Empire vs modern army

[Sionnach Glic]

My thinking was that a tank, just by the sheer KE of its shell, might be able to actualy knock an AT-AT over if it hit it in the side, due to its very high centre of gravity. Unlikely, though.

Not a chance. The legs alone must weigh as much as a destroyer.

Really? I always thought that they were made out of some super-light advanced metal, hence why they didn't sink into the snow and ice on Hoth. In fact, if it did weigh that much, wouldn't it be useless on any ground other than solid rock?

Still, you're probably right. My knowledge of physics is rather lacking.

Well take the Megaton range for the AT-AT weapons that is thrown out there. You see them firing their main weapons at the rebel trenches. Yet the explosions look like something caused by a hand grenade. If you have megaton level weapons you should be blowing huge holes in the earth. It makes no sense to hold back. They want to wipe these people out.

They also wanted prisoners. Vader knew Luke was there, and he wanted him alive. Thus blasting everything in sight to pieces would probably be a bad idea.

Also, note that massive explosion when Veers orders maximum firepower. Even at 17 kilometres, the blast dominates the entire window of the walker. Admitedly I'm no expert in explosives, but a blast that big would require a shitload of power.

[Deepcrush]

Well take the Megaton range for the AT-AT weapons that is thrown out there. You see them firing their main weapons at the rebel trenches. Yet the explosions look like something caused by a hand grenade. If you have megaton level weapons you should be blowing huge holes in the earth. It makes no sense to hold back. They want to wipe these people out.

That figure is calculated based on the diameter of the initial fireball when Veers shot the generator (before the generator blew up) - it's for a max yield shot, but it shows what an AT-AT is capable of. The shots against the trenches were a) a much lower yield (why waste energy), b) could easily have been drilling kilometre-long tunnels in the ice (these are energy weapons, not bombs). Incidentally, Vader wanted prisoners, including his son. Hence why he ordered a surface attack instead of simply melting the icefield outside the shield and flooding the base.

Also, if you want a film reason to the different damages you saw. The AT-AT has two sets of weapons on her. A lighter set of weapons used for anti-infantry, and a heavier set which seemed able to f-bomb the shield generator.

Also, note that massive explosion when Veers orders maximum firepower. Even at 17 kilometres, the blast dominates the entire window of the walker. Admitedly I'm no expert in explosives, but a blast that big would require a shitload of power.

A lot of that overall power may have come from the shield generator that was producing enough power that a dozen ISDs couldn't punch through.

[Captain Seafort]

Doubtful they weigh much, but the point is solid. You're NOT going to knock over an ATAT with a 120mm round.

A small destroyer, certainly, but still low thousands of tons given their volume and the fact they've got to support the rest of the walker (and so are probably solid).

Really? I always thought that they were made out of some super-light advanced metal, hence why they didn't sink into the snow and ice on Hoth. In fact, if it did weigh that much, wouldn't it be useless on any ground other than solid rock?

They're certainly restricted to solid ground, but their ground pressure is only likely to be a few bar, and great mass helps them withstand the recoil of their weapons.

Still, you're probably right. My knowledge of physics is rather lacking.

So's mine, hence why I'm paraphrasing this.

[Captain Seafort]

Also, if you want a film reason to the different damages you saw. The AT-AT has two sets of weapons on her. A lighter set of weapons used for anti-infantry, and a heavier set which seemed able to f-bomb the shield generator.

They used the chin guns for long-range fire on the trenches as well as against the generator, but Veers specifically ordered "maximum firepower" before firing on the genny.

A lot of that overall power may have come from the shield generator that was producing enough power that a dozen ISDs couldn't punch through.

Which fireball are you talking about? The generator certainly added something to the final blast, but the initial low-Mt fireball was before that, and therefore caused by the guns alone. It's mentioned in the analysis I linked to.

[Deepcrush]

A small destroyer, certainly, but still low thousands of tons given their volume and the fact they've got to support the rest of the walker (and so are probably solid).

It must be a very small destroyer since the legs are only ten meters tall. So I'm thinking you're a fair bit off on that. But yes, with that walking motion there will be a point when the full weight of the AT-AT is pressed on two legs. They must be built from something tough.

They're certainly restricted to solid ground, but their ground pressure is only likely to be a few bar, and great mass helps them withstand the recoil of their weapons.

Mind me but "Few bar"? As for walking on snow it helps that they are mostly hollow and have the weight spread out fairly well.

[Sionnach Glic]

They're certainly restricted to solid ground, but their ground pressure is only likely to be a few bar, and great mass helps them withstand the recoil of their weapons.

I suppose the big feet would go a long way towards lowering their ground pressure, true.

[Deepcrush]

They used the chin guns for long-range fire on the trenches as well as against the generator, but Veers specifically ordered "maximum firepower" before firing on the genny.

I wouldn't doubt they were using the heavy guns at some point. There were armored targets to attend to. I was just pointing out the weapons of the AT-AT so Big could get why not every shot was a nuke.

Which fireball are you talking about? The generator certainly added something to the final blast, but the initial low-Mt fireball was before that, and therefore caused by the guns alone. It's mentioned in the analysis I linked to.

The end result explosion from the shield generator going BOOM.

[BigJKU316]

Except they shot Luke down, which very well could have killed him. Then they almost stomped on him with a walker. It is not like they were being extra careful with everyone either. They also pretty much blasted everything in site and shot at everyone that was running. They also shelled the base badly enough that there were dead people all over the hardened command center at the end. If taking prisoners and not harming Luke was the priority that is a strange way to show it.

As to the AT-AT weapons what purpose do they serve if they are "drilling huge holes in the ground" and leaving troops around unharmed? It is not like the Rebels ever really showed that they had some sort of comparable force for which you would need something designed to penetrate in that way. Why did you design something to combat a threat that does not exist that seems useless agianst the ones that do? I mean a battery of MLRS rockets on the thing would have done far more damage to the rebel positions. What is the AT-AT designed to do?

Also the two explainations don't square.

If the explosion you see from the powerplant is the result of the weapon impact then the weapon exploded in some fashion on contact. But if that is the case then why did they not explode when they hit the ground? I guess the ground is too soft...but then why not have a big explosion when it hits the turrets and other fixed weapon emplacements? I am not sure which it is. The first shot of the battle is clearly fired from the main battery under the chin of the AT-AT and I suppose they could be conserving some power but that is a hell of a finely tuned system if you can cause an explosion equal to a half pound of C-4 and then blast away with megaton force mintues later.

Both Star Wars and Star Trek have huge problems with weapons scaling. For every "Han blasted a chunk of concrete down with a hand pistol" one can counter with "Boba Fett shot luke in the hand and it did little more than char the synthetic flesh on him and the Princess got hit in the arm and looking at worst slightly annoyed."

[Captain Seafort]

It must be a very small destroyer since the legs are only ten meters tall.

More like 16 metres actually, given that the entire vehicle is over 30 metres tall. Have a look at the link in my last reply to Rochey - that where I'm getting a lot of my numbers from.

As for the destroyer comparison, it's probably stretching the description quite a bit these days, given how big they're getting. I'm thinking of 1,000 - 2,000 tons, about the size of a WW2 destroyer.

Mind me but "Few bar"? As for walking on snow it helps that they are mostly hollow and have the weight spread out fairly well.

They couldn't walk on soft snow - they're not sinking at all in the shots we see from ESB, so I don't think they're on snow but on solid ice. They were also described as attacking over the "north ridge", so there may be rock just below the surface which would also help.

[Deepcrush]

More like 16 metres actually, given that the entire vehicle is over 30 metres tall. Have a look at the link in my last reply to Rochey - that where I'm getting a lot of my numbers from.

SW-Databank declares the AT-AT at 15m tall. I take my numbers from there because I suck at math and everything not Canon Tree I don't trust. Though thats mostly because again I suck at math and couldn't figure a lot of it out on my own if I tried.

As for the destroyer comparison, it's probably stretching the description quite a bit these days, given how big they're getting. I'm thinking of 1,000 - 2,000 tons, about the size of a WW2 destroyer.

That still seems a good bit heavy for the height IMO, then again I've got no total weight numbers for the AT-AT to go by.

They couldn't walk on soft snow - they're not sinking at all in the shots we see from ESB, so I don't think they're on snow but on solid ice. They were also described as attacking over the "north ridge", so there may be rock just below the surface which would also help.

Thats a good point. Advancing over a ridge on an ice planet would allow for them to move without sinking all the time.

[Captain Seafort]

Except they shot Luke down, which very well could have killed him. Then they almost stomped on him with a walker. It is not like they were being extra careful with everyone either. They also pretty much blasted everything in site and shot at everyone that was running. They also shelled the base badly enough that there were dead people all over the hardened command center at the end. If taking prisoners and not harming Luke was the priority that is a strange way to show it.

There's a difference between not flattening the entire base and being stupid. They were hitting the rebels hard, certainly, but their priority was to punch through the defences, knock the shield down, and then occupy the base, not to wipe everyone out.

As to the AT-AT weapons what purpose do they serve if they are "drilling huge holes in the ground" and leaving troops around unharmed? It is not like the Rebels ever really showed that they had some sort of comparable force for which you would need something designed to penetrate in that way.

It's not a matter of them being "designed" to do that, or of "penetrating" but of that being how energy weapons behave. They would simply vaporise a hole through the ice. Their behaviour against much denser materials, such as rock or metal would be entirely different.

If the explosion you see from the powerplant is the result of the weapon impact then the weapon exploded in some fashion on contact.

Wrong - the fireball is most likely the shots vaporising big lumps of the reactor casing.

The first shot of the battle is clearly fired from the main battery under the chin of the AT-AT and I suppose they could be conserving some power but that is a hell of a finely tuned system if you can cause an explosion equal to a half pound of C-4 and then blast away with megaton force mintues later.

Very much so, although as I've explained the effects are different depending on the materal.

Both Star Wars and Star Trek have huge problems with weapons scaling. For every "Han blasted a chunk of concrete down with a hand pistol" one can counter with "Boba Fett shot luke in the hand and it did little more than char the synthetic flesh on him and the Princess got hit in the arm and looking at worst slightly annoyed."

1) Simply pointing out low-energy events does not refute high-energy events.

2) Luke wasn't wearing armour, so why waste energy?

3) Leia wasn't hit by the blaster shot - it hit the corner of the alcove and she was caught by sparks.

[Sionnach Glic]

Height discussion split to a seperate thread.

[Deepcrush]

Height discussion split to a seperate thread.

Damn you simo post! Rochey, give my last post a bump if you please.

Back to topic now?

[Sionnach Glic]

Deep's new post split. Back on topic people.

[Deepcrush]

AT-ATs out of the picture, or just sidebarred for now. The next best thing would be AT-TE's or Saber 2-M Repulsor Tank. For me, I don't see a MBT really standing well against either to be honest.