I'd rather be moist than dried out, myself. Hearing your own eyelids, rasping throat, and feeling terrible is much worse than some moisture. The mushroom has a nicer home than the cactus.
@@UnswimmingFishYTyou're not supposed to be dry. Cactus (at least on the outer layers in the day) is. Everything feels comfortable when they're somewhere supposed to be by nature
@@GenerationTechjust saying for your information it’s incorrect to compare the ATTE and the AAT their purposes are entirely different and roles aren’t even similar in any way. With your real life comparisons the ATTE doesn’t have a accurate comparison as it’s a mobile transport and a artillery, command and assault platform. Which nothing exists like it in reality. Except for Armored trains but still not adequate enough for the mobility of ATTEs and numerous amounts of them. In comparison to the AAT that can be a cross between a Tank Destroyer, AA gun and a close range multi grenade launcher. The better comparison you should do with with the TX as it’s a more appropriate tank. Which also goes head to head with AATs. The counterpart to the ATTE is basically the MTT. Not the AAT. So the video doesn’t serve much purpose since the ATTE and AAT is so vastly different. However it certainly does show people some stuff about both vehicles. Though you did miss a few things about the ATTE and AAT. More stuff that takes being familiar with the vehicle from studying for years. Or just being up to date with everything (which is hard).
@@sphere117gaming Yeah, and from the standpoint of a Rebel Tanker, I'd rather the AAT since it's an actual Tank that can shoot and scoot. As a Droid lover, I'd probably go with the AAT over the Saber as well, but the Saber would still be very useful in Rebel Guerilla doctrine.
@@DonaldWWitt well I wouldn’t. AATs are prone to breakdowns and have numerous design flaws and problems that make it a nightmare to use in any proper Armored setting. AATs are just best as a mobile AA and a short distance artillery. TX is much better and is much more durable and less mechanical problems if it’s used as a proper field tank. Their faster then the AAT and can be used easily as a shock tank or a heavy tank against other armored vehicles using its main weapon on overcharge. It doesn’t help as well the AAT side arms that shoots aren’t high explosive but more Armor piercing so when it shoots stuff there due to massive AA damage in comparison to the TX main gun there isn’t much AOE damage. The main gun of the AAT does shoot a high explosive round as it has a wide AOE however it’s very slow. On the other hand the TX main gun is heavy AOE and has a total of 10 rockets it can fire at anything before the loading mechanism has to put more in. Along with its heavy mode for vehicles. You can also switch the main gun of the TX to a more light mode and use it as a laser barrage(shoots like a minigun but very little AOE) Don’t like the AAT much personally especially given it’s mini grenades can only be used in extremely selective situations (effective range of 20+ meters) due to being at the bottom like that. Generation tech likes to cover the basics Star Wars stuff and often misses the other details about the different things. Like how they say about how space combat is done wrong it this or that. When in reality according to the setting in Star Wars it’s done just as it should be. Due to weapon limits and simple existing doctrine or even how they have views on the Jedi and other stuff. And tend to politicalize things, when the Jedi aren’t into that.
_As a Rebel,_ I'd take the AAT almost every time. Smaller size and omnidirectional repulsor movement favor those hit and run tactics, and while the ordnance launchers are strange and ammunition would be precious, being able to pull up and fire six shells at once before leaving is going to lend outsized punch to surprise attacks - and those shells were as customizable as what the AT-TE had for its mass driver with the full range of plasma, armor piercing, high explosive, and other rounds. Not being able to aim those as easily is a definite minus, but the big draw is the smaller logistics tail. The AT-TE was made to be fielded as part of an army; it's big, complicated, tons of moving parts, large crew, with slow turning rates and ability to get out. They worked well in maneuver warfare with repair and supply depots and lifters to pick them up, but if I didn't have all of that stuff, I'd pick the tank that backyard speeder mechanics can keep maintained.
I'd take the more fair comparison of the tx-130 saber class tank. I mean, 2 seats, even smaller profile, the option for a droid, 2 heavy laser cannons, a turret with two options, being a medium twin laser turret or the kb-50a beam cannon, and an ordinance launcher with such options as bunker buster, high energy and armor piercing, and it's smaller, yeah, the more of those the new Republic and rebellion has, the better. Just the shear versatility and the fact that you can run multiple of them with the same squad as 1 bigger tank, it's way better for hit and run operations from that view point alone.
@@shadowsnake5133 rebels finding a warehouse of TX-130's would've been a field day lmao didn't think they were super common even at the end of the war though
The AAT launchers are definitely in a strange spot but I think you could slightly mitigate their problems by simply shutting off the repulsors and letting the tank lean back if the tank is top heavy enough (I doubt it with how chunky the base is). The other thing to consider is if the launcher is strictly direct fire or if it has the ability to arc. If it's the latter, being on a ramp like Allan suggested is viable in theory but otherwise those launchers are more for brute forcing the solution.
What you mentioned about the six launchers being able to punch hard and all at once reminds me of a real tank design, the M-50 Ontos, a light tank used by the marines in Vietnam. The thing had 6, 106mm recoilless rifles that could shoot all at once to increase the likelihood of a tank kill.
Funny enough, they would work well together. Use the ATTE as long-range support whole the AAT can provide close range cover. And both can move together at the same pace as you push your firing line forward.
Hey Allen! Great video, one thing you missed on the AT-TE, it has inertia dampeners, so its crew and passengers can even survive violent falls from extreme heights, or if the walker is in a gallop the crew won't be thrown around too badly. Pretty sweet, especially when operating in hostile environments and in vacuum.
4:15 the t-54 didn't have an autoloader, only the t-64 and foward. The reason they are so low is because of the very flat terrain on eastern europe as seen in Ukraine. By making the tank low profile the chance of it getting hit reduces
Gun depression is less important on the AAT than it would be for a conventional tank, because as a hovertank the AAT can also tilt its hull to point the gun further down. Much like a real-life tank with hydropneumatic suspension can do (such as the Japanese Type 74 and Type 10 MBTs, and the Swedish Strv 103).
@thegloryofromeiseternal agreed, I honestly kind of wish there was an episode in TCW where they’re just working to keep their walkers walking. I would imagine that it would be a massive logistical & maintenance challenge to keep a walker walking even part of the time
The AAT fits the rebel combat doctrine of hit and run tactics. The AT-TE would be used in a defensive role keeping vital HQs and other areas of importance secure.
I disagree, given that the AAT has a lot more limits of where it can operate, and the ATTE is faster and more well armored. If you turn your back on an enemy in an AAT you're gonna get shelled. You turn your back in an ATTE at least you have a rear shell plate and two tail gunners. Edit: Not to mention the AAT is harder to deploy and withdraw from the field in the first place without the large trade federation landing ships.
In order to fire the rockets, the AAT can probably selectivly strengthen and weaken areas of its repuslor to create an arc for the rockets Edit: reading up on the wiki, the AAT is a energized projectile launcher which makes it very similar to the AT-TEs main gun
It's also very agile on its repulsorlift. It could peak out of a hilltop, fire all its guns/rockets in a volley at a slow to move AT-TE, and then dive back to cover before the enemy could respond effectively. Reposition, and repeat.
The T-54/55 and T-62 didn’t have an autoloader and autoloader vehicles don’t necessarily have to be low profile and compact. The Soviet tank design doctrine evolved from the T-34-85 to the T-44 and then to the T-54/55 series. During WW2, Soviet tanks (looking at mainly T-34 and IS series) were known to be rather cramped which made the tanks decently well armored despite being smaller than their opponents (they’re also a lot cheaper with less material used). T-54/55 came along following this design style but also came with a wider turret for a larger gun. It wasn’t until the T-64 that the Soviets got an autoloader into one of their tanks, it just followed the same low profile, well armored, harder to hit design of older designs (they’re also designed by the same guy, Alexander Morozov, who designed the T-44, T-55, and he did work on the T-34 too). Tanks like the Leclerc and Abrams X demonstrator have autoloaders despite being just as large as your normal NATO style MBTs.
What you said is all correct. It is important to note that the reason the Soviet philosophy embraced autoloaders so dearly was precisely to keep their tanks small and less crewed. This made then harder to hit by main guns and other AT weapons. Allowed them to make more of them with the same ammount of crew and material and better armoured. It was also very convenient for NBC threats.
should note both leclerc and abrams x use a different type of auto loader. ammo stored in the turret is pushed into the gun instead of being stored in the busell below the gun and lifted up to the gun by an arm
The main reason Soviet tanks were smaller during ww2 was because western and axis doctrine had tanks designed to carry around 80-100 rounds taking tons of area allowing them to be on weeks or even month long missions with minimal to no support
Some missed info about AT-TE. AT-TE has inertial dampeners for crew compartment, like a spacecraft, shaking is not an issue. tI can move on vertical surfaces and in other funny places bc its feet are equipped with gravity generators, theoretically it can move even on a ceiling.
Or on an ally capital ship, acting as secondary weaponry, and anti personal. The fact the Republic didn't do that more often is a testament to how rare the upgraded models with that ability were, and how few space suits they had.
So the AAT is the Sherman of the SW universe, just "good enough" in all areas but the most useful tank if you have a massive economy and the resources available to out produce your enemy.
Bit of a historical misnomer there. When first introduced the Sherman was king of the hill versus Japanese tanks, and was still basically on par with German Panzer 4's, if not slightly better. From 1943 on the bulk of German tanks were still Panzer 3's, and Tigers were incredibly rare on the Western front. Americans only had a real fight with them twice (no, seriously only two times). Once a Pershing got into a back and forth before the Tiger got a lucky hit in, and in the other a handful of Shermans took out 2 Tigers with no losses. Everything "bad" about the Sherman we know of is pretty much wrong. It's reputation to catch fire is vastly overstated. It actually caught fire less than German or British tanks, and that was before wet storage of ammo was introduced. A crew of 5 men could exit a Sherman and be standing at attention before a Russian T-34 could get its single hatch open.
@@matts1166 One thing to note is that the addition of wet-stowage was mostly inconsequential. The change DID reduce fires, but not for the reasons most assume. The actual function of the wet-stowage didn't reduce the risk of fires, but rather the relocation of the ammunition down to the floor did wonders. Kept the ammo in the best spot to be least likely to take damage, the very bottom of the tank.
@septimus7524 wasn't the Sherman also extremely reliable for it's time? I remember reading about accounts from American tankers saying it drove like a car, and if I can recall correctly Soviet tankers actually preferred the Sherman to the T-34 because it was more reliable, easier to repair, and more comfortable to fight in.
@edgarwood3403 Yeah iirc one of the neater aspects to the Sherman was things like crew comfort. The Sherman really was, in a way, the workhorse of the Allies when it came to tanks. Hell iirc even Soviet tankers that used Sherman tanks prefer it over the T-34 Edit: Ah, you even mentioned that last bit yourself lmao
something to take into consideration is while the main cannon on the AAT is limited in its frontal gun depression, being a hover tank gives it increased mobility, and the side mounted autocannons aren't restricted in depression.
The repulsors can probably also be adjusted to dip the tank forward or backward to greatly increase elevation and depression. I’d be shocked if that wasn’t a possibility.
Yeah, in this matchup I think the AAT will be deciding the when, where, and how any and all fighting takes place. The only time they wouldn't is when they have to attack a defended position or the terrain is extremely steep.
I'd say the AAT, for ammo based reasons. The ATTE's mass driver needs mass to drive into the enemy, physical limited ammo The AAT's main gun is just any other Tiabana gas based blast cannon, Tiabana gas that is more readily available than special made shells
I like the AAT because it is definitely a get-in get-out tank. Its long, accurate range allows for sniping with it or even, as shown, in an artillery useage, especially behind cover with a scout to locate ramge. I would also argue the hover capability makes them incredibly mobile as you can move with a lot faster out of the way of incoming projectiles.
Little comment on the real world tanks tangent: Yes, soviet tanks were built with a lower silhouette in mind. And yes, that is why their MBTs use Autoloaders. However, the T-55 did not feature an Autoloader, instead, it was rather traditional for a late medium tank, featuring a 4-man crew. The low depression of the gun was simply due to the profile of the turret and soviet doctrine.
Love the bit about soviet tanks, but in case someone was confused the T-55 did not have an autoloader, it was just a small tank in general (though not THAT small for the time). It was also taller than many of the later soviet tanks which did include autoloaders
The main advantage I see to hover tanks is that it's basically the ultimate all-terrain mobility technology. You can fjord rivers, move through swamps or marshlands, over rockey terrain, etc. with no difficulty, you can move omni-directionally and rotate freely (at least if the tank's propulsion is built to allow that instead of just moving forward and turning) and do all of this with a smooth ride the entire time, which means you have a lot more freedom in terms of maneuver warfare.
Yeah, but then you're at the mercy of keeping the tech from rendering your hover tank a paperweight. Also your tank has less armor and cannot carry too heavy a main cannon or else the recoil will literally rip it apart. Also you're not as maneuverable as a wheeled, or tracked tank. In reality a hover vehicle is only useful as a transport. Get the troops to one spot. Land and let them out and then propel yourself backwards back to the back lines.
@thegloryofromeiseternal A hover ambusher would be too flimsy to be effective. A lot of troops and vehicles have anti material weapons for just those sorts of things.
@@coryfice1881 Why the hell would that be the case? Why would a track vehicle be more maneuverable than a hover tank? I'm genuinely perplexed by this comment. It ignores the terrain under it and moves omnidirectionally and can rotate at the same time. Have you ever fought a Scorpion in Halo with a Wraith, or a Warthog with a Ghost? Those Covenant vehicles own in maneuvering.
The most important part of any vehicle is its cost. The AAT costs the separatists 75,000 credits while the ATTE costs the republic 300,000 credits. The question shouldn’t be would you rather have an AAT or an ATTE, it should be would you rather have 4 AATs or 1 ATTE.
The AAT had very good Gun depression we can see this when a Tactical Droid is aiming on Obi wan and Numa on Ryloth, but it needs to rotate the Turret a little bit to the left or Right.
with the aat, logically you would be able to adjust the angle the tank sits at like that weird swiss tank with the fixed gun. just adjust the different lifters to change the angle for firing the fixed gun ports.
this video is fantastic. Dont know how I didnt find your channel sooner. Will be watching the rest of your content. We need more quality like this on the platform. Cheers m8!
Cool the AAT had a SMED base lol Single Minute Exchange of Die, it's something we do in manufacturing changeovers for running different kinds of parts, or just swapping an out of calibration die for a new tight one !
I don't think the AAT's lack of gun depression is that big of an issue. You see, it's a hover tank. It doesn't contact the ground, meaning there's nothing stopping them from just tilting the tank foward or back some to get extra degrees of depression or elevation.
'Mobility' depends on the terrain. On swamps, the AAT would have a significant advantage. Not sure how it would work over open water. Those are terrain where the AT-TE would really struggle to go.
I don't know to much about the AAT's hoverengins, but from the fottage it seamed like they could decide to hover streight or at the angle of the terain when going over slopes or angles. This sugests to me that they would be able to also hover at a angle when on even terain. With the turret where it is I imagine this abillity to cover for aditional depression capabilitys. With this the static heavy ordinance in the base also gett much more milage out of it's use.
My favorite theoretical with the at-te is that in a situation where you're facing down a planetary shield, you could march the walker right up to the shield and just poke the tip of the mass driver through it. Using your opponents own defenses to shield yourself while your gunner plunks away at targets with impunity
Incredible Vibe Through and through Especially the Golan Heights reference Thanks for producing just the Best Star Wars content Amazing work revitalizing SW so well
The launch tubes COULD track but they were rudimentary targeting systems. Basicaly manual lock with heatseaker that flies slow and cheeply made. There was variants with fully guided missiles installed
These are 2 of my all-time favorite SciFi ground vehicles. With that in mind, I always thought that ironically, they pair well as a unit. Basically move a company of infantry in 3-4 AT-TEs supported by 2 tank platoons of 3-4 AATs giving a 1x2 distribution. Seeing a battalion of 4 or 5 Company size units pushing on a position in this way would be far more vicious than the Imperial attack force at Hoth and more able to adapt as well.
I always imagined one of two ways for those launchers, one is similar to og battlefront where the missiles fire from bottom but have some sort of corrective arc/tracking capabilities, or dumb fire "hover torpedos", launch them and they glide a few feet off the ground to break through defensive positions/ground vehicles
You cannot compare them though, as we have no basis to faithfully say what the armor equivalent would be between the two or how their weaponm systems fare against each other. There are around 30k-ish years of material and technological advancements that are just to vast to make a fair comparison.
@@toastyrules8221 isnt the mechanicus not allowed to innovate too hard ? its a lot less like 30k years of advancement on modern tanks and more like they found a schematic for a ww2 tank and said 'it needs a bigger gun'
@@calamity326 Up until the 25th Millenium there was heavy scientific progress made, only the revolting Iron men and the subsequent splintering of the Human worlds in the Age of Strive stopped most advances in technology. Even if we assume that the Leman Russ wasn't the last thing invented they are still some odd thousand years of innovation ahead atleast. Just think of the progress in tank design and how vastly superior the weapons of today are compared to 100 years ago.
9:36 will say the reason the AT-TE went up in that explosion was because the rocket hit the magazine. On the AT-TE the rounds for the main cannon were stored in the floor of the crew compartment below the main gun, and insterted into a auto loader like mechanism
You will never see this, but with your talents could you assist in writing a “House of Cards” type miniseries between the arms needs and sellers between the Alliance and Republic? Epic!
13:55 Oh, but you do. Its the rare exception where neither side used armor in urban/industrial/bocage areas. In case, where one infantry had armored support and the other didn't... it didn't went well, for the other.
Eh, they're much stronger combat designs than the Original Trilogy, and the biggest thing holding the AAT back is the Droid Crew barely using its weapons.
Dude! Nice Job! Super fascinating, and I love how you used the yom kippur war golan heights as a comparison example. The whole time you were talking about Tank Gun Depression I was just waiting for the "This video is sponsored by World of Tanks, or War Thunder" lol I know from playing, mostly world of tanks, that gun depression is HUGE! especially for keeping your tank hulled down while being able to fire! Thanks!
I love the scenery you do on all ur sets every couple of videos I love rain so I loved this one idk if anyone else pays attention to that but I love it
Sorta my take on the AAT launch tube problem, it wasn’t really an issue since they were only used when advancing anyway, usually to vehicles/infantry so high explosive works because you’re getting close to infantry, AP works because you’re advancing on an enemy vehicle, and bunker busters work well after both of the previously mentioned targets are wiped out, and you had quite a bit of them in one squad.
Personally, if I'm a rebel, I'm using the AAT. A couple reasons. 1. The platform launchers. They seem to be relatively powerful weapons, probably capable of taking out heavily armored targets. After all, I'm sure that a bunker buster charge used against an AT-AT will likely, if not outright destroy it, at least mission kill it. And with the swap out design, it wouldn't be that difficult for a smaller force to use. 2. My enemy would be using, mostly, very tall walkers, like the AT-DP, AT-ST, and the AT-AT. Because of that, while there are a few engagements where having low gun depression would maybe be an issue, the main gun would be more than capable of engaging with most of the armored targets that I'd come across. 3. Mobility. While yes, stat wise, the AT-TE is outright faster, I wouldn't want to be on one going that fast. We see that, while not even going close to that theoretical too speed, the AT-TE bucks around heavily, which basically means that they have to either be at rest, or barely moving in order to engage. Not a problem when it's the largest thing on the battlefield, but when the AT-AT is fully capable of firing down and mission killing it in seconds... You need to fire on the move. And while it's outright speed is slightly less than the AT-TE, the AAT can actually fire reliably at that speed, making the real value of the combat mobility of the AAT significantly better than the AT-TE. And as we see in the rebellion, mobile warfare keeps you alive. I'm sure the AT-TE might have some advantages, but if it were up to me, I'd use it more as a movable base defense platform, and not as a main battle tank. It works well when it is part of a large, organized military, but I don't see it lasting long when it's the outnumbered and outgunned option in a rebel offensive.
additionally there is also the fact that the AAT requires far less crew (wich is very important for a personel-starved insurgency) compared to the AAT. Also a lot of the flaws of the AAT seem to be fixable with basic mamufacturing-facilities (wich the Alliance has). Remove the AA-lasercannons on the side and move the turret forward. With the higher energy output you now have you could (maybe) power a small shield generator to improve the tanks protection OR improve the mobility. With the turret being moved forward you also fix the issue of the gundepression. The power of the gun iteslf can also be remedied easily since the gun itself seems to be mounted externally, so there should be no problem swapping the lasercaonnon out for something more potent if needed.
3 is an excellent point. It essentially means AT-TE is a weird self-propelled infantry carrying artillery which is just terrible idea all around. AAT is far from efficient too, but it at least doesn't try to be two completely different things at once.
The Droid tank sort of reminds me of the m3 Lee/Grant. Turret up top just to have a gun there, but a primary armament further down where it's hard to use.
small note on Soviet tanks. The auto-loader didn't enter service until 1966 with the T-64. T-44, T-54, T-55, T-10, and T-62 all had 4 Crew with the standard gunner, loader, commander, driver configuration.
I feel like the AAT's Launchers would function similarly to the javelin system, firing out of the tube at low velocity and immediately gaining altitude before aiming towards the target
Do you think you could do a video on the capabilities of the Republic TX-130 fighter tank. I feel like it fulfilled the role of a tank better than the AT-TE did. I wish it was shown more in star wars media
8:40 Allen do you know of anyone who has thought to use the ARC-170 as a bounty hunter ship? And what did the ARC-170 do after the end of the clone wars
I think the armoured wing at the bottom might have originally come from (or possibly intended to be) a ground-effect vehicle, which is more like a plane that just can't fly higher than half its wingspan.
only thing i could think of is would the hover tank be able to use the repulsion field to get better angles? like lowering the front and raising the back.
Soviet doctrine is to go around the obstacle and cover not over them, the vehicles perform significantly better. Nato is heavy on defensive abilities sacrificing offensive ability.
1:07 "Your Mom has been reading books about sovereign citizens." ROFL!!!! I've been going through this RU-vid rabbit hole of sovereign citizens' fails in front of judges.
If i was a rebel tanker then I'd probably prefer the AAT for various reasons. Smaller profile, easier to hide and prep ambush positions. Ease of logistics, these things have been around a lot longer than the AT-TE and made in bigger numbers so spare parts should be relatively easy to find and then theres the fact that the main cannon is battery powered. Crew requirements would be much easier and communication would be smoother since you're not trying to talk over and command five other people kn your vehicle. The main issues I see is that it would be rather fragile by the time of thr GCW, it's pretty slow, shields and emps would shut it down hard, and the rocket tubes that would allow it to punch well above its weight would require a logistics system that the rebels just wouldn't have for the majority of the war
In the scenario of being an insurgent having to choose - The AAT is the better choice. 5 km/h less speed as trade off for better mobility, lower profile and a gun that can engage light to medium armored targets with higher RPM sounds like the better choice. I'd assume they're also less likely to be noticed by the enemy before entering combat not only due to their size but also the fact that there aren't several tons of metal stomping on the ground creating noise and vibrations. By the way, how useful would sloped armor be against energy weapons?
This is an unfair comparison, the atte isn't the mainline battle tank of the Republic, it's the troop transport, the tank of choice for the Republic was the tx-130 saber class battle tank.
@lweaver2988 it didn't appear in the film, it was only mentioned in the novel The Sabre has only appeared in the Battlefront games And the Star Wars Legion tabletop miniature wargame
If I’m picking a pure tank, I’m taking the AAT. Great armor, solid mobility and a fast firing cannon. The size of it is a huge plus too, the rebellion is not sending out a fully kitted ATTE, thus its rear is just empty space. The unarmored turret is the worst part of the ATTE, as a single straffing run from a tie fighter, a speeder, or even hidden imperial snipers can easily take out your main weapon.
i kinda see the AAT in its ram rather then the expected missiles, i see them more like caseless tank rounds as iirc in the OG battlefront games you do use those and they just shoot strait forward
The 6 Missile launchers on the Grav tank is what makes it my choice. Being a GravTank: Missile Boat makes it both more mobile and powerful enough to take out larger vehicles. Smooth ride that can sail over bad terrain. The walker would be my choice for a siege situation. For longer range fire with the main gun.
As for the AAT missile launchers, you would need x amount of clearance in front of you to allow the missiles to correct course. Or perhaps, given sufficient under armor, the vehicle's repulsor fields could be altered to recline it to a 45° angle to launch missiles?...
Like you said, i would use these tanks for different tactics. ATTE would be more of a support/ multi purpose vehicle while the AAT (me personally) would use it as a blitzing vehicle. when in a battle there are to many factors and situations that you have to over come. You would have to simply pick the right tool do help yourself achieve success.
Pretty sure the droid tank's launch tubes were designed with smart bombs in mind. Level launch, and beelining to the target. Could also shoot straight up like a javalin system.
