"The AT-AT is the perfect metaphorical representation of the Empire. Big, slow, intimidating, devastating in a frontal assault and extremely vulnerable to literally anything else." - Some Guy.
It was the perfect weapon in peace time using intimidation as a weapon, but had plenty of flaws as a true combat platform. The First Order had no excuse for copying it's design as they use there's primarily in combat. They apparently just copied every bad idea the Empire had and made it bigger, as if that would fix the problem.
@@dugclrk In "Tales of Mos Eisley Canteen" one if the Storm Troopers had trained to be an AT-AT pilot, but was transferred to the Storm Troopers when he discovered the AT-AT's weakness to snub fighters, and development on the spot an effective countermeasure to them (he squatted the machine, preventing a successful attack).
I don’t think an ATAT would even scare me in a battle. It would be easy as shit to just hide from it, as well as being very easy to knock out with a better designed traditional vehicle. Even a stationary anti armor cannon would have a field day shooting down something as visible as the ATAT.
If the whole point of such an impractical design is to instill terror in the enemy, then it doesn't make any sense to use it as a troop transport considering it's going to be the first thing the enemy will shoot at.
There's a Legends reference to them being able to kneel like a camel or an elephant. Which also negates a belly attack, still quite a distance for troops to disembark but I would guess that gantry hatch swings all the way down to allow them to march out.
@InfiniteMushroom I agree. The AT-AT just couldn't choose what it was supposed to be. An artillery platform? A troop transport? A waste of Imperial money? That's why the Republic LAAT is waaay better.
Should have been All Terrain Artillery Transport. Then the height is a major advantage (what with all the direct fire weapons in Star Wars) and the speed doesn't matter as much. With the carrying capacity dedicated to power sources and large long range weapons they could have devastated ground based targets. With the right gear they could have even threatened space based targets.
That's what the First Order AT-M6 basically is, self-propelled artillery. It's a humongous mechanical gorilla with a turbolaser strapped to its back. Its front legs are made very big and heavy to support it when it leans forward prior to firing.
Regarding the 3,500 metric ton capacity thing, I figured that was the maximum load the legs and suspension could carry, rather than some engineer trying to carry a WW2-era destroyer on an AT-AT. On Earth-like planets, that figure wouldn't be particularly useful outside of figuring out the AT-AT's towing capacity - for example, if it were trying to get another AT-AT unstuck from some obstacle. But on a high-gravity planet, where everything weighs twice or more as much? That suspension is suddenly going to have to take a _lot_ more weight. Alternately, it might be a stability thing. The AT-AT design is already top-heavy, so it must have a number of mechanisms to keep itself from tipping over. It might be that those gyroscopes and balance systems are rated to keep steady a maximum load of 3,500 tons - a handy thing, since all the recoil from the AT-AT's weapons, and most of the impact forces from incoming fire, are going to be directed at the main hull. Either way, it's probably a rating mostly intended to be ridiculously over-capable. Since a trip or fall from that height is generally lethal, having a margin of error of not five or ten percent but _two_ hundred_ to not break the machine's legs or tip it over accidentally by carrying too much weight is a pretty good thing.
@@pabsitterab675 i did, and having while it sounds good it is rather off. higher gravity means that it won't be deploying troops, which is what it is designed to deploy. having a leg that can handle a ton of weight means nothing in regards to stability, after all a railroad tie on its end can support a massive amount of weight but will topple on its own.
In a high gravity environment, I figured vehicles like the AT-AT would be battle-taxis rather than infantry fighting vehicles, and only unload its troops directly into areas with gravity control systems like those used aboard starships, such as a sealed colony. The AT-AT would still need to contend with the planet's high gravity, but the troops aboard it would be shielded from high-gravity conditions. ...Though I guess I am making the assumption that an artificial gravity system is built into the AT-AT itself as well. Those systems are small and light enough to wedge into one-man fighters like X-Wings, though, so I'm sure there's room for one on an environmentally-sealed armored walker the size of an office building. As for the balance issue, my thought was to consider how a tall surface ship is designed, like a sailing ship. One thing they have to take into account is what might happen when the ship pitches and rolls in heavy seas. The designers of the Swedish sailing ship _Vasa_ didn't do this properly: a gust of wind tipped her over more than expected, allowing seawater to flooded in through her open gun ports and sink the ship in minutes. With the AT-AT's engine, weapons, and heaviest armor so far above the ground, I figured the walker uses some artificial balancing system to not randomly fall over, but that that system is only so strong. If a reckless walker crew stuffed more weight in the main hull, that would make the machine even more top-heavy. If they did that too much, then at some point the balancing system won't be able to keep its feet under it anymore.
Another potential stresser engineers would have to over-design for is how AT-ATs are deployed into battle- they're dropped from gozanti class transports, occasionally from heights I estimate to be 40-50 feet.
during one of the training courses on Carida, a promising Cadet named Davin Felth lowered his walker to its knees in order to prevent the opposing force from exploiting the weakness its long legs presented. The weakness threatened Veers's career, as it was so closely tied to the success of the walkers. Veers buried the incident by reassigning Felth to the infantry.
AT-ACT is actually bigger then AT-AT’s and the ion blaster disabled some sort of field that kept it up. Still a massive flaw and will AT-ACT’s are not used in battle.
The weight of the AT-ACT is too much for the "knees" so is uses magnetic field generators to keep it upright. The ion canon disabled that field wich destroyed the "knees"
Spencer Holden Definitely can’t compare the two, since one was basically a giant cargo container, and the other is a war machine. The AT-AT has a shield to protect itself from blast, unlike the AT-ACT which had the magnetic field to hold it up, and since it wasn’t used for combat this field replaced the shield. Also this claims that it’s a bad vehicle, but every Star Wars movie or game disagree and make it the ultimate vehicle
Let’s be honest hear, the Sandcrawler (Jawa’s robot abduction vehicle) would’ve been more practical then the AT-AT if it had been armored up and had guns thrown on the top and sides.
@InfiniteMushroom i mean the crawler, the jawas might not have the industrial capabilities to build these, but they sure as hell are good at maintenance
#9 [exposed underbelly] Add a small ball turrent that covers the underside, and as a bonus the rear arc. Install it on the back lower corner with a laser cannon. The ball mounting allows anti personnel fire underneath the Walker and also covers behind against Speeders and aircraft that are out of view of the main guns on the front. Due to the number of targets that present themselves though, it would be wise to have a pair of these ball turrets, side by side, each able to target individually. So finally AT-AT's would have a pair of balls @@
Fixing the ATAT I think he did a good job on most of it so here are a few ideas not covered. 1) Make the body shorter and wider. Slant the sides out at a lower angle. As it stands the armour sloping on the ATAT is not too bad as it is so high up. As I intend to bring it down to ground level this needs to change. This also reduces the target profile. 2) Flame throwers. As a weapon if intimidation it needs some kind of terror weapon to subjegate a rebelious population. Napalm cannons would be ideal. 3) Get rid of the legs. Replace these with screw drives so it can all kinds of terrain without issue, float and take a real pounding without being imobalized. 4) Give it an indirect fire weapon. The ATTE mass driver for example. 5) Put a great big imperial simble on the side of it. Thicken up the armour there so anyone using it as a bullseye wount gain anything by it. 6) Some kind of mine detonation system. Maybe electric pulses, radio interferance or a sonic weapon that sets off the primer well away from the vehicle.
That AT-AT definitely was portrayed and used poorly in the films but it can still be a useful weapon. Retrofit it with a shield generator in a small group. Have it escorted with smaller tanks, infantry, and AT-ST walkers to guard its flanks and you have both an intimidating and devastatingly effect Imperial ground assault.
When you are the pinnacle of Empire control and assault techniques and you get destroyed by a moisture farmer with some blue sword and an old towing cable
There was quite a difference between the older AT-ACT and the AT-AT as the ACT is a cargo transport and didn't require all that armour, not so for the AT-AT troop transport, being uparmoured for that purpose to protect the troops. The AT was hardened against ion and particle weapons after the Empire learned the lessons of Scarif. Unfortunately they didn't learn every lesson they could have, and the AT-AT suffered on Hoth as a result.
But Hoth was a victory, as well as most other engagements it was in. If not for Luke the Empire may never have fallen. A shame how "The Last Jedi" treated the savior of the universe.
@@dugclrk A very costly victory. I always did wonder why they never flew the X-wings against the walkers. I mean, they'd be at least as fast as the speeders, not to mention they have shields and much heavier weapons. Be interesting to see how the armour dealt with proton torpedoes.
ATAT formations moved with ATST units in a scouting and close support role, which removes the need for mechanised infantry support, as well as the fact they can deploy several squads quite rapidly for that role. The complete lack of rear and underside guns or firing slits is silly though 😛
"bullet sponge" Maybe that was one of its design qualities. Allowed troops to advance without so much fire coming in. Still, ridiculous design. Ah, the 80s.
@@imppro I meant some people has balls of steel to challenge death itself. Hell, if i saw an AT-AT, plan ahead and kick ass while saying FUCK YOU to the Force.
The holy trinity of armor: firepower, mobility, protection...this has two right. Sort of. Firepower is concentrated forward, so is very limited. Protection, sort of...it is very armored. Mobility...not so much.
To be fair, it's not necessarily a bad design, the chassis is actually useful for a lot of combat roles, just not the purposes the Empire was using them for. They sorely needed a purpose built main battle tank/walker and Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
During Rogue One, those are AT-ACT walkers. They were larger, so their knees were locked with an ion mechanism. That blaster that shot it used ion bolts, disabling the knee joint. The actual AT-ATs don’t have those
hey everyone , maybe it's time to remember that the AT-AT looks the way it does because the guys in the art department thought that would look cool in 1979 when nothing like it had ever been seen before.
I’m predicting right now that one of the flaws for the CIS hovertank will be that battle droids can’t interference with the tank directly and need to actually operate controls to move the vehicle
That is a huge flaw in every CIS design. Virtually no reaction time. Why not have the weapons tied directly into the sensors? No fighters would ever get close.
Battle droids are junk anyway. And I'm not just talking the way Jedi whisk through them. No armor, no built in weapon, no built in comm, no initiative, no brains, take orders in "standard" English instead of high-speed digital burst second by second from an SBD or better. (SBD-😉!) Besides in every game I've played the E-11s are assembly line crap: if the Clones had been better armed and armored the BDs would have been spare parts piles waiting to happen. (I suppose the standard stormie rifle be good enough for guard duty but they should have been given serious firepower for going into battle. The US Army doesn't hand the soldier a common rifle when it's time to invade, they get powerful ones with armor-piercing rounds.)
If it could keep up that 40MPH jaunt all day, and traverse sandy or uneven terrain, it'd actually serve as a pretty good armored transport. Imagine 10 of those guys loaded up with 100 troops each. They blast any static defenses with their big guns, get as close as possible to the front lines, drop off their load, and provide ground support as they hurriedly shuffle back for more reinforcements. That's 1,000 troops added to your front lines with the snap of your finger. Imagine getting into a siege with a rebel base, and it's currently 100 troops against 100 troops. You call in 1 fully loaded ATAT for backup, and not only does it blast their garrisons and nests out of the water, but now the battle becomes 200 against 100. A HUGE force multiplier, literally. It also makes your enemy concentrate fire on these huge, imperviously armored transports, instead of the more vulnerable infantry running around on the ground getting into position. I imagine you don't even need to load it up with people. You could retrofit it with a bunch of cannons sticking out of the side like the cannon gallery on a pirate ship's broadside. Then, all you'd have to do is turn it around and let loose, as it rained hell down on whichever poor sap stood in its way at the time.
The move slow in battle. That's why there not moving a 60 mph. They move slow because they still had to fire on the enemy. They act like Arty a little bit. Also the transport part was because of it having more room. There are other transports that where used more.
0:56 Not to mention that, in Legends, the rebels also had actual tanks like the T3-B and T4-B, and those were well known for destroy AT-ATs in open combat, in fact the T3-B was the first vehicle (obviously not from the remnants of Republic or CIS) of the GCW to do that
The AT-AT was mostly implemented by the Empire more as an intimidating show of force on imperial-ruler planets, rather than a battlefield situation, much like the rest of the Imperial vehicles.
2:50 Most modern IFV's go around that speed as well if not slightly slower. However using transports even tracked ones isn't possible under heavy enemy fire. The AT-AT isn't really a transport but more an assault vehicle. To move infantry through heavily fortified areas using it's weapons and armor.
@@elijahsellers3727 Also with dedicated transports you want high capacity. You want to move a lot of soldiers from point A to point B in a given amount of time. Transport vehicles therefore tend to be cheap. They also aren't actually that much faster than the IFV's though. Transports are to reinforce the front taken by the tanks and IFV's so there is little point in them going faster.
In another Legends source, Wedge and Rogue Squadron were facing down AT-AT's with X-Wings, Wedge commented that the speeders used on Hoth had underpowered lasers, which would crack the armor. The X-Wings fighter grade lasers opened them like tin cans.
It's standard procedure that AT-AT have AT-ST Escorts to prevent Pesky Rebels from running up and flanking, unfortunately terrible shows like "Rebels" Don't account for this.
The cornerstone of the Tarkin Doctrine was the concept of "rule through fear of force, rather than through force itself,". The AT-AT was meant to be scary and powerful, not effective in combat.
You will note that the big cannons on the cockpit ARE fixed, and can only be aimed by moving the head. SO there is some method in the madness, but not much.
I don't like the design at all but it doesn't stop me from using it in the original Battlefront games; you're practically invulnerable on Rhen Var Harbour in the AT-AT.
Actually, it was pretty easy to flank them with the rebel speeder tank. The down side was you then had to deal with usually 2 imperial tanks. They were devestaing though and could basically charge in as far as you wanted before being slowed down.
Every point you presented is valid. I think the purpose for the vehicle's design was definitely aesthetic yet tied to a specific tactical dogma the Empire expected the vehicle to operate within. I think it would be interesting to create an animation showing the (likely) intended use of the big boy. Though, due to an admiral's blunder, the Imperial forces at Hoth were extremely rushed and likely didn't have time to employ the AT-TE according to standard Imperial doctrine. Perhaps things could have been different had they listened to Vader.
I'm certainly no Skallagrim or Metatron, but let's see what I can come up with. In no particular order... 1. Sparring practice can be hazardous or even deadly to everyone nearby 2. Cannot reliably block solid projectiles or grenades 3. The glow and hum make lightsabers impossible to use stealthily 4. Is a melee weapon that can run out of power 5. Cannot half-sword, meaning all striking and blocking power comes from the wrist 6. No quillons/wristguard (not that some other historical swords don't also have this limit...) 7. Center of gravity is halfway down the handle, making it easier for opponents to turn away the blade 8. Construction depends on some of the most closely-guarded secrets and rarest materials in the galaxy, making them expensive beyond measure 9. Activation is controlled by an unsecured thumb-switch, making negligent discharges a legitimate danger 10. Burns through opponents rather than slices, so wounds may be cauterized automatically and bleed much less; killing blows must therefore be instantly lethal How's that?
1) They encorage you to just stand there and let people shoot at you. NEVER do this. 2) They are extremely unsave to use in spaceships, with heavy machinery or near important structural supports. Its a wonder some padowan did not bring down the jedi temple by droping her saber in the place. 3) They are very bright, so they make you a target and ruin your night vision. They also let your opponents know to shoot you first. 4) They are very loud, meaning lets people know you are about at the same time as making it hard for you to hear if anyone is sneeking up on you. 5) Swords make deacent side arms. Jedi carry no other weapons. This is more a doctrine flaw and it comes up more on the battlefeild than in their other uses. 6) They quaterize the wound. Good and bad that but in a life and death battle against a superior opponent you want maximum lethality. You want a glancing blow to make your opponent bleed out. 7) They set things on fire. Do not use one in a coal mine, near a gas leak or in a wooden structure. 8 ) They are cumbersome and hard to manage. In close combat defense is king. Swords are well balanced so you can use it to defend yourself. Lightsabers handle more like axes and those you use with sheilds to protect yoursellf. you need the force to master lightsabers because you need the foresight to keep yourself alive inspite of how abysmal your weapon is in defense. 9) Sabers need to be recharged. Knives do not run out of stab. 10) Does anyone know what holding an unsheilded plasma torch day in day out does to you? Maybe this is the real reason why jedi arent supposed to have children.
I still ❤️ the AT-AT and I actually think it was designed as a bullet sponge. It was supposed to divert enemy fire by having them fire on sports that look weaker than they are. Meanwhile ground troops can move in. We saw that strategy on Hoth. The rebels could pierce the armor with fire power. I think later versions where as easy to destroy because Engeneers forgot its purpose and thought of it more as a weapon and less as a diversion.
A tracked vehicle would make much more sense. Tracks are way better suited to distribute the weight and manuver in uneven terrain. The ATAT is slow and way too big, is a welcome target for any Alliance fighter pilo. the fiering arch of the ATAT is extreamly limited, it can actually only shoot at targets that are right in front of it in a flanking scenario it is ultimately useless. the design of the ATAT offer many weak spots, like the neck, the belly and the over exposed legs. in my opinion the amount of firepower tha ATAT brings is really lackluster, I could only spot 4 laser weapons. you can tell me what you want about these lasers, but a vehicle this sise, should carry numerous turrety to protect it from flanking attacks. the high siluette makes it a fine target for any AT-weapons especially the bridge of the ATAT seems to be weaker armored than the rest of this thing, it also makes everyone far ahead aware of these things coming, so no suprise element for the empire, but that would probably not interrest them any way. just a few thought I have while starting this video, I gonna look how many of these point GT also revealed.
Too bad the Empire had Palaptine as it's leader. He has the military mindset of Hitler and most of his military's weapons reflect this. And I see what you're getting from as a TX-225 as seen in Rouge one is much more suited for combat and patrols due to having a land speeder and tracked versions. It's much more low profile and faster than an AT-AT but much less intimidating and way easier to store. Not to mention smaller is cheaper and due to the Imperial doctrine (Quantity>Quality) you'd assume we'd have seen more TX-255's around. Then we remember the modern banana of doctrines; the Tarkin doctrine stated that large, big and hulking vehicles would be able to put rebellious systems and as a product we have the AT-AT, the Death Star, the Star Destroyer, so on. in Summary: Tarkin, it's Tarkin that's why
@@jontheno3213 right, some of the empires designes are like the dick measuring contest between the soviet union and germany on steroids. just look at insane things likr the Ratte tank or the Mause. totally unpheasable wetdreams. the empires doctrine is pretty ineffective. I think someone like Thrawn would have shaped the empire in a way better way. unfortually I think may is contributed to the fact that little thought was put into the military pheasableness of the designes and that wery few or non developers at Lucas films actually put any logical thought into it, so that this needs to be justified by post edited Expandet universe lore. in my book, every fictional military should be co designed by a military dude. just ask the US army for one or two guys that know their shit how they would operate and design their stuff.
not only was palpatine a horrible war tatiction but there were other problems in the empire since he was spending a crap load of resources on his 'pet' death star, many high rankig officers had to 'fight' over his attention for the rest of the empires resources to get their projects done, as the limited resources left could only be spent on one project instead of many due to the 'pet' deathstar.
During the Battlefront 2 era, having to really take down a AT-AT was quite entertaining in my opinion. First time, I shot it nearly a dozen times and had to think it wasn't enough to break it up. My friend ask me to do it one more time, it went down. Somehow that fascinated me in getting interested with Battlefront 1 and 2. Second time, I shot the AT-AT from behind and aimed at the neck and it went down, improved but nothing funny about it. Third time I shot repetitively at the rectum (or it's fuel tank or whatever.), a near partner of mine while playing the PS2 laughed so hard that he could fall off a horse! I wasn't planning this, but it was totally random so I did anything that could spark attention. Sometimes I listen to the game's commentary, that sparks the same laughter from anybody. I agree that the AT-AT walker is a cool vehicle and I have fun with the previous Battlefront games.
Do we want a more practical look at why an AT-AT is useful? We’ve seen that they are blaster impervious. Excellent in sustaining massive amounts of damage in regards to artillery and hand held projectiles. Large field of view gives tactical advantage to accompanying tanks and infantry units. Powerful blasters are capable of picking off all major entrenchments and vehicles of enemy forces. AT-AT pilots are nothing to scoff at! We’ve seen them manually track flying snowspeeders that are zipping past at insane speeds and blast them. He neglects to mention the repelling system used by troops to disembark that meant they could conceivably disembark before a topple happens. I also think seats with straps are used for the very event of a crash. The modular nature of an AT-AT also allows for a few potentially devastating variants. If anyone is interested in hearing about those let me know.
TorianTammas Such as? In the Star Wars universe? We’ve seen dedicated artillery emplacements fail to stop them in addition to various lesser types. I’d be happy to hear what you’re referring to. We already know Y-wings can destroy them- in multiple passes at that.
Tarkin doctrine, make it big, intimidating, and powerful in a frontal assault, to hell with defending its flanks. It also points out the dramatic difference in power between ground weapons and starship weapons. Even ground based anti-vehicle turrets couldn't touch the armor (missiles could if hit in the right spots), but X-Wings made mincemeat out of them, and a turbolaser would probably vaporize one.
rear guns, 6 legs, 360 rotation mass driver cannon, can't trip with a cable since it's low to the ground, so what it's underside needs a little more armor. that's why there were typically infantry under neath. AT-AT inferior AT-TE superior as evidence by the rebels series where an older AT-TE was able to take on 2 or more AT-AT's and still survive long enough for air support to blast the last AT-AT, imagine if that AT_TE had been properly maintained or brand new..... plus that mass driver cannon can load many munition types. The AT-AT was built mostly for intimidation. The AT-TE was built for war.
@@sheilaolfieway1885 The AT-TE is inferior, the gunners are exposed, the main driver compartment is not armored at all, its like a GI Joe vehicle, in that the only parts protected are the vehicle components, but the actual crew driving it or the gunners have next to know protection. The AT-TE in the show only beat the AT-AT because another AT-AT was helping the AT-TE fight the AT-AT. Not only that but all you need is a Vibro lance to kill and AT-TE on a Hoover Bike.
Despite the obvious flaws in its design, I think the biggest advantage of the AT-AT was the height and range, combined with its high powered blasters. Even though the Rebels had several anti-armor installations on Hoth, the AT-ATs took them out (and softened up the defenses in general) from a considerable distance, which allowed the rest of the forces to close in and mop up the rest with little issue. Not to mention how they easily took out the shield generator with one blast, over a distance of several miles. Effective as a general-purpose tank? Not at all. But as an intimidating, bullet-soaking mobile artillery? It excels.
You are missing the whole point of an AT-AT. They are massive frontal assault mechanisms, and they work excellently in that capacity. When you have a giant battle and enemy high powered cannons are open firing on anything you deploy, it is incredibly useful to have some thing like the At-At which is impenetrable to enemy fire, can transport tons of soldiers, and can provide heavy fire. It is a all purpose Mobil assault Maschine, and it works very well in this capacity, which their certainly needs to be a designated Machine for.
Well yeah, some guys came up with stuff that would look cool in a movie, they didn't expect loads of extended lore trying to explain everything and people taking it seriously 40 years later. That's what amazes me with the fans. It never was intended to be taken that seriously, but we end up witnessing olympic mental gymnastics trying to rationalize everything.
I think it would be cool to make a video highlighting the changes the first order made to their ships, armour, weapons, and vehicles. Id also love to know if the atm6 is better cus it kinda splays its legs just b4 shooting luke in last jedi.
There's only one flaw. THE WHOLE THING. It's center of gravity is so high off the ground that any movement should send it toppling over like a jenga tower. Hell, a stiff gust of wind should destabilize it enough to send it over.
The first order atat walkers were actually a vast improvement over the imperial atat walkers because of their armored legs and they're enhance maneuverability with the neck
Ah, the good ol’ tie the teachers shoes together trick and the down the AT-AT goes 😂🤣😂🤣 But don’t get me wrong, the AT-AT is my favorite vehicle in starwars
I want to know how that board meeting went at the Empire's weapons technology department: "Alright engineers what do bring to the table to improve upon the design of the ATTE?" "Yes general as you can see we've made many improvements, for example we entirely removed the turret which had a full 360 degrees of movement and limited all firepower to the front of the vehicle. Another feature we've enhanced is reducing the amount of legs which gave it more stability and flexibility in combat and extended them to make the whole vehicle vulnerable to a much broader range of attacks." "Excellent I look forward to your report on the new line of starships that are operated by farting into the controls."
If the empire just doubled and tripled the size of the at-te as mk2 and mk3 versions it would have been better and maby if thay did that the rebels would have failed on the ground and not even get the plans for the deathstar.
I have watched this a few times, in Rogue One they where AT-ACTs that was taken on by repeating blaster, not AT=AT'S. For if AT-At's had the same weakness the guns on the Snowspeeders or the towers would have been able to take out the knees and stop the attack
8:30 Yeah, uhhh... sorry, but we saw how quickly an ATAT can turn if it wants to in SW5 during that same battle that you are showing so often near the end of the battle on the surface. I think it was General Veers ATAT that moved the rear right leg to the right and rotated a bit to the left to bring the gun “casement” (I mean, I guess that could be considered a gun casement, as it doesn’t have a full rotation) to bear on an approaching speeder. So, if it wants to turn 45 degrees(or however far two foot repositioning can rotate the ATAT) or less to either side, it can do so very quickly. This is due to the power and torque provided by the massive engine bays under the walker(analysis and reasoning between asterisks(*). You can skip the area between the asterisks if you don’t find this type of analysis interesting; *actually these are the biggest weakspot on the ATAT as there is a spot that hypothetically if you get one of the Rebels Anti-Armor Composition beam lasers(I think that was what they were going for with that firing sequence at least) to land a single shot between the blast plate on the front of the engine and the outer wall of the engine, which appears to be a intake of some sort for the engine, that single blast should destroy the drive motors on the forwards legs, crippling the walker*) and the long legs, and you have a vehicle capable of doing moderate range movements quite quickly.
You need to make your videos with a more consistent volume level. I have found myself having to raise or lower the volume on my phone an excessive amount.
Recommendations for the AT-AT 1. Lower it's center of gravity by 50% ie lower its legs. The strength and durability would be improved. You could still maintain the psychological factor even if its a little shorter. 2. Better defensive equipment, such as ion cannons, turrets on the rear the top the sides, vibro blade extensions to cut any tow cable toppling efforts by the enemy. 3. Stick to an multi-tier assault approach to the battle. I take this to mean you have AT-ST's for support, hover tanks and speeder bikes, each one offsetting the others vulnerabilities while maximizing their strengths. The Hoth battle always perplexed me; how is it that General Veers would neglect to cover his ass, literally and figuratively I don't know. 4. Relegate it to specific duties, such as long range scouting, or as a support platform, or as suggested, a mobile command post and forward observation post for artillery.
Advanteges of the at at -Armour -Firepower -High vantage point to fire on targets, sensors. -Looking cool, intimidation factor -A lot of landvehicles in SW don't make sence since there is hovertech. Why have wheels/legs? Disadvantages -Slow speed -Slow turning speed -Poor firing arcs, really who needs a turret? -High visibility, easy to hit from the side as IT is bigger then a barn. -Remove troopcompartment and instal a shieldgenerator.
Implementation of the ATAT in combat was probably akin to the M16 in Vietnam and other business-choice weapons throughout the history of warfare; its application in battle was probably secondary to the political or financial reasons for its deployment on the field of battle.
Veers did too and Transfered a cadet who exposed the underside weakness to infantry assuring his death and the secret stay secret i think that's legends though. during one of the training courses on Carida, a promising Cadet named Davin Felth lowered his walker to its knees in order to prevent the opposing force from exploiting the weakness its long legs presented. The weakness threatened Veers's career, as it was so closely tied to the success of the walkers. Veers buried the incident by reassigning Felth to the infantry.
As said in the video, the AT-AT has potential use as a command vehicle, mounting a shield generator with reduced transport capacity would also help justify the legs as to get similar height otherwise would require repulsers which are expensive and likely high in maintenance. I would still recommend at least six legs and removing the head in favour of turrets and periscopes/ sensors, it could also serve as a base for speeders serving a scout role. While this leaves it a big target for the rebellion, and a concentrated possible unconventional attack will kill it, its in keeping with the empires design philosophy and would be escorted at all times.
@@WolfeSaber9933 It's the reason the AATs couldn't advance with the droids in Ep. 1 against the Gungans. They're repulsor vehicles. However on Hoth this wasn't an issue as they were landed inside the shield, on the planet itself.
I’d imagine that ideally the ATATs were part of a combined arms setup...and that there were other weapons systems around it, as well as infantry support, the Tie Atmospheric fighter to provide cover in the air, numerous shuttles etc. protecting the walker from heavier ground vehicles that an opposing army might throw...etc. At least this would be the case in the larger more heavily militarized outfits of the core and inner core worlds. But in the outer rim, there just does not seem to be the attention to a combined arms doctrine.
Just something I saw, the at-at who got his legs destroyed because of a light machine gun blaster isn't an at-at, and the blaster didnt destroyed its legs, but deactivated a system to hold the leg in place since it's an ion canon that is used
