AT-ATs as artillery

MickeyMo · Post by **MickeyMo** » 2005-02-12 01:41am

Since the rebels could just have used shells made of the same substance and easily destroyed them, thats the point. Slow and very heavy, they are easy REAL WORLD targets, and all of them would have went down with ease

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-02-12 01:59am

MickeyMo wrote:Since the rebels could just have used shells made of the same substance and easily destroyed them, thats the point.

What the fuck kind of logic is that?

In any case, by that logic, I guess the US Army shouldn't bother using M1A2s anymore, since if Al-Quaeda or the Iraqi insurgents grab the M1's top secret Chobham-esque armor, then the M1s will all be fucked, right? Oh wait... these bad guys CAN'T get these fancy magic silver bullets, because they're just budget strapped rag-tag rebels fighting a much superior and well-funded military power. That kinda sounds familiar, doesn't it?

In any case #2, I guess your logic explains why wrecking balls, the ones used to tear down buildings, are made out of concrete. I mean, wrecking balls can easily destroy concrete buildings because they are also made of the same substance, concrete. Right? Yup yup yup....no wait...

Slow and very heavy, they are easy REAL WORLD targets, and all of them would have went down with ease

They would go down with ease, granted that you could have something that would take them down with ease. Which you, and the Rebels, don't have.

Christ bananas.

MickeyMo · Post by **MickeyMo** » 2005-02-12 07:10am

1. Except that the rebels, unlike AL Qaeda, have Fleets of starships, fighters and artillery. You cant say they can make starships but not heavy artillery pieces. And that only includes existing artillery types, not rail cannons, which we already know how to make.

And if 21st Century Earth is capable of making a rail cannon that can accelerate a shell from 0 to 13,000 mph in 0.2 seconds, than the Rebel Alliance is certainly capable of it. And if that shell was made of "durasteel" (or whatever AT-AT armor is), its going to blow a hole through an imperial walker with ease.

2. They can be made of the same substance OR and even denser, stronger substance. The point being that no armor is now or ever can be immune to projectiles.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-02-12 08:32am

MickeyMo wrote:1. Except that the rebels, unlike AL Qaeda, have Fleets of starships, fighters and artillery. You cant say they can make starships but not heavy artillery pieces. And that only includes existing artillery types, not rail cannons, which we already know how to make.

They don't have to be the ones who make their starships (could someone confirm this for me?). They're budget strapped and get a significant portion of their equipment from donations, relics from the Clone Wars, and etcetera.

And just because they can make starships, it doesn't mean they can make warheads (as in the ones in artillery pieces, not on starships) capable of defeating the armor of an AT-AT. Their gear, aside from the X-Wing, is inferior to their Imperial counterparts. They don't have to have the means of defeating an AT-AT.

Just because say, Doctor Evil has a WWII-era Yamato battlecruiser - which is inferior to the more modern Nimitz sported by his enemy, say the USA - doesn't mean he can sport tanks that have bullets capable of piercing M1 armor.

Just replace Doctor Evil with the Rebels, the USA with the Galactic Empire, the Yamato with starships and the M1 with an AT-AT.

And if 21st Century Earth is capable of making a rail cannon that can accelerate a shell from 0 to 13,000 mph in 0.2 seconds, than the Rebel Alliance is certainly capable of it. And if that shell was made of "durasteel" (or whatever AT-AT armor is), its going to blow a hole through an imperial walker with ease.

But how will they get their magic bullets capable of blasting open the AT-AT's magic armor? They might not be able to manufacture the material needed for the bullets, they might not have the resources to turn those materials into bullets. Maybe the AT-AT armor is so goddamned superior that the Rebels don't have the means of making an artillery piece/warhead with the strength to defeat it, even though it CAN be defeated.

2. They can be made of the same substance OR and even denser, stronger substance. The point being that no armor is now or ever can be immune to projectiles.

Nobody said that the AT-AT was invincible. Just that the rebels did not possess the projecticles capable of defeating them.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2005-02-12 08:58am

Don't fucking forget the rebels are exactly that -- ahem, REBELS!

Why would equipping a stand up army be a priority? Starships are expensive enough, a rebel alliance really can't occupy territory. They hid on Hoth, they were discovered, they fled immediately because the Empire has comparatively infinite resources so fighting stand up battles really is dumb unless it's absolutely vital, like Endor. Hell, remember insurgents in Iraq attacking a convoy full of money many months back? PWNAGE. Think Tet Offensive. Think the Revolutionary War. Hell, think the Civil War, the South fought the better equipped and numerically superior North and ultimately lost.

Their intention would never be to fight the Imperials head on, they're just starting from so far behind. A successful rebellion does NOT attack the enemy where they are strongest. No rebellion against a galactic fucking empire will ever have the manpower to compete anyway. Best to stick to the shadows.

MickeyMo · Post by **MickeyMo** » 2005-02-12 10:34am

Well it seems odd that they can build or acquire starships and directed energy artillery but not build or acquire projectile artillery. But thats just the way Lucas wanted it.

The projectile question is also on another thread, and I preface by saying "are we talking about reality or fiction?" In reality, there will never be a day when projectiles will be obsolete as a result of any armor, since they can make the projectiles out of the same substance. In fiction someone can just push the Magic Bubble button (i.e. "shields") and probably stop it.

But the ever-presence of lasers, phasers, blasters and ray guns is a long time fixture of science fiction, although some, like Aliens and the new BSG depict projectiles.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-02-12 11:17am

MickeyMo wrote:Well it seems odd that they can build or acquire starships and directed energy artillery but not build or acquire projectile artillery. But thats just the way Lucas wanted it.

They do have projectile artillery. Just not the ones capable of defeating AT-AT armor.

The projectile question is also on another thread, and I preface by saying "are we talking about reality or fiction?" In reality, there will never be a day when projectiles will be obsolete as a result of any armor, since they can make the projectiles out of the same substance. In fiction someone can just push the Magic Bubble button (i.e. "shields") and probably stop it.

Or maybe those same substances are harder to build than you think they are? Do you see real life rebels manufacturing Chobham or something? And it's not always "getting the same substances the armor is made of". Or else we'd see people getting bullets made out of Kevlar or something.

But the ever-presence of lasers, phasers, blasters and ray guns is a long time fixture of science fiction, although some, like Aliens and the new BSG depict projectiles.

Its an arms race. Guys build ray weapons to beat projectile armoring, guys build armor/shields to beat ray weaponry and perhaps also be efficient against projectile weaponry that everyone's forgotten (or maybe not). Some guy invents phallic-nucleonic-pulse-weapons and some guy invents something to counter that. So on and so on.

Besides, we know blasters also do KE damage.