying other vehicles is if you’re trying to get them to a position without using fuel and causing wear on the vehicles (why real life MBTs spend as little travel time under their own power as they possible can) prior to some kind of limited deployment. Really the AT-ST and similar walkers seem to be the analogue of armored cars in real life. Personally, I'd rather just throw out the ability to carry smaller walkers, but if it has to be kept that’s how I'd justify it.

Back to the AT-AT, specifically its size, armor, and weapons. I can see the size having to advantages height and fear. The height should allow for a far better sensor and sight range (weapon too) than a more traditional low to the ground height. That however, is secondary to its primary purpose of making the vehicle large and imposing. What better way to instill fear and subjugate a populace than with giant armored roving bunkers? Is that village getting restless? Send a patrol by their way and see how long it takes the villagers to become compliant when they hear the giant armored behemoth approach, ready to raise their homes or disgorge troops to raid their community. The weaponry, especially the main guns, are probably meant for terrorizing a civilian populace, as much, if not more than they're meant for destroying hardened targets and defense. They most likely have the range to take out any credible land based vehicular threats before coming into range themselves. They need only fear fixed emplacements large enough that they'd be easily observed via smaller scouts and or aerial/orbital assets. What can insurgents do to a vehicle that can raise their towns and smaller communities from kilometers away (well out of the reach of man portable munitions), and will likely outrange any kind of AT likely to be had. Finally, even if you do get in range with something, they’re so heavily armored as to render all but the higher power dedicated AT weaponry(i.e. larger than what we see at Hoth) obsolete.

In short, the AT-AT not as an assault vehicle or artillery platform, but as a mighty mobile engine of occupation used to extend the area that a garrison with limited aerial assets can control. In this sense they are more akin to naval ships patrolling far from home base where aerial patrols are not possible or are too expensive maintain. Why were they used at Hoth? Simple, they had the needed qualities of firepower, armor, and troop capacity, but more importantly they were available on-site unlike a proper ground assault force.

In short, the AT-AT not as an assault vehicle or artillery platform, but as a mighty mobile engine of occupation used to extend the area that a garrison with limited aerial assets can control. In this sense they are more akin to naval ships patrolling far from home base where aerial patrols are not possible or are too expensive maintain. Why were they used at Hoth? Simple, they had the needed qualities of firepower, armor, and troop capacity, but more importantly they were available on-site unlike a proper ground assault force.

Totally fails to address why they exist at all, and why they instead of proper AFVs were being put on Star Destroyers.

What better way to instill fear and subjugate a populace than with giant armored roving bunkers?

Giant tanks. It's just a size and firepower issue. There's nothing inherently terrifying about a large vehicle mounted on tall legs as opposed to a large vehicle with treads. Do you think Allied Soldiers feared the Tiger tank because it looked menacing? They feared it because it was powerful and hard to kill. Combat effectiveness instills fear.

Yeah; in addition, huge lumbering beasts are inherently more intimidating than metal shoeboxes with guns and wheels tacked on.

They exist, because someone thought invoking war elephants in space opera would be cool. Just be glad they weren't giant space elephants.

Lack of real AFVs seems to be that star destroyers are primarily a naval destroyer first, light carrier second, and planertary assault platform last. Hell, the only reason they have the ability to deploy ground troops at all and carry as many at they do (more than what should be needed for security and boarding actions) is to make them mobile symbols of tyranny. I am surprised they even carry ground garrisons, as mini orbital Space Stations of DOOM! complete with WMDs to terrorize the population from orbit with impunity seems more fitting and in character for what the creators of that lovely piece of EU want us to believe. The fact that they even carry garrison forces around all the time makes little sense and probably has its roots in WEG idiocy.

I imagine giant stompy legs, and the sound of thousands of tons of metal thundering your way along with size and firepower probably has some psychological effects on those facing it, more so at least than size and firepower alone. Does it justify it in any practical sense, or outweigh the negatives of being a mecha in any way? No, but it probably does give Palps, Tarkin, and like minded individuals a hardon and with real life examples like the Maus, its abviously not that unbelievable.

Srelex wrote:Yeah; in addition, huge lumbering beasts are inherently more intimidating than metal shoeboxes with guns and wheels tacked on.

Um-no they're not. AT-ATs actually look patently SILLY. The only thing that makes them intimidating at all is their SIZE. A tank of comparable dimensions would be easily as intimidating AND far more capable. For starters, an AT-ATs field of fire stinks to high heaven.

adam_grif wrote:Totally fails to address why they exist at all, and why they instead of proper AFVs were being put on Star Destroyers.

Hmm... possibly because the standard Star Destroyer's infantry detachment is meant more for garrison duty than for combat deployment? That fits with the "standard Imperial garrison base" we hear about. If so, the AT-ATs really are semi-mobile bunkers (airmobile too, if you can keep those superheavy cargo shuttles around), with enough artillery that nothing but specially hardened targets can withstand them, and heavy armor that nothing but specialized antitank weapons can take them out.

You wouldn't want them at a place like Geonosis; for that you'd want different vehicles that are more optimized for intense combat (like, hell, the AT-TE, which is at least lower-slung and turret-armed than its nephew the AT-AT). Those would be kept on the Empire's equivalent of amphibious assault ships... in which case the real question is why didn't Death Squadron have one?

Giant tanks. It's just a size and firepower issue. There's nothing inherently terrifying about a large vehicle mounted on tall legs as opposed to a large vehicle with treads. Do you think Allied Soldiers feared the Tiger tank because it looked menacing? They feared it because it was powerful and hard to kill. Combat effectiveness instills fear.

AT-ATs are combat effective enough, unless you happen to have high-end tank killers. For guys with hand blasters (or even cannon designed to knock out smaller-scale armor), they're bloody terrifying, for much the same reason the Tiger was: you can't kill it.

About the effectiveness of the AT-AT, I'd like to highlight one specific scenario where a massive walker could very well be the only effective vehicle available: mine clearance (especially when air support is unavailable). The thing with all wheeled and tracked vehicles is that if their wheels or treads are destroyed, they're combat ineffective because they can't move. Obviously, Imperial tanks like the Juggernauts can't do any good if their wheels keep getting blown up while transversing a minefield. Now in a situation like the Battle of Hoth where the Empire has little time to spare before the enemy flees, normal methods of mine clearance might take too long. However, if time can be saved by simply stomping over minefields without suffering damage, wouldn't a vehicle with that capability be a vital weapon of war?

Considering all the abuse that AT-AT can take from enemy firepower, it doesn't seem like a stretch to believe that AT-ATs would be all but impervious to minefields as well. Assuming the Rebels mined the approaches to the Hoth shield generator (which if they did, would explain why the Juggernauts deployed on Hoth as depicted in the comic Entrenched are not seen in combat), making use of the slow AT-ATs might very well make the difference between killing/capturing some number of Rebels and letting the Rebels escape without much of a fight at all, which would be totally unacceptable to the Empire.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:You're insane.

Well... yeah.

Did Star Wars tech allow the AT-AT to walk any faster than the miserably slow pace they proceeded at? Did Star Wars tech allow the AT-AT to avoid getting tripped over by a piece of rope?

I read the Wookiepedia entry on the Hoth battle; the Empire had A5s, but didn't use them, and the tech commentaries rated the roughly 9km/h speed as below the best walker speeds of over 60km/h, with the ice plain being the reason. Taking down the shield generators was vital, and AT-ATs were entrusted to the task. If the unfortunate AT-AT driver has simply stopped and had someone blast the cables, there would have been no problems. It was an unconventional, apparently unforseen tactic.

The AT-AT can't reach the party first because it is miserably slow because of its legs.

Repulsorcraft can't make it either if they ground out, and wheels and treads can be blocked or stuck. The walker gives an edge that might compensate for those failings. If one is outfitting a space fleet with ground forces to quell an ill-armed rebellion, walkers start to look very good. If one is outfitting an army to fight a ground war, treads and wheels are the better technology.

Did SW robotics make the AT-AT any faster in ESB? Did SW robotics make the AT-AT immune from being tripped by a piece of rope? A downed walker may be survivable, but it's still a downed and combat-ineffective vehicle. It's inefficient.

Also, actually a tank will be more survivable than an AT-AT or a mecha. Since the tracks are a stabler platform and can bear weight more effectively, you can put more armor on the tank than the mecha.

Hell, tracks can bear more weight effectively than wheels too. There's a reason why we don't see massive 70 ton tanks that use wheels.

I won't argue with that. In fact, the prequil trilogy focused on the ground war, and the great ground battles needed wheels and treads. The original trilogy was more focused on naval operations, policing the Empire. With the ground war pretty much over, the juggernauts were decommissioned and even sold off. Transportability and flexibility for rapid reaction to douse hotspots were priority of the New Order. Legs apparently filled the role better than treads.

Bullshit. So the AT-AT is immune from maintenance, and don't need add-ons or fixes for their stupid legs whenever it breaks down? The AT-AT's already shitty against rough environment precisely because its feet concentrate pressure on the ground - whereas tracks would spread the pressure out - so an AT-AT would be performing worse on soft ground than a tank.

PS - this is why when you're trapped in quicksand, you try to spread your arms and legs and try to float by spreading your weight - because if you just stand there, your weight becomes concentrated on just your stupid mecha feet and you SINK

Also: The AT-AT legs occupy useless space. A tank with similar mass to the AT-AT would not be as tall as the AT-AT because it won't have any tall-ass giant giraffe legs to stand on. An AT-AT-sized tank would be as tall as an AT-At in kneeling position. If it was sensibly designed, the tank would even have a LOWER profile than a kneeling AT-AT.

A tank the height of an AT-AT body might not overcome the obstacles the same tank with legs could. After a certain mass, any large vehicle is going to have trouble on soft terrain, tank or walker. A walker can perhaps apply more momentum to help it move at times, but a tank would have to be constantly powering itself along. There is also the problem of transport and landing large and heavy war machines, sometimes while under fire. Perhaps there are tracked solutions, but it is possible that with the option of working and reliable robotics the tread/wheel versus mecha debate is much clearer to the Imperial forces. Walkers are a compromise vehicle.

You're talking about tank rollover when you're trying to defend fucking giant tall AT-ATs that TRIPPED AND FELL on a piece of rope?

Just because the Rebels were having problems fixing their shitty second-hand bargain bin vehicles doesn't mean tanks would have the same problems. Why would the AT-AT be exempt from adverse weather conditions? Because of LOL LEGS? So legs now automatically give us +1 environmental protection, but -1 in speed and -1 in falling over its ass?

They were there, and they worked. A5s were ret-conned in, but were nowhere to be seen. Probably because they were ret-conned in... but that's beside the point. I assume the simplicity of the robotocs and nature of the armour allowed AT-ATs to work with very little visible modification.

A tank on the same weight class as an AT-AT would actually be more flexible, because it doesn't have legs and would thus have a smaller vertical profile and thus conserve space easier. To make itself smaller, an AT-AT has to fold its tall legs. A tank, on the other hand, won't even have any legs to begin with.

Also, no height or mobility bonus over treads those times when such an advantage might be useful.

How can it be an effective troop carrier when it WALKS SO SLOW, thus increasing the travel time of the troops its carrying? Not only that, but to deploy its troops it has to either kneel down or the troops have to rope down. That's inefficient and stupid.

Well, it got them there faster and fresher than running. Apart from losing three units to lucky, unconventional tactics. The losses to nature later added to the story might just as easily happened to juggernauts.

No. Just pieces of rope that tripped the crappy AT-ATs up and made them fall on their asses.

One lucky shot using a tow cable of unknown strength. It wasn't repeated in the battle.

A tank would have superior armor coverage, because it can bear and distribute weight better with its tracks compared to legs, and because a tank can be 'compacted' with a smaller surface area (thus increasing armor thickness) compared to an AT-AT that's HUEG for the sake of HUEG.

Also, the use of missiles would allow the tank to engage from beyond the line of sight.

And a turret would give a tank 360 degree coverage with a single main gun. How can an AT-AT engage an enemy that's shooting its ass? Can its head rotate like the fucking Exorcist and shoot back? No, its head can't even swivel properly. It probably needs fucking butt-guns to defend its butt, and that wastes space and weight and armor.

Never said tanks didn't have their strengths or couldn't beat a mech. For whatever reason, Luke led tow-gun runs from the front, not the back or even the sides. Which actually makes no sense, unless the AT-AT support units were still active at the time discouraging such approaches.

The AT-AT is a bullshit vehicle. It's only advantage is A.) It's big and slow B.) It makes lots of noise C.) It's tall so the enemy can see it, and exchange fire with stupid line-of-sight weaponry D.) It's got line of sight weaponry that limits its range to the line of sight, and does not have beyond LOS weapons, so it must be stupidly TALL to have decent range E.) It's fucking tall, which makes it a huge target F.) It is used against enemies without serious anti-armor capability like shitty rebels, and against enemies with serious anti-armor capability it would be dead meat.

Screw it. Your argument even says that the AT-At is good because it faces no serious enemies. So, what if it faces serious enemies, then? It gets fucked. Serious anti-tank weapons would make the AT-AT's "awesome terror-inspiring Tarkin size" into a giant target, a giant bullseye. The AT-AT's crappy legs would make it a SLOW target too! A SLOW and BIG target! An easy target. The fact that it uses legs means that it's also got weight issues. It's lack of turret limits the coverage of its weapons. It's also restricted to line of sight engagements - so what if the enemy uses beyond-LOS missiles or projectiles? A bunch of Hailfire drones would fuck an AT-AT up!

A properly supported AT-AT unit might have solutions to Hailfire drones, but Hailfire drones were never encountered. Walkers are apparently designed for a different kind of warfare then the prequil trilogy.

Rebel-inflicted casualties were all DEAD AT-ATs that got DESTROYED as a result of their SHIT design that made them vulnerable to attacks that would be ineffective against conventional vehicles. The AT-ATs also precluded Vader from committing a "quick assault before the rebels can retreat" precisely because the AT-ATs are fucking slow.

Veers went with AT-ATs over the A5 juggernauts retconned into the story. A handful of AT-ATs also slaughtered rebel defenders. If there's no-one left to shoot at the guys exiting the AT-ATs, its probably at least as safe as roping out of a hovering troop transport (if snowtroopers do that).

Walkers are the Empire's crappy blunt edge in ground campaigns, because of their slow locomotion, bulky useless size, and the fact that their legs disallow them from carrying more armor (while something like tracks allows weight to be spread out on the ground) allows inflexible deployment and INEFFECTIVE deployment in the absence of more conventional mechanized armored unit. This makes the AT-AT the most ineffective ground vehicle because it was so slow, allowing the Rebels to escape, and is the wrong tool for the job at that particular point in the conflict (a right tool would've been a QUICK tool).

No doubt a fast tank designed for arctic operations could do a better, faster job on Hoth than a generalized vehicle meant to be deployed anywhere at a moment's notice. If Vader hadn't been so impatient, he might have sent for a few, but between the Rebels catching the probe droid and Ozzel coming out of lightspeed to soon, any solution short of repeating Laakteen Depot was not in the cards.

It is a platform that has not exhausted its potential for improvement because it's a shitty vehicle that can be improved in a hundred thousand million different ways. It's potential for improvement will NEVER be exhausted, because it's so crappy that amputating its feet and replacing them with rollerblades can be considered an improvement. There's lots of room for improvement - like a room big enough to fit an AT-AT in.

With enough credits, the Empire could probably make an AT-AT as nimble as an arena beast.

General Brock wrote:I read the Wookiepedia entry on the Hoth battle; the Empire had A5s, but didn't use them, and the tech commentaries rated the roughly 9km/h speed as below the best walker speeds of over 60km/h, with the ice plain being the reason. Taking down the shield generators was vital, and AT-ATs were entrusted to the task. If the unfortunate AT-AT driver has simply stopped and had someone blast the cables, there would have been no problems. It was an unconventional, apparently unforseen tactic.

Ugh. Are you saying that a lumbering, shitty, clumsy mech that walks one step at a time was the Empire's fastest vehicle available on Hoth at the time? Jesus Christ.

Repulsorcraft can't make it either if they ground out, and wheels and treads can be blocked or stuck. The walker gives an edge that might compensate for those failings. If one is outfitting a space fleet with ground forces to quell an ill-armed rebellion, walkers start to look very good. If one is outfitting an army to fight a ground war, treads and wheels are the better technology.

Repulsorcraft are practically aircraft. Do we see the speeders at Hoth ground out? Wheels and treads can be block or stuck - AND SO CAN LEGS! What the hell did you see Luke do to that AT-AT?

If one is outfitting an army to fight a ground war, treads and wheels are the better technology. If one is outfitting a space fleet with ground forces to quell an ill-armed rebellion, what do walkers offer at all when wheels and treads are ALREADY the better technology for ground warfare?

I won't argue with that. In fact, the prequil trilogy focused on the ground war, and the great ground battles needed wheels and treads. The original trilogy was more focused on naval operations, policing the Empire. With the ground war pretty much over, the juggernauts were decommissioned and even sold off. Transportability and flexibility for rapid reaction to douse hotspots were priority of the New Order. Legs apparently filled the role better than treads.

No they didn't. The Rebels escaped because the AT-ATs were slow as shit.

How the fuck can legged vehicles be more transportable and flexible for RAPID REACTION? The AT-ATs are fuck slow, wheeled or tracked vehicles can move faster. How can they be more transportable? The legs make the AT-AT ridiculously tall, forcing it to kneel down when in storage. Tracks and wheels DON'T make vehicles ridiculously tall, so tracked and wheeled vehicles DON'T have to kneel down inconveniently like a bloody AT-AT.

A tank the height of an AT-AT body might not overcome the obstacles the same tank with legs could. After a certain mass, any large vehicle is going to have trouble on soft terrain, tank or walker. A walker can perhaps apply more momentum to help it move at times, but a tank would have to be constantly powering itself along. There is also the problem of transport and landing large and heavy war machines, sometimes while under fire. Perhaps there are tracked solutions, but it is possible that with the option of working and reliable robotics the tread/wheel versus mecha debate is much clearer to the Imperial forces. Walkers are a compromise vehicle.

What the fuck are you talking about? A tank with tracks will spread its weight out on soft terrain more effectively than a vehicle with legs - this applies in all weight classes. This is why the largest modern all-terrain ground warfare vehicles are tanks with treads/tracks, because even wheels are not as effective in soft terrain.

Jesus Christ. Transporting and landing large and heavy war machines? A tank would just roll right off the transport craft immediately upon lowering the landing ramp. Whereas, as you already stated, an AT-AT is NOT transportable because when it's being transported it has to KNEEL ITS ASS DOWN! It has to do that when it disembarks or carries soldiers, it has to do that when it is in transport! A tank does not have to fucking kneel down, ever.

As for obstacles, tanks were DESIGNED to overcome trenches that LEGGED INFANTRY were fucked with - that legged cavalry were fucked with.

They were there, and they worked. A5s were ret-conned in, but were nowhere to be seen. Probably because they were ret-conned in... but that's beside the point. I assume the simplicity of the robotocs and nature of the armour allowed AT-ATs to work with very little visible modification.

"ROBOTICS LOL" somehow disappears the innate difficulty of working with legged vehicles?

Could it just be that the Imperials did their modification in space, prior to landing? I mean, the Imperials did have bloody Snowtroopers on hand so they already were optimizing for winter war. Or that the Rebels were just shitty and under-supplied? Or both? And NOT some magic attributes that you ascribe to legged vehicles?

A tank on the same weight class as an AT-AT would actually be more flexible, because it doesn't have legs and would thus have a smaller vertical profile and thus conserve space easier. To make itself smaller, an AT-AT has to fold its tall legs. A tank, on the other hand, won't even have any legs to begin with.

Also, no height or mobility bonus over treads those times when such an advantage might be useful.

WHAT mobility bonus? Treads and tracks are better over rough, soft and uneven terrain - and they're FASTER than stupid one-step-at-a-time legs. Height bonus? There's a reason why tanks, modern ones, are designed to have the smallest/shortest vertical profile - because height advantage basically translates to "I'M A GIANT VISIBLE TARGET" advantage, which is a DIS-advantage.

How can it be an effective troop carrier when it WALKS SO SLOW, thus increasing the travel time of the troops its carrying? Not only that, but to deploy its troops it has to either kneel down or the troops have to rope down. That's inefficient and stupid.

Well, it got them there faster and fresher than running. Apart from losing three units to lucky, unconventional tactics. The losses to nature later added to the story might just as easily happened to juggernauts.

No it wouldn't. If the terrain was firm enough to support walker feet, it would've supported Juggernaut wheels or tracks. And the Rebel speeders would NOT have been able to kill Juggernauts with fucking rope.

Also, Juggernaut missiles would've allowed it to engage in beyond visual range.

Riding a donkey would've gotten soldiers faster and fresher than running. But that doesn't mean a donkey is a better solution to a wheeled/track vehicle. The AT-AT is a donkey. A giant donkey. Which is why it sucks giant donkey balls.

One lucky shot using a tow cable of unknown strength. It wasn't repeated in the battle.

The OTHER lucky shot involved Luke going UNDER the undefended belly of the stupid AT-AT and climbing up and grenading the thing in the gut - something that would not have happened to a tank.

Never said tanks didn't have their strengths or couldn't beat a mech. For whatever reason, Luke led tow-gun runs from the front, not the back or even the sides. Which actually makes no sense, unless the AT-AT support units were still active at the time discouraging such approaches.

So an AT-AT sucks at beating incoming enemies right IN FRONT of it! Oh man!

A properly supported AT-AT unit might have solutions to Hailfire drones, but Hailfire drones were never encountered. Walkers are apparently designed for a different kind of warfare then the prequil trilogy.

The kind of warfare where the enemy can't reliably fight back because they're shit, thus allowing the stupidest and most worthless vehicles to be usable in battle - and where the stupid vehicles still get casualties, despite the weakness of the enemy.

Veers went with AT-ATs over the A5 juggernauts retconned into the story. A handful of AT-ATs also slaughtered rebel defenders. If there's no-one left to shoot at the guys exiting the AT-ATs, its probably at least as safe as roping out of a hovering troop transport (if snowtroopers do that).

And what if the enemy was NOT as weak as the Rebels? For all your talk of mobility, flexibility and bullshit - it turns out that the AT-AT is highly specialized for WEAK DEFENSELESS BULLSHIT enemies who CAN'T FIGHT BACK! Man! Oh man! Talk about highly specialized shit.

A war weapon that can't even be used in a proper war, and that relies on the fact that the enemy can't fight properly, is a shit weapon.

No doubt a fast tank designed for arctic operations could do a better, faster job on Hoth than a generalized vehicle meant to be deployed anywhere at a moment's notice. If Vader hadn't been so impatient, he might have sent for a few, but between the Rebels catching the probe droid and Ozzel coming out of lightspeed to soon, any solution short of repeating Laakteen Depot was not in the cards.

Then Operation Hoth Freedom was a complete botch up, by Imperial standards. Their recon element was discovered, thus allowing the Rebels to begin escape preparations. The Imps came out at lightspeed too soon, which was more shit. And THEN the only vehicle they had for the ground assault were shitty vehicles that could barely do the job too! Man.

With enough credits, the Empire could probably make an AT-AT as nimble as an arena beast.

With enough credits, the Empire could probably build a treaded battle tank that could shoot spiderwebs and swing building from building in Coruscant like a giant M1 Abrams mated with Spiderman.

Wing Commander MAD wrote:What if the AT-AT is not an assault vehicle, but a force projection system? A mobile barracks on legs if you will. Equipment and supplies for extended patrols would help account for the seemingly poor troop capacity (I admit I may be underestimating the amount of volume needed drive equipment). Likewise, the presence of speeders (I assume similar to the speeder bikes we see on Endor) would further allow for patrolling away from the main vehicle. Basically, most of the internal space is taken up by supplies. I can’t really explain the use of legs other than for height and making it more imposing.

That's crap. You want your barracks to be tall and highly visible from far away, so the enemy can take pot shots at it? You want your barracks to have legs, so transporting troops and other equipment in and out of the AT-AT would require the vehicle either kneeling down or using elevators or something to deliver troops to and from the ground?

If I was a soldier, I'd be fucking pissed if I was forced to live in a goddamn AT-AT barracks. What the fuck kind of tree house is that? The thing would have to KNEEL for every soldier who comes in, or we'd have to use rope to climb up! What if there's a rapid attack? How the hell do I exit the AT-AT and enter battle quickly - or how do I run inside the AT-AT for safety quickly? Do I have to climb a dozen feet up into the hatch, on some goddamn rope? Do I have to wait for the AT-AT to kneel down for me? Jesus Christ.

In other words you have a module that’s like a mini-barracks I outlined above for long patrols, a troop transport module lacking supplies for extended deployment, while allowing for increased troop capacity or fewer troops with improved speed (presumably this would be used at Hoth), and a more boxcar like variant used to carry smaller vehicles to a position. The only way I can really rationalize carrying other vehicles is if you’re trying to get them to a position without using fuel and causing wear on the vehicles (why real life MBTs spend as little travel time under their own power as they possible can) prior to some kind of limited deployment.

[/quote]

You want your smaller vehicles to be carried into position by a stupidly slow one-step-at-a-time walking machine? One that stands and walks, and has to painstakingly KNEEL (or deploy ropes) to lower down troops and/or smaller vehicles? What?

Ugh. Are you saying that a lumbering, shitty, clumsy mech that walks one step at a time was the Empire's fastest vehicle available on Hoth at the time? Jesus Christ.

But don't you get it, Shroom? Stardestroyers only have garrison forces. And this means that they aren't allowed to have effective combat vehicles, because combat effectiveness and invincible supertanks are not scary, and garrison forces are not there to defeat rebels, but to scare people with their clumsy giant robots.

Oh I see. So Stardestroyers must have crappy slow as mechanigundaminus because seeing a lumbering turd coming at you, one whose standard countermeasure seems to be tripping it on its ass with some space rope, and which can easily be killfucked by walking underneath it and planting some fucking space grenades inside it, is soooo scary? And, like, fear of these crappy little (F)AT-(F)ATs will keep the local shroomstems in line? Man, it's even acknowledged that the FAT-FATs have shitty space for passengers. What does the rest of this space get used for? Is the FAT-FAT's passenger compartment crammed full of half-assed justifications for the combat effectiveness flexible mobilitude and fastness and tacticoolness of mechas? Man. I guess the reason why FAT-FAT are considered to be more effective than crappy transforming fighter-mecha planes is because the FAT-FAT's passenger compartment can fit in more justificating rationalizations.

That said, the mental image of an AT-AT pooping out a combat bridge is awesome.

On the matter of Hoth, using what we have of SoD and the unknown circumstances that lie within? One has to logically conclude, Darth Vader's personal forces only had the AT-ATs at hand for that battle before the Rebels scoot. Or otherwise, one can present otherwise why would the Imperial forces use such a resource over far better ones. And then demonstrate they had access in that battle to said better ones.

On the matter of what the Empire has at hand, of course they have better and demonstrated such.

Srelex wrote:Yeah; in addition, huge lumbering beasts are inherently more intimidating than metal shoeboxes with guns and wheels tacked on.

So you want to tell me that this:

Is more intimidating than this:

Note those guys are 2m tall super soldiers that laugh at .50 cals. Or this:

Schatten, I think you're being just slightly disingenuous in ignoring the forty metre tall biped fighting machines, you know, Titans, that are basically the heavy ground force available to the Imperium. 40K has, all right, two fewer legs to stand on when it comes to giant robots.

The basic point recieved and understood, though. Effectiveness intimidates- once the initial shock is over, only effectiveness intimidates. Volcano Cannon- or for the older thousand ton version full Defence Lasers- are, after all, quite effective.

And I reckon Srelex was (also) being sarcastic, anyway. There's absolutely no doubt about der Shroom. Unfortunately, he's right. Although

With enough credits, the Empire could probably build a treaded battle tank that could shoot spiderwebs and swing building from building in Coruscant like a giant M1 Abrams mated with Spiderman.

this is something I would like to see.

Although, when you look at the volume investment, Star Destroyers seem to devote a hell of a lot of space to the ground complement. Space for at least twenty AT-AT landing barges at least as large as the things themselves- you could fit racks for minimum six TIE Fighters into the space of an AT-AT barge. (25x12x8m, for the AT-AT, plus who knows for the barge around it, versus 6.7x6.3x6.6.m for a TIE/ln.) The fighter complement is effectively sacrificed, hell, crucified, to make space for the ground force. If the AT-ATs are stored separately from their barges for maintenance reasons, that's an even bigger waste.

The most sensible in- universe reason I can think of is that the entire project is actually a practical joke on Palpatine's part. He is looking for two things; for the majority of the people of the galaxy and the Imperial military in particular to be reduced to subservience, and to select out the strong- willed, tough- minded minority to serve him directly as Moffs, Hands and senior officers in general, to keep the majority under control. They will, of course, rather like the worshippers of Chthulhu, simply be eaten last...

What better selection method than to saddle the Imperial ground forces with something utterly ridiculous and ineffectual? Anyone who submits, buries their doubts and goes to war willingly in a mechanised overgrown donkey is obviously one of the sheep, and deserves what they get. Anyone who objects is obviously too intelligent for the cavalry and destined for better things.

Maximillian Veers, on the third hand- what strange personal combination of loyalty and determination inspired him to take the shit sandwich and make something useful out of it is unlikely to be repeated. Vader? He was probably in on the joke.

On the minefield crossing subject, I don't think the AT-AT would really be much better than a tracked or wheeled vehicle for that, either. I mean, sure, the crew would be fairly safe due to being farther away from the explosion if the walker tripped a mine, but you have to be on crack if you think an AT-AT is going anywhere with a foot blown off. It might be able to balance on three feet, but I doubt it would be able to move like that, given that it seems to have balance issues even at the best of times. Unlike, say, a juggernaut, which looks like it could loose a wheel or three and still be combat effective.

I personally like Simon-Jester's explanation for the AT-AT, if it's not intended to move very far on its own its lack of mobility is less of an issue, and if its intended to engage the enemy at artillary ranges with L.O.S. weapons that gives it a reason to be tall. It might not be an ideal design for that role, but we don't live in an ideal world, and last I checked, neither do the denizens of the Star Wars universe.

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:Schatten, I think you're being just slightly disingenuous in ignoring the forty metre tall biped fighting machines, you know, Titans, that are basically the heavy ground force available to the Imperium. 40K has, all right, two fewer legs to stand on when it comes to giant robots.

Unfortunately for you I'm not letting your strawman slide, I didn't say WH40k's mecha were any less silly than walkers. What I did say was that a giant tank is more intimidating than a giant mecha.

PhilosopherofSorts: Yeah, but those are easily correctable deficiencies. We might not live in an ideal world, but because of that that's why we try to build things that are optimized and NOT fucking stupid.

However, since this is Star Wars, there could be quite a few extenuating circumstances or whatever. Namely Palpatine being an asshole.

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:Although, when you look at the volume investment, Star Destroyers seem to devote a hell of a lot of space to the ground complement. Space for at least twenty AT-AT landing barges at least as large as the things themselves- you could fit racks for minimum six TIE Fighters into the space of an AT-AT barge. (25x12x8m, for the AT-AT, plus who knows for the barge around it, versus 6.7x6.3x6.6.m for a TIE/ln.) The fighter complement is effectively sacrificed, hell, crucified, to make space for the ground force. If the AT-ATs are stored separately from their barges for maintenance reasons, that's an even bigger waste.

I'd like to think that not ALL ISD's are crammed full of AT-ATs or other less stupid ground vehicles, and that those that aren't tasked with invading planets have more space dedicated to fighters or something. It's stupid to have all ISDs have uniform equipment, it'd be better to have some assigned with carrying particularly specialized cargo, some for invading planets, others for space fighter superiority, and whatever.

General Schatten wrote:

Srelex wrote:Yeah; in addition, huge lumbering beasts are inherently more intimidating than metal shoeboxes with guns and wheels tacked on.

So you want to tell me that this:

Is more intimidating than this:

Note those guys are 2m tall super soldiers that laugh at .50 cals. Or this:

Yes.

Not when the AT-AT trips on a piece of rope and falls on its butt. Or easily gets ruined by some guy with a rope and a hand grenade blowing its guts out.

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:The most sensible in- universe reason I can think of is that the entire project is actually a practical joke on Palpatine's part. He is looking for two things; for the majority of the people of the galaxy and the Imperial military in particular to be reduced to subservience, and to select out the strong- willed, tough- minded minority to serve him directly as Moffs, Hands and senior officers in general, to keep the majority under control. They will, of course, rather like the worshippers of Chthulhu, simply be eaten last...

What better selection method than to saddle the Imperial ground forces with something utterly ridiculous and ineffectual? Anyone who submits, buries their doubts and goes to war willingly in a mechanised overgrown donkey is obviously one of the sheep, and deserves what they get. Anyone who objects is obviously too intelligent for the cavalry and destined for better things.

Maximillian Veers, on the third hand- what strange personal combination of loyalty and determination inspired him to take the shit sandwich and make something useful out of it is unlikely to be repeated. Vader? He was probably in on the joke.

Wow. So, a supercharged version of my "I like it, make it a troop transport" speculation, then?

It's kind of silly to blame every stupid weapons system in Star Wars on Palpatine's machinations to cement his perpetual dominance by getting rid of all the smart people and replacing them with AT-AT riding morons. I suppose that TIE-tank was also Palpatine's fault.

Why do that with ground warfare vehicles, though? Palpatine didn't make the Imperials use stupid starships or anything. Why the AT-AT?

PhilosopherOfSorts wrote:I mean, sure, the crew would be fairly safe due to being farther away from the explosion if the walker tripped a mine, but you have to be on crack if you think an AT-AT is going anywhere with a foot blown off.

This assumes that a mine would be able to blow off an AT-AT foot though. The stuff they use to make AT-AT legs would have to be strong enough to at least support the weight of the upper section (not to mention to withstand typical Rebel firepower with ease). All things considered, it's very probable that whatever is used to build an AT-AT foot (and it looks like it could be nothing but steel rather than just being a "shell") is strong enough to shrug off mine explosions.

I'd be able to type more about the subject if I actually spent time and money on collecting EU reference materials. Ah well.

Bellosh101 wrote:

PhilosopherOfSorts wrote:I mean, sure, the crew would be fairly safe due to being farther away from the explosion if the walker tripped a mine, but you have to be on crack if you think an AT-AT is going anywhere with a foot blown off.

This assumes that a mine would be able to blow off an AT-AT foot though. The stuff they use to make AT-AT legs would have to be strong enough to at least support the weight of the upper section (not to mention to withstand typical Rebel firepower with ease). All things considered, it's very probable that whatever is used to build an AT-AT foot (and it looks like it could be nothing but steel rather than just being a "shell") is strong enough to shrug off mine explosions.

Given that Star Wars can pack 8MJ into the equivalent of a .44 Revolver, I'd hazard a guess that a Star Wars AT mine is going to pack more firepower than you think it would.

KT range explosives the size of an orange. Nuff said
Not to mention IF the material of an AT-ATs foot is oh so mine resistant, why not use it in wheel construction?

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Not when the AT-AT trips on a piece of rope and falls on its butt. Or easily gets ruined by some guy with a rope and a hand grenade blowing its guts out.

Right, because that happens every time they are deployed... of wait.