Why stop using the AT-TE in favor of the AT-AT? Because longer legs offer a significant advantage, that's why. Brought to you by over 100 amazing supporters on Patreon: / echenry Music: Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
In Jedi: Fallen Order we see an AT-AT walking through a deep river what would not be possible without it's longer legs, so that makes the AT-AT unstoppable by rivers.
What makes me rage in concern with this is that water is POWERFUL. Even a sedate river could take something with such a large profile and sweep it down river.
I don't think a river wouldn't stop an AT-TE either. They're fully sealed (I think they both are.) They could just walk along the bottom of a river. They won't get to the other side quickly, I imagine, but it's not impossible. EDIT: Though what Typhoon says about the river's current makes sense. A river might be able to knock over a top heavy walker if it goes too deep and starts seeing water hit the sides. I'm no specialist in the field, so I don't now what river currents would do to an AT-TE.
See an AT-TE could simply walk through the river. We have seen that they are pressure sealed. The biggest issue is sinking in the mud due to severe ground pressure at the feet but it has much better weight distribution and wide feet so that shouldn't be an issue. As for current, due to the wide stance it would be difficult for a current to get enough leverage to tip it and the feet are capable of turning the toes down to grip in and lock it. If it can climb a cliff it can ford a river.
@@specialagentgeralt9763 Actually the legs of an ATAT would not put up too much drag, and while an ATTE might not specifically tip over, it's whole body being underwater taking full force of the current could push it off course. It's grippy feet and wide stance mean little on a muddy riverbed
The driver may have been unaware, it wouldn't be the easiest thing to recognize even assuming great camera coverage. After this event u imagine tactics changed a bit so that supporting units watch out for this and warn the other drivers.
@@russellharrell2747 That's not a mistake, they want to RETRIEVE the plans, not destroy them. Probably because its the only way to make sure you destroyed them, but maybe also because the base with the rest of the blueprints was destroyed. The empire may not have many copies.
I solved this problem in my head by simply recontextualizing the role AT-ATs play in Imperial formations. Quite a while ago, I stopped looking at AT-ATs as Front line, spearhead juggernauts but rather, as back line troop carrier/ artillery platform hybrid. It’s not meant to lead the charge. It’s job is/ should be to hammer enemy positions with it’s heavy cannon from above and at distance. Something it’s tall legs allow. I feel like, just moving it back a bit from the main force, fixes a lot of the “problems” people insist on leveling at it all the time. Just my opinion. This explanation works fine as well. Occam’s razor and all that! Lol.
yeah. One thing people seem to miss is that the AT-ATs engage the shield generator from incredibly far for a direct-fire platform- the pilot tells Veers "one-seven point two-eight" for range, which is presumably 17.28 kilometers, or nearly twelve miles. Modern tanks can engage to around three miles. The legs are worth it.
@@CharlesGaines I'd recommend doing some perspective comparisons using the shots from the firing and the gen exploding. The ambiguity could easily mean 17.28 meters instead of kilometers, and given the average range of star wars laser weapons that could just as easily be the case.
@@scoman91 there is no way the distance was only 17.28 meters. That is vastly too close. The walker itself is 20 meters long, with a height of 22.5 meters. I don't care what kind of specialized angles you watch Empire in, there is no way at all that generator was less than one AT-AT length away from Blizzard One when Veers orders that shot
@@scoman91 I always love when people bring up the "standard laser range" or "standard turbolaser range" arguement. People often forget that the Death Star's superlaser is the exact same kind of technology that turbolaser and laser canons operate off of. It just had more power fed into it, as was split up into component beams. Like the SPHA-T groundside turbolaser batteries we see in Attack of the Clones which help the Clones snipe an unshielded Separatist Core-Ship on Geonosis from fucking miles away. Obviously it's not that turbolasers are incapable or working at long ranges, most starfighter or groundside weaponry is just scaled down tech and it works fine at proportionally long range. There are just as many examples of the same tech working at long range as it being used at short range. This leads me to believe that the only a couple times mentioned in sourcebooks explanation for range is pretty reasonable. That shielding in Star Wars acts like a sensor jamming field as the energy fields that make up the shield change rapidly. That means that most targeting systems have a hard time locking on at range, so battles have to be fought at a distance where targets can just rely on sight in order to shoot at each other. Yeah, it's definitely a retcon someone made to explain the close range of battles in the movie, but I'd say it does a better job than the standard "uh, turbolaser don't work at range because star wars weapons bad".
One additional thought. People may point and laugh at the fact that one of the AT-AT's tripped and fell. But they forget one thing about that battle- *The rebels still lost*
@Aspiring Marauder Vader figured out where the base was because Luke Skywalker was there. Their forces were decimated, the generators destroyed, you yourself called it a “retreat” and the base was taken........ You call that a win? "Tiz but a flesh wound" LOL But seriously bro, I got nothing but love for ya. Stay safe out there 👍
>no major loss of equipment sans generator >no major loss of important personnel >Empire did not achieve strategic objective And besides, AT-AT or not the Rebels would've 'lost' anyhow since they were abandoning the base.
The Empire only won tactically, and Vader failed to capitalise on his two strategic objectives. His victory on Hoth was insignificant, owed to the stupidity of Admiral Ozzel.
@@handles_are_a_bit_rubbish If the base had no importance, it wouldn't have existed. They are literally called "The Rebellion", they were already in the minority, any loss of numbers is devastating. The Empire's objective was to capture the base, they did, they won. *Vader's objective* was to capture Luke, he failed.
@@Skybaby79 Thinking like this is how the US lost in Vietnam "What do you mean we lost the battle? We took the position and drove the Viet Cong away how can that not be a victory?". And it's almost like the Rebellion in Star Wars was inspired by the Viet Cong because Lucas was strongly against the Vietnam war. It doesn't matter if the Rebels lose this base, there are clearly thousands or maybe millions like it all over the galaxy, tons of these were probably built during the Clone Wars and then later abandoned. In a war like this it is simply not enough for the Empire to take a base because the rebels can always just flee and set up somewhere else. They need a decisive battle in which they can crush the rebellion and they didn't get that. As long as they continue to not achieve that they're losing, hence why they lost the war in the end, despite constantly finding every rebel base. It does not matter if a couple of dozen rebellion soldiers died, they don't exactly have a hard time finding replacements given how strong dissatisfaction with the Empire is, just like the Viet Cong. So long as their core organizational structure and important equipment isn't destroyed there's nothing preventing them from just endlessly hopping between planets, setting up somewhere new and then fleeing once the Empire discovers them. It's actually a tactic that works in their favor because while you say this was a victory, when we look at the total tally the Empire lost several high tech heavy war machines in the form of the AT-ATs and many clearly highly trained soldiers, while the Rebels only lost some old speeders that they were gonna abandon anyways and then a few dozen men, who are very replaceable. At that rate they would have taken out this entire army by the next base.
anti- AT-AT barriers could just be the same anti-tank barriers used on geonosis, just in a T shape instead of being straight and curved. the AT-AT cant lift its legs very high to pass over the top bit of the 'T' barrier. they dont even need to be taller, just tall enough to where the AT-AT's legs cant be raised high enough to make the next step if you get what i mean?
Exactly, it's probably easier to fix it with tetris than additional resources. Or you know... wind some tow cables around the barriers, and if you really want to be a dick about it use barb wire instead.
but won't they just step on top of the T? otherwise your just recommending higher barriers... well i guess if they were pointed towards the walker and thinly pointed. the walker would first need to break the tips then walk over the barrier. slowing them to a halt before moving again. or better yet, just have them walk on uneven surfaces. a bunch of wide pyramids.
@@TheLPRnetwork looking at these things on screen what makes you think they could possibly walk on top of the barricades? And you seem to have missed the part where the Ts are HIGHER than the things can step.
@@DrewLSsix A short T-Shape barricade wouldn't work... ***relative to the AT-TE barricades. if they were the same high used against the AT-TEs the AT-ATs would just step on them. You have to have the barricades high enough so the AT-ATs couldn't step on them. thus... raising the barricades. i think just having them walk on even even surfaces would work better.
I have an even simpler solution, rather actually 2: make them different sizes, different widths apart, making a very untreatable and unstable terrain. (Another thought I had even cheaper is wide ditches and mounts, with just dirt) Alternatively you can keep them traps same hight as ATTE or maybe shorter, but rather a spike or pyramid shape, anything with a point on it, and pack them closer together.
I think they should have used neither, since walkers are at an disadvantage compared to conventional tracked ore wheeled vehicles in most aspects. One of the many disadvantages is the very tall silhouette of a walker (especially the AT-AT) which makes it easy to spot and easy to hit. Another disadvantage would be the very low speed compared to tracked/wheeled vehicles, just to name two examples. Walkers tend to fall in the same category as mechs in sci fi, they look cool but dont make a lot of sense.
Black Templar I think that they should use repulsorcraft as general attack vehicles and main battle tanks, and walkers that fill more specialized roles, like siege platforms, swamp and mountain vehicles, and urban defense.
@@tharealverminsupreme135 I think repulsor vehicles cant have a lot of weight. Thats most likely the reason why most military repulsor vehicles we see are light.
I think you're forget the another that's also brought but. That being that longer legs allow it traverse tough terrain like lakes, rivers, deep snow, mud and heavy vegetation. Given that the AT-AT is supposed to be a troop transport it could be what imperial engineers where trying to do. A Walker capable of operating in even tougher terrain.
@@FarseerAnimation well not necessarily since the bigger compenets on the supports might even out with what you'll find in a AT-TE. In fact given that Rogue one has a AT AT variant that will collapse on it's own weight due to EMP warfare might mean the vehicle is overall less energy efficient. I personally don't think the AT-AT is an improvement over the TE, it's just built with a different environment in mind.
@@paulomr445 If you're talking about what happened in Rogue One on Scariff, that was a cargo transport variant that was not meant for direct combat. That version is actually much taller than the ones we see on Hoth and is not as heavily armored . Then again this thing should only be operating in areas where the Empire has total control like Scariff, so it doesn't really need to be as heavily armored or as capable as the default AT-AT since this cargo variant shouldn't be operating anywhere near a combat zone. Essentially what happened is that the legs on the Cargo version use a field that keeps things together, sort of the opposite of a repulsor lift, to better stabilize the legs and joints since the cargo version can be expected to transport incredibly dense and heavy cargo and materials. The repeating ion blaster basically disabled these fields at the knee and caused the walkers to collapse under its own weight. That said however, this is only seen with the cargo version and isn't present on the default AT-AT
@@Alexzander1989 I am aware of all that but we must remember that the it's not that much taller than a combat focused AT AT and given the thickness of the standard variant's legs there is a possibility it has the same system or a shield system for shock absorption and to soak up enemy fire. it sorta makes sense as "realistic" explanation for why the walker is a combat capable as it's shown.
Well yeah, just as the army is superior to the police, the Stormtroopers, although appearing to be combat troops, were normally put into policing or enforcing roles, not as dedicated front line troops in a conventional war.
D'niro Gavin programmed, and literally did nothing but train and fight for their entire lives. There’s only so much you can teach, and I sincerely doubt that any elite the empire pumps out will have ever seen the type of combat the clones went through
Visually rationalizing things is something Lucas does greatly. It's interesting to see the behind the scenes of him working with model builders coming up with backstory and functionality.
Finally someone who actually mentions the advantages of the AT-AT and not just "The thing could be tripped so AT-TE is better" while not even considering how hard it is to actually trip the AT-AT....
Realistically, its high center of mass would make it stupidly easy to topple over. And only having 4 legs, damaging one would likely send it over with enough force to kill everyone inside when it impacts the ground. More legs is better when it comes to walkers, better balance, better ground pressure, better redundancy. There's basically no real advantage to being that tall, and the only justifications are all 'from a certain point of view.'
The thing about those barriers, they could be destroyed using the AT-TE’s main cannon, while yes just being able to just walk over them is much faster than aiming and shooting, it’s not worth significantly increasing it’s height making it a much larger and vulnerable target for the sake of occasional convenience
Good point but if you blast those barriers they would probably take longer than you imagine since they are also "armored" and the explosions would just easily expose your position to the enemy forces without you even knowing so they could setup an ambush, send a defense force, or starfighters to blast your tanks then decimate the infantry
Which in turn is still letting them do their job, though. If you're having to spend energy taking them down regardless, be it in your Jedi cutting it and slowing your advance to a crawl, or expending ammo blasting them out of the way and having to be loud and slow doing it, it's still impeding the enemy from advancing.
Yeah but at the same time depending on how big and long the defenses are, your walker is wasting ammunition constantly firing in those defenses, also you gunfire exposes your position and the enemy can catch you off guard because your firing at something else.
Why not add lightsabers to the AT-TE's just little mounted ones on the legs. So it can clear at it's own pace. Either one big long bar that can be attached and detached quickly. Or multiple smaller ones that take a little longer to take on or off but don't inhibit movement as much cause they flow with the legs.
MC Henry, can you go over the two variants of the AT-AT the one we see in Rebels and the one we see in Empire Strikes Back and what their differences are?
I really want to do something like this, as well as similar videos (such as comparing Rebels A-wings vs RotJ A-wings). But I’m not sure when I’ll get to it. We’ll see!
@@ECHenry You also have to take into account that for all intents and purposes the Rebels and OT versions of the same vehicle are the same just stylized. With the exception of The A-Wing two-seater which I still affectionately call a R-22 spearhead, and AT-DP. The latter of which is much smaller and has a completely different profile than it's original concept.
@@ECHenry I've got a model of the rebels AT-AT variant from fallen Order on a google drive I could send you :-D. The model seems to be scaled accurately and I managed to get a good measurement out of it. (there isn't a current canon measurement, we only know that it is significantly bigger than the Empire Strikes Back AT-AT.) It's super fascinating because it has an Anti Air emplacement and multiple cockpit hatches on the upper portion that were removed in the ESB version. Not to mention the use of Ball turrets (with a wider arc of fire) instead of the more forward facing guns they use in the ESB model.
Well thats just one kind of barrier. Those long poles could easily be made horizontal after a set distance that would be to high for the At-At to step over. Effectively stopping them with little or no cost difference since those AT-At's have long legs but no high stride. I've also heard arguments for the AT-AT, that their legs are better since the use of cheap IED's could potential hit a more critical system and do major damage to an AT-TE. I would argue that's also false. The AT-AT height would have become a major disadvantage because if an IED crippled one of It's legs, at best the walker would be immobile, at worst fall over and potentially kill the crew and passengers. An AT-TE has redundant leg systems that would prevent such an issue. And if you say that's not a vulnerability because the AT-AT walkers legs are so armored, id argue that an MK II or III model of AT-TE wouldn't have that vulnerability either since its armor could be upgraded to the same degree. Personally i think that an enhanced model of the AT-TE that borrowed some of the design philosophy of the AT-AT would be FAR superior vehicle. An updated AT-TE model with its front legs slightly shorter then its back so its back weaponry could better hit ground targets, that on average stood to about 50% to 75% the height of an AT-TE that is just as armored, with it main weapons being either upgraded duel barrel variable yield mass driver canons or The two heavy laser guns the AT-AT already uses would have most if not all of the better design elements of the AT-AT as well at AT-TE put together in a complete package.
I don't think that horizontal poles could stop the AT-AT... at least in legends where they were capable of climbing vertical cliffs just like the AT-TE does in the Clone Wars movie. It would drastically slow it down buying time but it wouldn't stop it. And the AT-AT doesn't life more than one leg at a time due to the limits of stop motion. If you destroyed one leg, the other 3 would probably turn it into a tripod and hold position for the safety of the crew where it can still be used as a weapons platform. This wouldn't stop the AT-TE if it were the front or back legs but destroying a leg from the middle pair would stop its ability to advance as well as those were the main drive legs. In legends hover tanks took over the job of the AT-TE because of their massive mobility advantage though they couldn't carry the same number of troops of scale vertical cliffs. What I want to know is why didn't they assault Echo Base with a dozen hover tanks as they would be much easier to deploy and their speed would wreak havoc among the rebels.
Even if you capped the stages with horizontal poles, the AT-AT would still be able to step over them. You really do have to make them taller for them to matter. Also, the longer you make stakes like these, the less structurally sound they are going to be, to the point where blaster fire from the AT-AT is going to be able to destroy them (and have an easier time targeting them with its height). As for IEDs, the concern isn't that they'd damage one of the heavily-armored feet, the concern is that they'd damage the fuselage and kill the crew. Even on a modern tank, losing mobility is better than being flash-fried inside. That said, I have a hard time believing an IED that's strong enough to damage one of the feet wouldn't be detectable by the AT-AT.
Also the Republic was at war with an established enemy that needed purposely combat oriented vehicles while the Empire was putting down small rebel cells and used a larger, more imposing vehicle as a psychological weapon.
Tarkin Doctrine. I totally agree. As a peacekeeping force, avoiding and disuading combat is actually rather noble. It stops violence. Isn't that the point of a police force? The Empire is just as bad as modern day society. As another example, the Wookies are labelled as slaves. The Empire imprisoned them for treason in helping Yoda escape. This happens in American Labour prisons, which are privately (corporately no less) using convicted criminals the same way as slaves. But I don't see anyone complaining about that?! Not that it's right, just that a little less 'Rebel scum' hypocrisy would be nice, instead of words over action. Thats like aiding a believed to be Assasin, head of them no less, in their escape. Seriously, there's lots of videos justifying the Empire...except Tie Fighters they are plain bad design
@@Blessed_V0id half truths always make it easy to be framed as the bad guy. But you will not see me complaining about fprced labour for convicts. They still have to add value to society somehow.
@@miniaturejayhawk8702 I understand. I do. But I think its more ethical, if they are truly evil and selfish, to donate every drop of blood, every bit of bone marrow, every organ...anything. I don't think your wrong. But we are in desperate need of more good people. Sometimes two things are paradoxically true at once. I hope you can consider this idea of not punishing evil, but removing it to save what little good there is.
What about trenches and holes in the ground? It seems to me that those would be better defenses against walkers and much easier and cheaper to build, which suits the kind of enemy the Empire fights.
Anti-tank ditches? I think that to work on walkers those should be at least camouflaged - while on regular tanks and low height walkers ditch without camo can work, something like AT-AT can easily spot such trap and avoid it. Another thing is dimensions of said ditch - especially depth width and angles inside that obstacle - walkers would require wider ditch to maximize tripping and damaging potential, but at the same time said width causes consealment more difficult
@@Jfk2Mr Well I don't know about that, back on Vietnam a lot of 1,80m soldiers lost their foot to a hole covered on leafs. Based on the size and weight of an AT-AT You could probably even cover your pitfall trap with a fucking steel ceiling and shove an entire piece of a forest and it would probably still work as intended
This worked quite well for the Soviets at the battle of Kursk, and they didn't even really camouflage the anti-tank trenches. In stead, they used the presence of the trenches to funnel the German tanks into killing channels of mines, artillery and Soviet tanks.
The Empire abandoned the AT-TE because of the Tarkin Initiative which valued overbearing presence (sometimes they're presents) and fear rather than versatility and efficiency. They'd rather plop a big ass walker down and scare everyone so they wouldn't fight rather than actually fight. Though they still made their stuff incredibly strong and powerful. The longer legs on the AT-AT are probably due to both form and function.
glad someone mentioned this, every other comment is about something technical or strategic and i’m like, “they made them big to be scary lol” then the first order got a mega boner about that idea and made everything as big and menacing as possible and also red
Personally I would I would like to see a GR-75 transport retrofitted into a small hospital craft by taking the cargo of the racks and letting U-wings dock there to unload people into the main body of the ship
@@pwnmeisterage Immobilized is WAY better than crew loss. Loads of modern tanks are designed to accept immobilization or loss of combat function instead of risking danger to the crew. And that's assuming the AT-AT can't move on 3 legs.
@@kategrant2728 Immobilization also isn't better than modern tanks. If the Empire is only able to design something that's as good as 20th century tanks then that's really not well done. Plus we aren't even sure if that's true, could an AT-AT actually stay upright if one of the legs was taken out? The problem is that immobilization here might actually mean crew loss since if it falls then the crew are definitely dead or heavily injured. Maybe it can stay upright if one legs fail but what if the front two ones fail? or two side ones? It's not exactly hard to coordinate mines to do that and it would be fairly devastating. Plus like the major problem I take with this is that the AT-TE was already basically IED proof. It was already raised above the ground and it had the bonus of not killing it's crew if it does fall. The most important factors in IED and mine protection is raising the roof off the ground to allow the explosion to dissipate and the shape of the lower hull. The AT-TE is already raised several meters of the ground, the kind of explosives you'd need to still inflict damage at that height is massive and we never see anything more powerful than a thermal detonator in Star Wars. It's hull shape is kinda meh because it seems to have an exposed lower hull but at least it's not flat. The thing is though that any explosive powerful enough to kill the crew of an AT-TE is also powerful enough to destroy the legs on an AT-AT and therefor kill the crew.
There is no actual 'real" reason for any of this stuff.. it's just cool designs that look impressive. The longer legs on the original are meant to mimic actual animals, and Joe Johnston's original designs were almost certainly inspired by Syd Mead's 1969 design here: cyberneticzoo.com/wp-content/uploads/Syd-mead-Walking-cargo-vehicle-1970.jpg Johnston, like Mead, in an industrial designer and Mead is famous in the design world. Lucas himself knew of Mead's work in the 70s. As for the newer design, Ryan Church designed it to have a lower center of gravity and to contrast well against the earlier design. Ryan is also an industrial designer and his design addressed some of the real-world limitations of the super top-heavy walker shape. He wanted to put some real-world functionality back into the design, (ie the flexible linked hulls) Making them smaller was also important to not "outcool" the later designs. I worked alongside Ryan on Episode III and I can assure you that you guys are way overthinking things. Some of my own designs have been made into toys and put into "cutaway drawings" books etc full of made up stuff that none of us on the concept team never intended. Some writer just made things up after the fact. That goes for all the tech and ships and vehicles etc. So when you see details and names and explanations for how and why things are the way they are, that is all tacked on later by random writers.
@@willgillespie4840 I understand EC point tho. Is a practical decision, not only an aesthetic one. And citing the Tarkin Doctrine as an explanation has become repetitive. We all already know that the Tarkin Doctrine focused on intimidation when designing weapons.
I don't see how making it taller makes it safer from mines, the mines still blow the legs to bits, but now the body has a much longer distance to fall, probably rendering it less safe for the occupants. It's also not going to fall straight down, so it might just face plant onto another mine too. They're just lucky the rebels apparently had zero anti armour artillery guns on Hoth or elsewhere. Those big, long, exposed legs would make artillery gunners practically wet with excitement.
I always just thought of it as far different needs. The AT-TE is a main line battle tank to fight a military power with comparable strength, the AT-AT is designed for an empire occupying the galaxy with tech geared towards instilling fear and putting down under equipped uprisings.
Besides obvious barriers such as extremely high tensile strength cables being strung like power lines to trip it instead of tank stoppers, the AT-AT is horrible. Here's why. The problem is center of gravity and target profile. That thing would be extremely easy to topple with a hard hit from the side or by digging holes/uneven terrain. Ever looked at modern main battle tanks? Notice how they have an extremely flat profile from the side? It makes them harder to spot and harder to hit. Literally anything in the combat zone could easily hit an AT-AT which means they need to be very armored, which makes them heavy which makes them slow which makes them easier to stop. Not to mention the lack of any sort of defenses from the flanks or the rear. The only thing this thing is good for is a full frontal assault against a completely unprepared force like on Hoth. Had the Empire faced an equal they would have needed something else.
actually the best reason that we see the AT-TE used during a peer-to-peer war and the AT-AT used postwar. AT-TE is clearly meant to be used a target-rich environment with all sides having firing arcs and armor...including up. The AT-AT is clearly designed for assaulting a known, fortified, position only after ground, air, and orbit superiority has been established. One is a true war vehicle and the other is a policing vehicle.
not everything is designed to have a small target profile you know. Plenty of military vehicles have a large target profile because they arent designed to be hard to hit in the first place. Such as, you know. Battleships, which were deliberately designed to be taller so as to give them better sighting capabilities. The AT-AT is far too large to be a difficult target, even if it was low to the ground it would still be easy to hit, so why bother basing your design decisions on that? 'a hard hit from the side'? what hard hit from the side? what in the star wars setting is capable of creating such a hard hit from the side? I havent seen any big rebel walkers around to shove them in the side, and I've seen them take missile hits in the side without falling over. Being heavily armored does not make them easy to stop. They are more massive, and as anyone who has seen a truck brake can tell you, more mass makes things harder to stop. Turret coverage is fair I'm not saying that it is overall a good vehicle (it isnt at all), but these points are incorrect. Rather I would mostly criticize its poor turret coverage and the awkward leg design which doesnt provide it a very stable platform. Spider walkers are the way to go.
AT-TEs, (as shown in this video), can be deploying by specialized VTOL transport craft, so they should be able to just fly over any anti-tank obstacles. I also think you underestimate the importance of minimizing one's exposure. A major reason why modern tanks are designed so low to the ground is present as small a target as possible. Additionally, in a galaxy far far away, wouldn't satellites and drones render the visual advantage of high vantage point redundant? If you can't deploy satellites or drones because you haven't achieved orbital/air superiority, then you've got bigger problems that the view you get from your APC.
The AT-TE and AT-AT are both far too large to 'minimize one's exposure'. It doesnt matter if you make them low to the ground they're already easy targets. Make them low to the ground and you still have a big easy target. Once you make a vehicle large enough the advantage of a higher vantage point outstrips any extremely minor gains you might have from a smaller target profile. Hence why battleships and cruisers have tall superstructures and high-up detection facilities, whether those are old-fashioned visual detection or modern radar. While smaller and more stealthy military ships that arent as easy targets have much lower superstructures or none at all. Vantage point is also *VERY* important when you have only direct-fire weaponry. The range of the weapons is directly relative to their height in that situation, since you cant fire past the horizon. At 20 meters the horizon (on earth) would be 16.2 kilometers away, compared to only 6 kilometers away from standing height. You are in effect tripling your effective range by making them taller. Also, responding to "If you can't deploy satellites or drones because you haven't achieved orbital/air superiority, then you've got bigger problems that the view you get from your APC.". Well, yes, you have bigger problems, which is the exact time you need an advantage. What kind of military strategy is it to design your vehicles to give you the greatest advantage only when you dont need it, and not provide any advantage in situations where you need the advantage? that just makes no sense. FYI I think the AT-AT is ridiculous, but the constant criticism of its height of all things is not reasonable for an easily detectable, direct-fire-only vehicle which has alot to gain from height.
It doesn't really matter how easy to spot the AT-AT is, considering that their armor is too strong for blasters. Even with fortified positions with turrets and complete air superiority, facing off an enemy that has no cover at all, the rebels only manage to take down, what, 2 walkers? The rebels had everything going for them, every advantage, yet they couldn't even slow the AT-AT advance (which really wasn't that slow, because they could move continuously while lighter tanks would be destroyed if they tried to do the same). If not for the rebels having a massive anti-orbital ion cannon, and the Imperial refusal to launch TIEs to intercept escaping rebels, the AT-AT would have pretty much single handedly destroyed the Rebellion right then and there, just as effectively as the first Death Star would have if the rebels didn't have a jedi-in-training to make a near-impossible shot, or the Battle of Endor would have if C-3PO wasn't painted gold and Leia didn't have snacks.
I always preferred the TE from a visual standpoint. It also is MUCH easier to deploy with troops. The AT required a large slow drop ship that would of been a easily target for enemy AA and fighters and basically required having air superiority to deploy, where as the TE could be deployed by a LAAT that we see on multiple occasions penetrate hostile airspace. I’d imagine the TE could maneuver in city’s and caves better as well due to being shorter.
But the AT-AT can hold more than double the amount of troops the AT-TE can. Also, the AT-AT did not need a dropship as it just kneels down to around 3 meters off the ground and opens its bay and allowing troops to either jump down or use a ladder. Yes, it would take longer but I feel like the empire would already have ground troops deployed and would only deploy more when they have full control of the enemy position. I think they would just use the walker for support rather than a troop carrier.
@@Paxton365 I was more referring to the fact that to get an AT-AT on the ground required a large ship, smallest available was the Gozanti cruiser which couldn’t be deployed if there was any anti-air or fighters.
@@Bean41 Well obviously you wouldn't deploy an AT-AT in the middle of a battle. You would need to deploy it before or after. And even then I feel like if you are far away enough from the battle and if they are heavily guarded enough they can get away with dropping a few AT-ATs and then flying away just in time for the enemy not to notice. Plus doesn't the AT-TE need to be deployed by a LAAT/c which is quite large of a target and can only hold one AT-TE at a time? I get it's a dropship but wouldn't the same issue persist if the enemy has any anti-air or fighters? It's always gonna be dangerous for a pilot deploying a big target in the middle of battle.
@@Paxton365 The republic routinely dropped AT-TEs with clones on LAATs, they certainly suffered losses but not nearly as often as a Gozanti or Titan would. You can’t really just drop your armor support off in the distance else you don’t have support for the infantry. As for the LAAT/c I believe it around the same size as the standard variant, large caliber AA canons could tear even an Ackimator in two but had limited accuracy so LAATs can slip through with minimal losses.
Or they could've built a combat engineering variant of the AT-TE with a big ol' robot arm that could just rip those spikes out of the ground. Or support their advance with combat engineers who's job is specifically to destroy exactly those kinds of obstacles. AT-ATs are primary built to look really imposing, but as a combat vehicle they are sorely lacking outside of their fairly impressive armour.
Yeah, at-te/at-at mix would be best. Medium height so the legs take the damage from mines and protects the hull more. More armor so it's harder to penetrate. The 6 legs so it's harder to trip and if it does it can get itself back up. In fact even if they aren't mixed just make a system that can be attached at will to the at-te that basically creates a few giant lightsaber beams infront of the legs that can slightly adjust so that emitters don't cause it to not cut. Of course that would divert resources from the death star but in the end it'd be better. Also we can see why the at-te is actually better than the at-at in a way through the fight between the old beat up at-te and the new fresh at-at in rebels. Even the old at-te was tanking hits from the at-at and shot the biggest weak point of the at-at, the neck. If the rebels just shot the very unprotected necks at the battle of hoth then they'd have won very quickly. Of course the at-at would be best when stuff got deep (seen in fallen order) but the at-te is airtight (seen in the clone wars when used to board some cis ships and to hide on asteroids to shoot them) so it could also navigate the water. And seeing as weapon boats aren't a thing in star wars. I doubt they'd have depth charges of some sort.
Also gunners usually always aim for the torso and not for the legs, because it is a much bigger target. Moving legs are not easy to hit. Also from the front the silhouette of the AT-ATs legs is even smaller and rebels would rather aim with their rare heavy artillery for a target they would hit before they reveal their position and getting shot by the AT-AT.
Yeah to effectively attack the ATAT's legs I would suggest attacking with landspeeders similar to episode 1 and target the ankles. Land speeders would be fast enough to keep behind the ATAT and avoid fire.
Or at least the rebels could shoot their artillery at the ground in front of the advancing AT-At’s... I’m sure the things would have trouble transversing a crater, maybe tripping too
@Aspiring Marauder The AT-AT at Rogue Rogue was not an AT-AT it was an AT-ACT. A cargo transport version with thin armor. Everything we have seen on Rogue One wouldnt have worked on an actual AT-AT.
All accepted, on the other hand the AT-TE is depicted able to climb very steep ramps (remember the episode at the beginning with the kidnapped hut child) and it seems it can pass better natural barriers like valleys where the at-at has issues manouvering. So in the end you should have both options on hand and use in parallel you reduce the number of weaknesses of your expedition force
@@EgoEroTergum Ever see what happens when a horse steps in a gopher hole? It can lead to a broken leg. And if I were making the pit, I would know the length of the legs first.
The advantages of deep fording and visibility from an elevated position are certainly points in favor of the AT-AT, but the visibility "advantage" is a double-edge sword that sort of indirectly points to why the Empire favored the AT-AT over the AT-TE. The AT-TE's top mounted turret means that it can engage and survey enemy positions from what is known in tank combat as a "hull down" position: With the vast majority of the walker hidden behind a ridge or some other obstacle while the significantly smaller and harder to hit turret engages targets (though admittedly the front of a tank's turret is usually where the heaviest armor is. The AT-TE's turret? Not so much). The AT-AT, by contrast, has its main weapons underslung on the walker's "head" which is already mounted low on the hull. This means that to engage a target the AT-AT must expose its entire front save the legs to attack. We know that AT-AT armor is good, but no armor is invincible. Things like planetside turbolaser batteries and massive siege guns could probably bring down an AT-AT with ease through conventional means. This is not a good vehicle for high intensity combat where troops get stuck in against an equal or superior force, where large numbers of assets are available like heavy artillery for taking out armor or fortifications, and engineering teams to build bridges and clear obstacles. In an environment like that, the AT-TE is superior. But that's not the kind of conflict the Empire was fighting, now was it? They were fighting numerous insurgencies and low intensity conflicts against pockets of rebellion, NOT a coordinated army (at least not until around the time the second Death Star went kaboom). In situations like that you want to commit few resources. The purpose of your army also changes, you're not there just to defeat the enemy, but also "show the flag" as it were. You WANT to be seen, you WANT to be impressive; because you WANT people to know that you're invested in what happens. You also want the capability to work for extended periods without a lot of support staff, and if that means longer legs so that you can deep ford a river instead of calling up a bridging company or dropship? That's great! This isn't just Tarkin Doctrine of ruling through fear and intimidation, it's the kind of counter-insurgency 101 that's the reason why we send tanks to weed out guerilla fighters.
It was mediocre. At the beginning it was terrible. But later it got better. Even last season is pretty uneven with bad 8 episodes and great last 4. Filoni is an ok showrunner but definitely a bad screenwriter.
@@TheNobleFive Good showrunner, great screenwriter (occasionally hobbled),... now he just needs to work on his acting skills. (For those unaware, FIloni has a short cameo sequence in The Mandalorian. He's... okay in it. I think he can get better.)
I guess time and maybe revealing their position. Since it took a few seconds for a lightsaber to cut through each stake, I don't think the anti-personal cannons will far much better. If we're talking about the primary cannon, if I remember correctly, it was a projectile base weapon meaning it had a limited ammo pool meant for targets of actual importance.
Also the fact that the ATTE constantly shooting would waste ammunition and time, and do to the main guns low rate of fire, it’s going to be an excruciating process.
How about a video about the advantages of having towing cables that deploy like harpoons and maybe theorise what a snow speeder would normally be expected to tow. Make it make sense for us, please.
Hey guys, have you ever seen that really old movie "Empire Strikes Back?" Jesus Tony, how old is this guy? I don't know, I didn't carbon date him. He's on the young side.
To counter an AT-AT would require higher barriers and more barriers Environmental hazards, unstable grounds and trip barriers: *allow us to introduce ourselves*
What I'm curious about is whether there's a good explanation anyone can come up with for the Juggernaut Turbo Tanks not being used more than walkers. I know it's possible that the Dragon's Teeth barriers might work against the Turbo Tanks like the AT-TEs, but the increased speed and better point defence of the Turbo Tanks surely outways that in certain situations.
Camouflaging such features would make them even more deadly. Come to think of it, such obstacles would be easier and cheaper to deploy than the spikes seen in that clone wars episode.
The taller legs just scream mine countermeasure. There has to be some really nasty explosives in the Star Wars universe, separating the crew compartment from the ground as much as possible makes sense if you hit a mine. Sure you can tangle the legs: if your Wedge Antilles, quite possibly the best fighter pilot in the galaxy, a man who leads a fighter squadron whose motto is "the impossible in our stock in trade". You think the average pilot is going to be able to pull off that?
William Magoffin Wedge Antilles is probably the best non -force sensitive star fighter pilot in the galaxy, but bet very best star fighter pilot in the galaxy is of course Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader himself!
@@danielolsson7134 Pffft Anakin Skywalker, how many Death Star kills does he have on his service record? Cuz the Empire built two: Wedge has an 'assist' on one and a 'kill' on the other. In fact, he faced Darth Vader in starfighter combat and lived.
"The process is quite slow". Four seconds. Unless you're being chased, that is definitely not a significant amount of time, and arguing that it leaves the heavily armoured vehicle "vulnerable" is just silly. Not to mention that the AT-TE could probably shoot those poles to destroy them, and make way for itself, which would probably take longer, but still wouldn't stop it, only delay its progress. Then there's the fact that similarly limiting barriers could also be erected for the AT-ATs, by simply orienting the same objects at a slight angle, to cover otherwise walkable areas for a more narrow vehicle. You also didn't consider that AT-TEs may just not have been made for the same environments as AT-ATs, or they may not have the same firepower, the same cost or energy efficiency, or AT-ATs may just be generally more technologically advanced. And you kinda missed the simplest possible solution; that perhaps Lucas and his team just didn't pay attention to the discrepancies when making the prequels. That they probably just wanted cool new designs, without thinking how these new, and oddly enough, more advanced looking designs would effect the lore and internal consistency of the story. Also, no; the Rebels barely had time to pull up their shield and scramble their speeders. How would they have had time to erect massive, metal spikes? The only reasonable argument for the AT-AT in that case is that it may be generally faster due to having a longer stride. On a side-note: "What would it look like, if you were fighting a technologically inferior enemy, who could beat your vehicles simply by putting things in the ground?" Or by dropping tree logs on, or rolling them in the way of your vehicles, eh?
The snow speeder reminds me of the torpedo bomber design, where the problem was they had to fly close, fly in a predictibal path, and drop the torpedo at just the right moment.
The two machines have different roles. The AT-AT is a siege engine, a machine designed to be intimidating, and a type of main battle tank. The AT-TE is a troop transport with some relation to smaller tanks. Both require support from infantry and other mechanized support to cover their vulnerabilities. That intimidation factor is likely another contributor to the switch.
Think you make great points about the At-At taller legs. However I still think Walkers from The Clone Wars have better performance due to they going through combat with an equal enemy force.
I agree. The AT-AT may be good at crushing small insurgencies and intimidating rebels, but it would suffer in a war. The AT-TE was designed for a galaxy-spanning conflict with an enemy of equal economic power, and it excelled.
Hey EC Henry can you please look into the Macross Variable Fighters? The three mode transformation and multipurpose design is cool. So what are your thoughts on it?
Great video. I am glad that you recognize how ineffective the Rebel defense is. Some people take the downing of two walkers as somehow a big deal, but look at what it costs the Rebels to do that. The Rebel losses at Hoth are vast compared to the Imperial losses. Luke's attack only works because he has a lightsaber, which, as you yourself point out, are in short supply by the Imperial era. AT-ATs are meant to be augmented by smaller craft, and themselves can draw and withstand heavy fire. They are siege-breakers, tank killers, and bunker busters. The AT-STs can handle the smaller, more agile stuff, and the rest can be overwhelmed by the inevitable onslaught of Imperial troops certain to be right behind them. I continue to be surprise by folks who don't understand how one-sided a rout the Battle of Hoth really is. Anyway, like I said, great video.
As an AT-TE proponent, I agree. It pisses me off too. But it still has a lot more advantages than an AT-AT. Low center of gravity, vertical traversal capabilities, easier troop deployment, lower profile, better defenses and the fact that it at least has a turret that can rotate 360° albeit a shitty one.
@@specialagentgeralt9763 I definitely like the lower profile of the AT-TE and the independent traversal of the weapons instead of them all pointing in one direction like the AT AT but it seems like it would only be useful as an artillery piece because of how poorly defended the crew seems to be. Reminds me of nazi assault guns.
@@specialagentgeralt9763 I dont see how the lower profile is much of an advantage. Its still large enough to be an easy target. Just putting it lower to the ground doesnt mean much if you're still large enough to be reliably hit by pretty much anything the separatists have. I mean I think its better mostly because the legs are wider and it has more of them, so its more stable. but I dont get the lower profile thing people sling around so much.
@@lenkagamine4145 Well basically, the lower the profile, the closer it actually needs to be to effectively hit. In theory, because an AT-AT is basically twice as tall, it could be hit from twice as far away on a flat plain. The AT-TE would be able to make better use of the natural terrain around it to conceal itself where as the AT-AT would almost always be fully exposed. It's a concept that is a huge factor in modern main battle tank design. Notice how most tanks are comparatively low to the ground for how big they actually are? That flat profile provides better concealability and it makes them as small a target as they can be. Basically, more of the vehicles total volume is dispersed horizontally rather than vertically. This also makes them much harder targets from the air. The higher off the ground something is the easier it is to hit from the air.
EC, Thanks for your balanced analysis on the AT-AT. You make a great argument that tripping this vehicle is much more difficult than it appears. I also never thought of how even massive spikes would be useless against an AT-AT 's long legs. Hence, you would need powerful explosives which you noted would be too expensive for most Imperial opponents to buy. This video underscores how the best Star Wars vehicles have strengths and weaknesses. So AT-TE can't be tripped like an AT-AT, but can be impeded by spikes. Looking forward to your next video.
The metal stakes in the ground known as tank traps in real life would work against the AT-AT's, because they do not lift their legs high enough to clear the tank traps. The legs stay relatively close to the ground. Now on to the second point that the AT-AT is skinny enough to slip between them, I would argue that they are only slightly thinner and not to the point of posing a problem to any rebels using them as a defensive measure, but even if it was just made add a few more and shorten the gap between each tano trap. Lastly even if you did have to use taller tank traps and more of them, your own praise in the beginning of the video of the original tank traps effectiveness and that they were cheap and relatively easy to deploy makes that relatively easy to adapt to. If they really are fairly inexpensive and easy to erect in defense than I would argue that getting tank traps that are anywhere from a half taller to twice as tall or more well even if they cost twice as much or a little more and paying for just a few more of them I argue would be well worth the cost if it could ultimately stop the enemy tanks in their tracks. However, I also believe that for both the AT-TE's and the AT-AT's have weapon powerful enough to simply blast them to pieces or at least blast the foundation that is supporting the tank traps and then just push them over if they don't just fall over on their own after destroying what is supporting them.
0:50 This isn't a default on the ATTE, since that was specially (presumably) made for the ATTE. If the republic used ATAT's then they'd surely just deal with the extra cost of making them more dense and taller. Or they'd find some other defense entirely. In fact making the pillars a tiny bit denser would be enough to slow down or stop ATAT's entirely. Even if they're talk enough for their main body to walk over them, their legs probably won't be able to step over the pillars just because of how high they are compared to the height an ATAT can walk over. So they'd need to turn in the middle of the pillar field, which would be hard since they swing their legs wide out to turn. Something you can't really do in the field.
I've always thought they were also used as psychological warfare. They are a weapon of fear. If you see that coming, you start to panic, and their height gives them a very long range.
Its the same principle behind dragons teeth and czech hedgehogs in WWII, however i would argue that all you need to do to make the same obstacles viable against an AT AT is string cables between them like a giant wire fence.
The interesting thing I find is that the AT-AT doesn't actually get that much of a higher step high. By the looks of things, a pair of dragon's teeth linked by a cross bar would probably stop an AT-AT in its tracks. I imagine the limited step hight and stride length is due to the foot weight as well as the actual length of the leg itself. The actuators and hydraulics needed to extend that far from joint to joint would probably be strained if pushed any further than what we see. Those legs are basically bones, thick enough to support the sheer weight of the body but that's about it.
AT-AT: George Lucas wanted to evoke War of the Worlds AT-TE: He saw a neat beetle once But thematically it's more about visual storytelling than anything else. Much like the beginning of A New Hope with the Star Destroyer/Blockade Runner, it's about communicating the might of the Empire vs the hopeless rag-tag nature of the rebellion.
My headcanon on this was it was a lesson from Felucia. This was supposed to be a massive slog of a campaign through horrible swamps which would basically eat an AT-TE, but stick massive long legs on it and they could get through it. Add on everything you've said and it makes sense, especially for an Empire not expecting to eb facing serious military threats, but mostly militias
Just nitpicking on Hoth: there the AT-TE would have been able to destroy the shield generator much earlier due having a large MASS driver cannon: just get a spotter on one of the mountains the AT-ATs had to go around, or have one of the orbiting ships act as that, and they can hit the shield generator with impunity thanks to ballistics and having an actual projectile weapon.
I don't see it as a good reason to stop using AT-TEs in favor of AT-ATs. They both have quirks and advantages that make them useful for different situations. Overall, the AT-TE has more maneuverability, stability, and versatility. The AT-AT has more durability, firepower, and the capacity to hold troops. I think the AT-TE was replaced out of the sheer hubris of the Tarkin Doctrine. Even then, I doubt it was fully replaced on the outer edges of the Galactic Empire, places where Clone Wars tech was still in use.
AT-ATs on their way to the rebel base actually passed through a narrow mountainous passage. I imagine wider AT-TEs could have a problem in certain spots
This entire video radiates ‘why would you say something so controversial yet so brave’, and I’m not sure how I feel about that, but this does bring good points to the table.
I think the main thing with these is you need to get out of of the mindset of tanks fighting first sight first kill from hull down positions using stealth and situational awareness more than armor. Whatever the armor is in SW it's considerably more effective than reasonable thicknesses of RHA and/or regular anti-vehicular weapons are either not common or easy to counter.
Yes, thankyou! people keep talking about modern tank tactics in a setting that doesnt in any way resemble modern military combat. So many of the tactical considerations people talk about for these is based on considerations that arent even in star wars. They're not designed like an MBT so stop expecting the giant heavily armored walking landship to have a low target profile and stealthy design.
Anyone who has driven a transporter or any other higher vehicle for the road knows that a higher point of balance is difficult to negate. Even motorcycles that have a higher point of balance are more difficult to hold as their weight is higher up and you need to use more force to balance them. The AT-AT has a huge point of balance and tipping it sideways or sabotaging only one of its legs would make it fall over instantly. And unless you are able to turn off physics it's difficult as fuck to get rid of such a high point of balance.
You know those old world war 2 photos of those cross that were set up for roadblocks? They were purpose built to stop the encroach of most tanks, and even if you get on/over it, you’d be stuck or open a hole getting off or over it.
Bypassing defenses like this is such a specific issue. Things like profile, ground pressure and stability are far far more important. All of which the AT AT sucks at. In a more plausible setting at Hoth the rebels would have cannons that could actually harm the AT-ATs (they have a gigantic Ion cannon so why do they have only pathetic AT guns on the ground?). As the AT-Ats are absolutely gigantic they could easily be hit across the battlefield from concealed and protected positions by dozens of cannons. There is a reason irl tanks are generally very low profile especially when designed for flat areas. it allows vehicles to take advantage of cover and not get spotted. The extreme height of the legs also offers a considerable weakness to defenses designed around them. Yes against basic tank traps and mines it would be useful. However a very simple measure to stop an AT-AT would be a ditch. Literally just that. Make a hole. They can´t raise their legs much. They´d be stuck immediately and become easy targets. Alternatively just dig the ground up a bit and watch them sink. Walkers in general are not very plausible but the higher they are the less plausible they become. So yeah AT-TEs are better which makes sense as they were designed for the prequels where more thought had been put into the setting.
If you fused the two together it'd be amazing. Heavily armored cockpit without a weak neck, more capacity and guns, and raised higher with each leg being equally log
Is everyone forgetting the battle on Scarif in Rogue 1? Where simple ion cannon shots to the knee joints took them out? Also, I agree with the hole and trench defense. Crater the ground in a wide enough stretch with mounds, mines, and other things and see an AT-AT try to pass through that!
Re: tripping. I know strong wires are often used as a low tech measure against tanks. They won't trip the tank but they can catch on personnel and kill them. Of course SW vehicles are so tall that's not a problem. Now I guess the interesting question is why those things aren't susceptible to just being shot to bits with APFSDS or HEAT.
My biggest problem with this is that traps like those were used to stop tanks in the real world, but were never so useful that tank design was redone to account for them. In open areas they just didn’t work well like in the Atlantic Wall during WW2 as thousands were needed in small areas to have any strategic effect, and engineered could remove them somewhat easily. In cities where just a few could block off streets worked, but something as big as an AT-TE or an AT-AT wouldn’t work in narrow streets anyway, and the barricades you were talking about would be really hard if not impossible to install in them.
Another bonus is protection at the front. Usually a vehicle is going to be attacked from the front and although the AT-TE has transparasteel windows which are good at dissipating the heat of small arms fire they aren't so good at protecting against mass driver cannon shells and rockets. The AT-AT has a much smaller view port and is higher up. Although I have several problems with the AT-AT its firing arch, it being quite under armed for a vehicle of its size and the numerous weak points like the drive shaft and neck it has it's uses.
It's funny after watching a lot of World War 2 stuff about tanks this makes a lot of sense thank you for finally making the AT AT make sense. The version I remeber in legends was that it was easier to avoid landmines die to the height, which didnt make much sense to me even as a kid, it could still step on one. But also they can traverse deep water (seen in fallen order) if the snow was deep on hoth an AT TE might have gotten snowed in. Cause I believe they did use AT TEs in the empire but in areas with small empire bases. So they probably could have used them more if they wanted to. Would love to see more rebels use at tes though
I honestly think mines would be the AT-AT’s biggest weakness, because you can just bury a couple big mines under the ground and wait for the to pass by and waltz in.
The Imperial AT-ST also follows this design strategy. The AT-ST's processor the AT-RT suffered from a couple of issues such as leaving its operator vulnerable to sniper or artillery fire so it was only useful in large calvaries rather than individual units. The AT-ST solves this issue by using an enclosed cockpit with two small viewports. This along with its enhanced size made sharpshooting difficult and risky. As we have seen in the Mandalorian, in order to get a clear shot of the pilots you need to be directly in front of the walker putting you exactly where the AT-ST is most effective.
Mines. Lay a dense minefield in the main area where an AT-AT could attack from. Even if you just blow up a single foot instead of downing the entire walker, it’d still force all AT-AT units to stop and stick to artillery support.
I’m not entirely convinced. I had gotten the impression that the snow speeder strategy was a tested measure that the rebels had used many times before. Plus, the thin, frail legs, with massive joints seem like an ideal weak point. The AT-AT also was only really effective at attacking targets directly in front of it. Overall, I think the AT-AT offers a few specific advantages, but the AT-TE is a better all-around platform.
Of course, an alternative cheep, simple defensive measure would be pit fall traps. Granted they would have to be fairly large and deep and with many of them to give a higher chance of actually catching one of their legs, but a sudden five meeter drop or similar through a thin top layer of soil supported by sticks could easily cause them to trip.
But there was one thing. I’m Star Wars Rebels the AT TE sure took quite a beating when Rex and the retired Clones Squared off against Two AT ATs they were able to hold them long enough for that rebel group to hijack one of them and finish the other off.
Re: Tripping It's not going to be particularly easy to see a small cable strung up across a bottlenecked area. So, multiple passive trip lines could be installed to trip up and slow down approaching AT-ATs. There's more ways than looping around it with a snowspeeder to trip one up lol.
You forget this has already been addressed in cannon in ep 8 with the new at-mt with significantly upgraded legs that made this sort of attack more widespread that official source suggest. But not only that the official documentation mentions it has the ability to muscle defences while at-st craft provide point defence from personnel, and can not be brought down by cable due to mounted cable cutter in the front
I’ve sat in big mission planning briefings. I’ve always imagined that when the Empire landed AT-AT’s, the Rebels didn’t have any options to fight them off. Someone may have sarcastically said why don’t we just trip it. one of the guys mentions that these old ships in the hanger, designed more for patrol and rescue operations in arctic environments has a huge winch that could theoretically trip an AT-AT. The reply would have been.....Oh, and I suppose that we’ll Just fly loops around it until it gets tight too right? Actually, yeah, that’s the only way it would work.
Not seen the episode you cite as reason for longer legs, but it seems that a blast or two from the main gun would have achieved a similar effect that a lightsaber did, albeit louder.
If we look to how tank barricades are removed in the real world, there's a much simpler solution to this: They use engineer corps. Now we already have a reason to keep these around AT-ATs anyway because such an enormous tank with so many parts that could go wrong would require an engineer unit all to itself per platoon. So you're sacrificing capability in urban and mountainous terrain to step over barricades that you're going to need the perfect unit to counter anyway. No, the real reason the Empire uses AT-ATs is for shock factor. There was no point in terrifying an army of droids into submission, but when their mandate became policing way more space than any army could reasonably occupy all at once, the Tarkin doctrine prioritized fear over everything else. A war no one is willing to fight with you is a war you've won before it started. We can see this reflected in most Imperial tactics and designs, from the week-long orbital bombardment known as "slagging" to the imposing grimace of the Stormtrooper helmets
I think another issue is the intended tactical usage of walkers. In large, mostly open, mostly flat ground where you basically have no ability to maintain the element of surprise, a walker of any kind seems like a fairly slow, impractical vehicle. Virtually any vehicle with wheels or tracks would almost certainly be faster. In a dense, forested environment on the other hand, where tight turns are impossible with an inflexible wheeled craft, a walker might have more uses. Being able to weave around trees, particularly if you’re using smaller vehicles that can’t simply plow trees down. So my guess is walkers were designed for patrols in areas like the moon of Endor where the second death star’s shield generator was, and that in the assault on the rebel base at Hoth AT-ATs and AT-STs were essentially pressed into service because that’s all they had. Maybe the assumption was that the rebel base they were looking for would be tucked away in some difficult to reach geographic feature, but when it was discovered that they were hiding on a mostly flat tundra world, they decided rather than head back to grab more appropriate vehicles to just go for it rather than risk the rebels evacuating before they could get there. And besides, who cares if these walkers aren’t well suited to this type of terrain? We’ll have such overwhelming firepower it won’t matter, which is essentially what happened.
Of course the fact that the snowspeeders were flying straight at the walkers instead of flaking them (you know, coming in from a direction the guns on the head *weren't* easily able to point at), plus not trying to call up the X and Y-wings with more firepower when they realized the speeders weren't going to cut it helped the Imperials a great deal. Given how quickly Luke cut through the belly armor, I wonder how protected AT-ATs are under there as well...a classic tank-buster technique might have helped there as well. But the AT-TE that has 6 legs as opposed to 4, the much lower and much less trip-able stance, weapons spread around the hull (4 front-facing turrets, 2 aft-facing, and the main turret, as compared to the two chin cannons and 2 cheek turrets that for whatever reason never seemed to rotate aft), and can climb sheer surfaces with magnetic feet...yeah, 'obviously' inferior to the narrow guy that has potential sideways balance problems. /sarcasm. The only real advantage the AT-AT had was height. Oh, and you want to talk about going up against primitive weapons? Battle of Endor. Notice the AT-STs getting crushed (literally), and the complete absence of AT-ATs between the trees, despite them being *shown* as being on-world..
One improvement on the AT-AT to prevent attacks from below would be to place a turret or two on the underside. Probably one would be enough to discourage any infantry from attempting Luke’s maneuver.
Recently rewatched your video on how fast an AT-AT moves and had an idea. What if the AT-AT had an unseen addition to help move it around faster. What if the AT-AT had a "sled" it could lay on to help move over distances when needing to move rapidly when no airlift was available. This sled could use repulsorlift tech or even wheels like say the underside of the Republic Juggernaut Tank. This sled of course would not be ideal for combat but lets say you could not airdrop some walkers down due to heavy AA in the area but need the walkers to get there fast. Land some walkers with there sleds outside of the threat and let them ride up till you get to the point where you need to deploy them in their upright mode.
