This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Knowledge Bank page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. jSarek 08:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of them (the AT-AT especially), seem fairly useless in comparison to a wheeled vehicle like the Turbo Tank. They used walker on Hoth where the ground was... almost completely level. So it's supposed all terrain movement isn't taken advantage anyway. Also the feet provide no better movement on snow, where the weight is concentrated on just 4 little points, while a wheeled or tracked vehicle has its weight evenly distributed. It's also slower. To add insult to injury, they can fall over just by tripping them on a cable, you can't do that with a wheeled vehicle. Even its supposed all terrain movement is dubious. How can that 4 legged lumbering machine walk through a forest or rocky terrain? 184.108.40.206 15:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Instruments of warfare are situational. AT-AT: All Terrtain Armored Transport. I think the key word here is transport. It is a combination of heavy armor, heavy weaponry and troop transportation. Troop transportation through harsh conditions and a well established front, heavy guns to dispose of the shield generator, and heavy armor to defend against the said front. Sounds like a solid bet for the Battle of Hoth. For one thing, it is likely that the weapons that were equipped on the Turbo Tank could not have taken out the Main Shield Generator at Hoth. Also, the AT-AT was impervious to ANYTHING the Rebel's could throw at them through most of the galactic Civil War. The only thing we see that can usually take them out in any video game or movie is heavy bombardment from things like Y-Wings or Tow Cable's from Speeders. Maybe the Imperial equivalent to a Turbo Tank during the Galactic Civil War was not adequate for the situation we saw in the Battle of Hoth. Maybe they had a vehicle that couldn't handle the low temperatures or something. Also, we only see about 4-5 walkers during the entire fight, but there very well may have been more, although we can't really make that assumption. They only lost 2 during the battle, one being taken down by a force sensitive being equipped with a lightsaber and one was downed by (arguably) two of the best pilots in the Star Wars canon. So really, it's a situational thing when you talk about things like this being employed in warfare, but also I don't think you give the AT-AT as much credit as it deserves.
Well, Hoth demonstrates just how well Imperial walkers handle snowy, icy conditions; they didn't have any problems with the terrain. Walkers are also much better than wheeled vehicles at non-flat terrain because they can step over giant obstacles. I mean, just look at those long legs. Typical anti-tank barriers are powerless against AT-ATs. In a recent issue of Rebellion, one of them actually crushes a house that some Rebels are hiding in. IIRC, they were just stomping through a dense town of first story buildings. You can't do that with a Juggernaut. --LtNOWIS 10:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
AT-AT's were also once noted as succesful mental warfare against the rebels.JR 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)StarNinja99
The other thing about walkers is their ability to easily defeat shielding, a common defence for important bases and installations. While repulsorlift vehicles can evidently get easily fried by giant electrical discharges leaping between the shield/ground interface, walkers are protected by their direct ground contact, making them somewhat like an armed Faraday cage on legs. The other part of this is their method of propulsion - while jets and other engines that rely on a stream of high-velocity particles are ruined by the mess of energy and redirection of thrust streams that occurs at a shield boundary, the simple traction of legs means that there is nothing to backfire on the engine and so they can stride through such protection with impunity. CommanderJB 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea but what's stopping a wheeled or tracked vehicle from having all that? Btw, being in contact with the ground doesn't protect it from electrical discharges. Having a metal skin protects it from electrical discharges. There's really nothing stopping a wheeled or tracked vehicle from having the same strong armor and weapons that an AT-AT has. Darth Kellickq 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
On Jabiim, Eos, and other similar planets, the electrical storms and powerful electromagnetic fields which happen frequently cause repulsorlift vehicles problems with the repulsors, essentially grounding them, as evidenced in this quote:
"Sure, they don't look like much. But when you're trapped on Eos, where the electromagnetic fields keep 'advanced' airspeeders grounded, you'll wish you had a whole fleet of AT-PTs."
Also, the advanced armor which is on the AT-AT was too heavy for conventional uses of transportation (repulsorlifts or wheeled/tracked methods) - I believe that is attributed to Incredible Cross Sections. A walker is less prone to mines (as was the case with the AT-AT). Also, as mentioned before, the Rebels actually feared the AT-AT, so it was useful as a morale killer. JorrelFraajic 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Why can you mount heavy armor on a legged vehicle but not a tracked vehicle? What's preventing that from happening? If anything, having legs means you can't mount as much armor because the legs would sink into soft ground too easily. Treads spread the weight over a larger area. Having legs doesn't make them less prone to mines any more than humans are less prone to mines. Having legs might be intimidating for some, but they look too frail to me. They are too vulnerable. 220.127.116.11 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the heavy armor was too heavy for repulsorlifts to carry, and I'd assume for the same reasons tracks/wheels. Also, all of the information I presented was found in canonical sources (CCS, EGtVaV, NEGtVaV, and a few others), meaning, at least IU, that the explanations given are the explanations used. And, actually, by having the body so far above the ground, there's a larger range and line of sight and therefore greater power; it is also wiser to have the body of a craft higher, as to protect the passengers who, if the transport were to be disabled by mines, could evacuate the craft and continue fighting. You've got to remember the size of the actual unit as well - humans, on one hand, compared to a regular-sized mine, have no chance. An AT-AT 10x the size against the same sized mine will have no problems with stepping on the mine, especially with the heavy armor. JorrelFraajic 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
True, I suppose the shield thing is useful for any direct-contact ground vehicle, including tracked and wheeled vehicles. I meant it really to show that airspeeders or hovertanks were useless against shields, which now that I think about it isn't really what was asked. And all right, all right, the metal plating protects it from electricity, but AOTC:ICS's article on the AT-TE does explicitly state that it's direct ground contact is what protects it from the electrical discharges. Take it up with Curtis Saxton. But as for advantage over wheels and tracks, I would still say legs have a few tricks up their sleeve (or trouserleg, but anyway). For one, they present a much smaller target than a broad track or line of wheels that must run all the way along the vehicle. Not only that but tracks in particular are quite delicate and a huge pain to maintain - at least it's only maybe twelve joints on an AT-AT that need oiling, not several hundred track links, sprockets, road wheels and gears. And legs aren't really that slow; believe it or not, AT-TE's are supposed to be able to attain 60 km/h (yeah, I don't actually buy that either, but look at AT-ARs. They can sprint really fast), and as an added bonus they can climb over obstacles such as boulders or battle debris, which wheels or tracks can have significant trouble with. CommanderJB 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)