AT-AT vs M1A2 Abrams Tanks (x5) | USA vs Star Wars: Who Would Win? 

*4-8000 meters, not kilometers* Today was supposed to be a break for me, but I couldn't help it! Hope you guys enjoy today's episode! If you want to support the channel, follow me on twitter or visit my gawkbox page! www.gawkbox.com/eckhartsladder twitter.com/eckhartsladder

I sure as hell hope America's tanks could handle an ATAT since a bunch of teddy bears with sticks, stones, and tree logs can take out an ATST.

Actually, I think that the tanks crew will immediately known to shoot for the neck. In real life, a weak point of every tank is the turrets rotation point. Armor tends to be thinner here. Most tank commanders would probably just translate this to an at-at’s neck

Who's genius idea was it to basically design the AT-AT into a giant, vulnerable, armored cow?

This reminds me of Stargate SG-1 where Jack O'Neil comments on how the Jaffa staff weapon is designed for terror, and human kinetic weapons are designed for killing.

4,000-8,000 Kilometres. Now that is an impressive range. With that kind of range, it could shoot clear across the Pacific Ocean.

"We'll say there's no Stormtroopers in the AT-AT... ...just as well; I don't think Stormtrooper armor is rated against .50cal API ammo.

You know, I just realized, in all the movies/shows I've watched, I've never actually seen an AT-AT execute a turn off any kind.

"The legs are very well armoured" *legs are entirely exposed/gears and hinges clearly visible* Hrmmmm. Me thinks this is less true than Star Wars wishes us to think

2:22 : 4000 to 8000 kilometers ?! These tanks are equipped with balistic intercontinental missiles ?

What if the tanks have tow cables?

“hey guys do we have any cable?” “yea why” “i’ve seen the movie, just set a trap in some trees and it’ll trip” “ok”

As a retired M1A2 tanker, i will say some of your information was a bit inaccurate. Id love to share some info with you. And i totally agree the tank platoon would stomped the atat.

i am sure at least one of the guners has watchet STAR WARS

Dude, the Abram don’t even need to get close. They can rain hell of the ATAT from a few kilometers away.

As a tanker for many years i can say that a sabot round would absolutely make that walker Swiss cheese. The targeting is too precise and we could easily put a few rounds through their window

“Or if you’re a heathen, the at-at.” I’m dead😂

In the Star Wars universe they defend against energy weapons. In ‘MERICA!!! our weapons are kinetic. That’s why teddy Bear’s on Endor can take them out with logs. Sir Isaac Newton (Ek=1/2mv^2)

As a former tanker I'm having a hard time believing we'd lose two of our own in the opening in hilly terrain where we could quickly and easily find cover on seeing this skyscraper-sized billboard approaching us. Actually, I'm having a hard time thinking of a 5v1 scenario in this kind of terrain where we'd lose ANY tanks at all barring bad luck since we'd EASILY see him coming (probably the worst flaw with a walker design is how easily spotted they are compared to crawlers). It'd be a long-day of hit-and run ambush and flanking shots to wear him down sure but I just don't see us giving up an easy shot to his head-mounted cannons.

I could see some gutsy tank guy driving right up to the AT-AT while its going slow trying to turn around and inspecting the walker for damage, use a trial and error to see what is effective. "The shot to the head just scratched the paint. We're buttoned back up, shoot the knee and I'll pop out and check again."

Armor in star wars is seems to be very strong because they have high energy dissipation. They can dissipate the energy from laser blasts. When you use conventional weapons such as 120mm tank rounds, they would decimate star wars vehicles. They can even be destroyed by swinging logs so imagine what an anti vehicle round would do

Considering the range modern tanks fight at, I'm pretty sure any decent tank commander would just stay out of range of the AT-AT and take pot shots at its flank. Also, even if the AP rounds didnt penetrate, the sheer amount of kinetic energy imparted on impact would probably knock an AT-AT off balance. I LOVE Star Wars vehicles and the AT-AT is a particular favorite. But it's just an example of what happens when non military minds write about military hardware. Not to mention we've surpassed scifi technology to the point that retcons have been required to explain why these advanced civilizations use such antiquated technology compared to real life modern technology. The AT-AT just isn't well designed, and was quickly outclassed.

The stats you gave for the M1 were for the base model... The M1-A2 can drive ar 70+ mph and fire stablely at 60 mph...

I feel like someone who knows about tanks more should of been involved with this.

Ideas for versus 1) Behemoth Battle-cruiser, Starcraft vs Imperial Star Destroyer 2) Ha'tak vs Harrower Dreadnought 3) Harrower Dreadnought vs Venator Star Destroyer 4) Starfury vs Tie Fighter 5) Shadow vessel vs Imperial Star Destroyer 6) Rakataan Empire vs Galactic Empire+Rebel Alliance 7) Shadow Planet Killer vs Death Star 8) Rakataan Empire vs Forerunner 9) Eternal Empire vs Covenant 10) Sith Empire vs Rebel Alliance 11) Iron Man vs John 117

NEWTON SAYS HELLO! One million foot-pounds of force pushes a tungsten rod through the head of the walker liquefying the crew

Eck: Sorry if my dog barks, he's a puppy and doesn't know better yet Me: Eck, if you're really sorry you'll make a dog video

All the US needs to do is spray the ATAT’s joints with superglue. Problem solved.

I find the problem with the armor is that it seems to only be impervious to energy weapons. There are multiple examples in the EU where physical impacts did affect the walker including the clips that were shown here. Hell, an A-wing bomber can use its kinetic energy to destroy the most heavily armored ships in the empire fleet so it would seem reasonable to assume a sabot from the Abrams can go through an all-terrain vehicle like this one quite easily. 2-3 Abrams would absolutely die in a head-on charge against the AT-AT walker, but upon dispersion of the squad, the walker would be good as dead. as for long-range combat, matters would become worse for the at at. We see the speed of the volleys to be subsonic compared to the sabot m829 going at a blazing fast ‪3914.989‬ mph or Mach 5.14 with penetration values being able to penetrate 560 millimeters (22 in) of steel armor at a range of 2,000 meters (2,200 yds). The likelihood of landing a shot on a moving target with that comparatively slow of a round would delay a kill long enough to place a shot from an Abrams to whatever it may strike.

You make wrong assumption that armor design to protect from energy weapon, can stop kinetic shell.

LOL One depleted uranium slug to one of the joints in the AT-AT's legs, and it is going down.

Even if a shell don’t disable the AT-AT, the force of the impact would slam the pilots to near consciousness and anyone in the AT-AT.

1:08 "I'm Sowry" *CANADIAN CONFIRMED* Or Maine resident we *ALL KNOW* that *THEY* are *NOTHING MORE* than *SOUTHERN CANADIANS*

VATICAN VS JEDI ORDER

You should do one tilted: “If the US military helped at the battle of Hoth”

You’re forgetting about the fact that they’re armored against laser guns not Real guns

Depleted uranium anti tank rounds ignite during penetration while simultaneously filling their target's cabin with molten shrapnel; the Abrams is capable of point accuracy and its main gun will penetrate several inches of literally anything in creation courtesy of their shape (foot long rod traveling fast af; Google "shaped charge" for a little physics lesson on tank armor) and their being made out of one of the hardest materials known to exist. The five tanks would employ standard anti cavalry tactics, encircling the enemy vehicle on approach, and neutralize the obvious "head" in the first few seconds of combat, regardless of how thick its armor happens to be. Plays out the same way for the Russian, Chinese, or German tank columns, regardless of whether or not you're using Legends data; one tank is lost to obtain victory, if that. The AT-AT was designed by a science fiction writer to intimidate children; the modern tank was designed to kill men.

Halo Wraith tank VS Separatist AAT droid tank.

“Speed of 45km/h which is not that bad” As if Walkers can run. Edit: Ackhart got the max speed wrong, an Abrams can go 72km/h not 45km/h (supposed to be 45miles/h)

Take out just one leg and you're good.

Your dog vs Your cat

Imperium of man vs galactic empire

The Abrams main gun has a maximum elevation of +20 degrees, so shooting the upper sections of the walker seems challenging. If the tanks move far enough away for an angle on the upper portions, they'll expose themselves to fire from the walker, so they'll need to stay to the sides and back. They may have to focus on the legs.

"Effective firing range of 4 to 8000 kilometers" Excuse me? 🤔 Anyway, the thing that makes tanks clear winners vs a target like an AT-AT is the ability to precisely hit a target while moving at top speed through rough terrain. That means these tanks can really encircle a clumsy target like that and pick it off while staying out of its sights. The SABOT rounds will easily shred the legs and joints.

Great video but I have to point out a few things. I've been in the US Army for nearly 29 years and know a good bit about the mighty Abrams tank. Now, the M1A2 has some disadvantages. Fighting an AT-AT would be tough because of the AT-AT's angle of attack. Tanks are generally weak on the bottom and on the top. So, they're vulnerable from things like dug in IEDs and indirect fire such as mortars and artillery. Tank armor is always the very best at the front and then on the sides. The height that an AT-AT can fire from is not too different from artillery in that it's low angle fire from above. I don't know what the AT-AT's cannons would do against an M1's armor because it's really a very different (and fictional of course) weapon platform. On the plus side for the M1s is that they're very fast, maneuverable, have stabilized aiming/firing, and might be hard to hit at longer ranges. I think an M1 could EASILY shoot at AT-AT very accurately, even at 2,500 meters and maybe beyond. M1 crews are trained to hit vehicles that are much smaller and lower to the ground. I think an AT-AT might be easy pickins as far as hitting it. Much like shooting at a small building. Using AP ammo that travels in excess of 6,000 feet per second, I'd guess that it'd easily penetrate multiple places. Crews would go for the biggest target silhouette which means shooting the body and not the legs unless it were at closer range. Bear in mind that the crew would view the AT-AT usinguse high magnification making shooting at a "knee" joint or at the "neck" possible. Also, because of the way the AT-AT moves, knee joints would not move fluidly but at short intervals making it possible to hit one while it's temporarily stationary. Tanks operate in sections of 2. Even numbers means that one tank can maneuver while the other pulls security and this is what I think they'd do if they came up against an AT-AT. A platoon of M1s is two 2-tank "sections." They'd split up and attack from positions that the AT-AT would have a hard time shooting back from. The height of the AT-AT means that each 2-tank section could attack from opposite sides and not be in danger of fratricide. Because the M1 is much more concealable than the AT-AT, I'd also surmise that M1s would have the capability to see the AT-AT from distances beyond the effective range of both the M1 or the AT-AT. It'd then be able to maneuver and hide in effective ambush positions and fire when they wanted to. I think that M1s might do pretty well against AT-ATs and I think as few as 4 tanks could take one. Kind of a fun thing to think about. Once again, great video and thanks for sharing!

I suppose one should ask the question: Can the tank crews aim for specific points on the target? Or are the targeting systems on the M1A2 limited to aiming at the center-of-mass?

But what if JJ Abrams was driving the M1A2 Abrams?

Those APFSDS rounds can punch through 48 inches of armor grade steel at 1000 meters. For my non American friends, that’s almost 1.25 meters of armor grade steel. I think that AT-AT is screwed. That is a 25 pound depleted uranium dart flying at 4 times the speed of sound. Dead AT-AT.

Dark troopers vs spec ops elites Also I found someone that saved meI'm no longer killing myself

An M1A2 tank would destroy an AT-AT in about 5 seconds. When comes to land warfare, an M1A2 is virtually unmatched. We're talking about a tank that can go ~40mph, (I think its true speed is classified) can shoot while moving, and fires (IRC) 120mm rounds that can be armor piercing and/or incendiary. Plus, the tank can "hide" in trees, behind a dune, etc...the AT-AT stands no chance.

What if the tanks targeted the AT-AT's leg? As we saw in Rogue One, if you shoot at the leg enough, it will break. Since that guy in the movie was using a laser machine gun, imagine what an AP tank shell could do.

The kinetic energy of a depleted uranium round traveling at high velocity ought to challenge the ability of the AT-AT to stay upright.

I've got some good ideas! *1.* 100 Blockade Runners VS 1 Alligiance Star Destroyer *2.* Tyrant Heavy Missile Cruiser VS World Devistator *3.* Aclemator Class Assult Ship VS Nebulon B Frigate *4.* Droid Control Ship VS Scarif Shield Gate *5.* Tie Phantom VS Tie Defender *6.* Imperial Class 3 Star Destroyer VS First Order Recergence Star Destroyer

4000-8000 km. When will Eckhart be cured of his addiction to extra zeroes?

Given the exit velocity of about 1800 meters/second, and the weight of a HIgh Explosion Anti Tank round, the momentum would be about 43,600 kgm/s. With the momentum concentrated in a small area, such as a bullet, even if the AT-AT was made of vibranium, it would survive maybe 5 hits from these tanks. Their armor is built to withstand explosive lasers with no physical force or momentum, not extremely high-speed bullets. Even if the shot doesn't break the armor, the force would most likely be enough to push it over, because even a rocket launcher was able to disorient it and somewhat knock it off balance(as seen in Rogue One at the Battle of Scarriff).

Star Wars: Who Would Win? your dog (x4) vs An Ewok (I just want more footage of your dog)

Didn't an AT ST get taken out by medieval care bears? If so I would bet on 5 Abrams vs an AT AT.

1) To really do this, you need to first define the actual characteristics of Star Wars energy weapons. How much energy do they deliver to what area of a target. I rather suspect that explosive reactive armor would be pretty effective against it. The DU would probably last at least one shot. 2) How much energy can the different kinds of Star Wars shields dissipate and how fast and of what kind? From the movies, there is "ray shielding" which protects against lasers and "particle shielding" which protects against projectiles and neither works against the other well. The Empire seems to prefer energy shielding, since their platforms seem easily destroyed by logs, colliding spaceships, asteroids, etc, etc. Since the harpoon line of the snow speeder got through to tangle the legs easily enough, I rather suspect that a DU projectile from an M1 cannon wouldn't have too much of a problem hitting a leg joint. It seems to me that both the Empire and the Rebellion put far too much trust in their shields and not very much in their physical armor. 3) As mentioned, one-on-one is fun, but realistically there would be supporting elements for both sides. The Army would take one look at that thing and call in the nearest A-10 for close-air-support. (How well protected are the AT-AT's from above and behind, which is how close-air-support usually takes armor on?) And, of course, there would be assorted other weapons around like artillery, the Multiple-Launch-Rocket-System, and combat engineers. I wonder how an AT-AT would handle an anti-tank mine? 4) Let's also look at the sensors. How well can an AT-AT's gunner see in the dark? M1 tanks have night-vision and thermal sites, and the U.S. Army likes to fight at night, when they can see what they're doing but the enemy can't. Oh, and one aside: yes, the stated top speed of an M1 is 45 mph. That's with the engine governors on for safety. In battle-field conditions those are removed and it can go 60 over flat terrain.

Think your discrediting an Abrams tank Canon bit to much a few rounds to the legs would definitely do it . Also I think fire to the face right on the lasers would incapacitate it so it’s really just a standoff

1. Tanks don't all sit next to each other in battle. 2. The great height would mean that the tanks would see the ATAT from a great distance and it would be an easy target. 3. The armor of the Abrams would not be easy for any directed energy weapon to get past. 4. The shield generator explosion is not a good way to measure the power of the AT-AT. That is like saying an RPG could take out a battleship because of the explosion it made when it hit a fuel tank. 5. The tankers would probably go for the legs to get a mobility kill and if they could get around to the back aiming for the back. They would not go for the head because tanks are hardest to kill from the front. They would follow their training. The battle would have been like this. The tanks seeing the AT-AT would try and get position before it was in range. They would see it coming from a distance and taken cover. If the AT-AT did detect them and opened fire they would have swarmed. The limits of firing arc and mobility would be very clear to the tankers. I also would not dismiss the damage that a point-blank shot from at ATFSDS round would do to an AT-AT leg. A belly shot is not likley because the M1's gun i limited in elevation.

It's funny how so many of the comments about the weak armor of the ATAT mention the logs in RotJ. That was an ATST, not an ATAT that was destroyed by the Ewoks. Yes, the Abrams would be able to take it down as soon as they get out of the firing arc of the ATAT.

you guys are being productive but all i want to see is a atat booking it at 45 mph

When up against superior armor speaking from experience you're trained to aim for articulation points and weapons as they are generally the softest points

“Or, if you’re a heathen” I love it

You underestimate the training of the U.S. Military. Or really any military in general. It wouldn't be difficult to identify a weak point in the AT-AT. For one, the neck is a joint, meaning it can't be heavily armored, if armored at all. Secondly, it's a very common understanding that armored vehicles will usually have their weakest armor at the rear and in the underbelly (which is a weakness IED's are designed to exploit.) Not angry or anything, just saying that you should be sure to take this kind of stuff into consideration from now on :)

2:23 "4-8 thousand kilometers" I think you meant "4-8 kilometers" or "4-8 thousand meters".

What game is the AT-AT footage from? Looks pretty cool!

Just from the numbers of each vehicle it was clear the ATAT would lose, simply because of the ease with which they can be flanked by that many vehicles. Now, if it was part of a mixed force with ATSTs, as we saw at the Battle of Hoth, then it would be a much more interesting conversation.

Gunner, SABOT, Walker UP On the wayyy

7:12 what is that book called? Or what ever it is just tell meeeeee

Yes, the Abrams could get behind the walker easily and shoot at it until they ran out of ammo (42 rounds, but not all rounds are SABOT). But the Abrams cannon cannot elevate that high, so the question is how far back would the Abrams have to be to shoot the walker's underbelly? And then, could they hit the underbelly effectively if they were too far away (less and less underbelly would be exposed the further back you got from it, plus more of a glancing angle to the shot). Also, if a mass driver doesn't do much to walker armor, SABOT rounds probably wouldn't do anything, as a mass driver projectile would have many, many times the kinetic energy of a SABOT round (kinetic energy = 1/2 mv squared). My $ would be on the walker.

Maneuver warfare is the key to modern armored conflict. Star Wars has no concept of tactics or strategic initiative. The Abrahams has an incredible range on the main gun. It would easily be able to engage to the AT-AT from outside its engagement area. The commander would quickly maneuver to attempt battle drill 1 alpha flanking the slow beast. The armor on those walkers is designed to stop energy weapons. Which would mean a kinetic weapon such as the Sabo round would punch a hole right thru it. Aside from space capabilities Star Wars militaries are a joke. Then again that's not the point of Star Wars. It's wizards with laser swords

Nah, M1s would win. In star wars they use lasers so every armor is built around pure heat energy not kinetic energy. Commanders first thought would be space out or hull down aim for the massive target that is the glass. In a ground battle any MBT from any country would ruin a AT-AT.

I was a tanker, the Walker has a lot of what are called shot traps in their armor that would be very vulnerable to the KE punch of APFSDS round. I Saw 25 ton tank turret's blasted 50 plus feet in the air by a single hit back in Desert Storm and the flat side armor would be asking for major penetration's.

I don't think being able to make a shield generator go all explodey is much of an indicator of the AT-AT heavy laser cannons' destructive power, given that shield generators in Star Wars tend to be both fragile and surprisingly explosion prone. Also, being hit by a "laser" bolt from Star Wars is probably most like being hit by a contact-fused high explosive warhead in real life, and the Abrams' armor can actually pretty reliably tank such damage. The AT-AT main guns are probably only going to really piss off the tank crews.

8000km range? WHAT

That sabot is kinetic, but tanks also fire HET rounds, which are explosive (E in HET stands for Explosive)

Great video my guy

While I'm no tanker, I can say that if I were to analyze the AT-AT, a safe bet for where to strike would be anything that bends and holds weight. So never seeing one before, I'd go for any of the joints or neck, and anywhere there's a window or exhaust port. If the exhaust is taken down, the engine can't really function, windows are soft spots, and the neck and joints are both bendy and load bearing.

"The previous generation of APFSDS round for the M1, the M829A3 “Super Sabot” is estimated to penetrate 700-800mm of armor at 2Km. The Russians estimate it to be 795mm." unelss the At-at is rocking 80CM of plate armor, there is no fucking way it would survive a fight. Any shot to the head doesn't even need to hit something vital. what it would do to the crew compartment is enough to fill you dreams with horrors. what you need to remember is that the AT-AT was built to deal with energy weapons. That flat plate armor is great at absorbing heat energy but in terms of kinetic energy like our civilization uses would own it.

You neglected to include a crucial piece of information. The AT-AT is piloted by Stormtroopers, and they can't aim.

Have often woundered how the UN. Space Battleship Yamato would fare against an empire's Star Destroyer ? Could you do a comparison ?

How do you think the atat walkers do the ones kylowren had..

I think it's very likely they would go for the legs first, pretty common military thinking that if you take out an enemies capability to be mobile, you drastically limit their capabilities.

*TAU EMPIRE VS THE COVENANT* SIXTH TIME AND WAITING

The rounds would pen. Especially how flat the armor is. Walking thingy is just a walking MOUS tank lol.

T-800 vs B2 super battle droid

Here's what I think, AT ATs are designed to resist laser blasts, the common Star Wars weapons. In my eyes, high caliber bullets and tank shells should penetrate an AT AT like a pencil stabbing through paper.

Great video! It's a small, relatively unimportant point, but tank platoons have 4 tanks each, so it would be very strange for 5 to face an opponent.

I think you got the dimensions of the a2 a bit wrong... unless I'm hearing things

Admittedly, the Empire's best vehicles are in legends. The AT-AT was cool to use as a form of artillery-troop carrier, but as a tank, it's only good at a distance. Hence it being more artillery than a tank.

i think you mean 4 to 8 km range not 4000 to 8000 km range of abrams main tank

How thick is at-at armor? Cause depleted uranium rounds rip

Your vids are very informative and we'll produced!!!

1The Abrams gun can go through over 80 freaking centimeters of armor so there's literally no way the atat won't take damage 2 the atat armor is flat faced making it even easier to penetrate 3 atat armor is designed specifically to resist heat and plasma attacks (the Abrams uses neither) 4 the range on an Abrams is absurd there's no way the drivers would get within firing range of the atat before firing there own wepons 5 the tanks would spread out to avoid all being shot at once 6 Abrams armor is made to resist heat from rpg style wepons that use a copper jet to Pierce armor so it would probably resist plasma fire 7 using the shield generator as a power baseline is like saying a 22LR bullet could destroy a house because of the explosion it caused after you shot a wepons stockpile filled with explosives it's bs 8 the tanks are far too fast to be hit by the atat and would likely drive behind it 9 tank drivers are ALWAYS taught that tank armour is strongest on the front so they would never aim for the front 10 there's five of them making all the atats previous problems 5 times worse 11 and if all else fails they could easily call an airstrike and destroy the atat 9

Star Wars armor is NOT STRONG you can break it with tree LOGS. This is depicted in the films.

Maybe or weapons may be the anwser to killing a force user, we know they can reflect a laser shoot right? but at what temperature do their light saber work? would a tungesten bullet the strongest material against heat be Strong enought to not melt and actually penetrate the light of the saber?

Completely off topic but I absolutely love the music you use as your theme song

"Mutiple Portals open up in the Galaxy with over 100,000's of Ships coming out of each portal" "At the edge of the Galaxy echos begin with millions of Prethoryn Scourge ships come through high speed with the most advance Strongest Empires" A Full-scale Stellaris invasion of the Forerunners and Ancient Humans Galaxy begins.

Tank Warfare tactics call for formations too far apart for the walker to hit more than one before they scatter. Tactics call for flanking attacks and shots from behind, and the tanks have better armor for use against kinetics than the walker. The legs would be targeted from the sides, and four tanks would make short work of the legs of the walker