AT-TE firepower | a 20 meter (65 ft) fireball (recorded at Geonosis)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- AT-TE artillery yields a 20 meter (65 ft) fireball during the 1st battle for Geonosis, hinting at the capacity to harness energy-yields in excess of 1e9J. BlasTech article:
www.blastech.i...
Note the fireball is scaled against the Hardcell Techno Union Transport. The AT-TE gun could not pierce the transports main armour, so the blast & fireball was produced entirely by the weapon itself. Even the much more powerful mass-drivers on a LAAT could not pierce the Hardcell's, main armour, and had to strike a relative-weak-spot "just above the fuel cells" to have an effect.
QUOTE: "Aim right above the fuel cells" - Anakin Skywalker directing LAAT crew on mass driver missile placement for effect against a Hardcell transport.
Note the anti-personnel blasts at 0:49, likely produced by anti-personnel laser cannons mounted in ball turrets on the Republic's LAAT gunships or AT-TE tanks, or possibly by small-arms blaster rifles set to full power.
The footage was taken from the 1st battle of Geonosis
Source: Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones
AT-TE artillery yields a 20 meter (65 ft) fireball during the 1st battle for Geonosis, hinting at the capacity to harness energy-yields in excess of 1e9J. BlasTech article:
www.blastech.info/pyrotechnics
I imagine a blast like this would instantly destroy a seven storey building in real life. That's impressive. It's especially impressive when you consider that starfighter and gunship grade laser cannons have showcased similar levels of firepower.
Very impressive.... Wait so an Unshielded Munificent has weaker durability than a Techno Union Hardcell Transport? Damn....
Edit: there were a few dozen of these shooting the Munificent Frigates engines at once. I imagine the same number would outright obliterate a Shielded Hardcell Transport.
@@richardched6085 The scale difference is absurd f in that AT-TE vs Munificent example, and you have to go through some mental gymnastics to try to justify/explain it, as the combined firepower of *dozens* of AT-TE should be a drop in the ocean compared to the heaviest gun on a Venator. Maybe the AT-TE's shot out un-armoured sections of the ship, not the main armoured 'shell', & perhaps armour-enhancing force-fields, not just deflector-shields, were entirely focussed to the front (essentially leaving the rear hull 'unpowered'/unarmoured). Just consider that many warships carry *dozens* of turbolasers each larger than an AT-TE. The biggest guns on a Venator are many times larger than the entire AT-TE, and orders of magnitude larger than the main gun that is mounted on an AT-TE. The prow gun on the Munificent itself is even bigger.
I think a few dozen AT-TE's could fire upon the main armour of a warship all day long and not have any effect, like starfighter cannons, they could exploit external systems like sensors & turrets, perhaps the engines.
I think there was a serious 'sense of scale' issue in the cartoons when it came to ground vehicles or starfighters going against starships. A separate issue in TCW & Rebels is that both shows get the size of ground vehicles wrong, often downsizing large vehicles like AT-TE, Juggernaut, AT-AT, C-9979 landing craft (not that this makes any real difference in comparison to starships). Munificent's are also too large & more equal in comparison to Venators, in contrast to the films where they're smaller.
@@richardched6085 The best explanation is probably that the less armoured sections of the ship are almost totally reliant on hull-enhancing force-fields for practical defence, but as they focussed these force fields (as well as the actual external "deflector shields") entirely toward the front, to protect from turbolaser artillery & asteroids, they left the rear of the ship not just unshielded, but practically un-armoured. Of-course blasting out large holes through the thick metal hull of the ship (even if it were just titanium or steel) would represent extreme firepower on behalf of the walkers. But if the Munificents hull-enhancing force fields were evenly distributed, then those AT-TE's may have had no effect whatsoever when firing on the rear of the ship.
Edit: By real-world standards, the Muni would be heavily armoured due to that metal hull. When I say "unarmoured" I mean by the standards of warship armour in Star Wars designed to stand up against turbolaser fire and be impervious to starfighter scale laser cannons. Starfighters could have probably done the same thing the AT-TE's did in that example, given the same circumstances with the element of surprise and the absence of hull-enhancing force-fields or deflector shields. But to put it into perspective, the AT-TE could easily sink the largest warships ever built on Earth.
Your website is dead and considering that we've seen a ATTE'S can kill munificent if they hit them in the rear arc, I would say that probably due to the way that the shell is enveloped in plasma and possibly do to Star Wars having some absolutely absurd explosive Warheads, I could easily see where the explosion isn't actually occurring on the exterior Hull,it's that the Shell has Pierced through and something on the interior is exploding outwards.
"Destroy the Techno Union ships!"
"Master Windu has joined the battle"
"We capture the spire "
"separatist forces have lost the spire"
@@Zcrub my guy we didn't have heroes until 2
@@heliveruscalion9124 playable ones, yes, but the first one has bot heroes. vader, luke, dooku, and windu on certain maps. they're nearly unkillable unless you use large vehicles
This level of firepower and even it's capital ship destroying levels of firepower can probably be explained due to the fact that the mass driver cannon it has isn't an actual energy weapon but actually a coil gun that fires shells that become enveloped in plasma as it exits the barrel in order to increase it's firepower and penetration.
And that mass driver can actually load a lot of different shells and ammo depending on it's mission profile and some of those range from high explosive to bunker busters, sonic charges, heat seeking projectiles and more.
Great point, and similar to how Iowa-class battleships could be loaded with "Katie" shells, to become multi kiloton nuclear artillery. However, this still runs into the scale problem (so IMO doesn't fix the issue). The entire AT-TE walker is several times dwarfed by heavy turbolasers mounted on ships like a star destroyer (turrets that are up to 50 meters wide) amd the gun itself that is mounted on the AT-TE is TINY in these terms, closer to something mounted on a starfighter or a shuttle than an anti-capital-ship gun on a warship.
So if AT-TE scale mass-driver guns could be so deadly at this scale by using high-end ammunition (like tactical nukes), just imagine you could have hundreds and thousands of them spread across the hull of a Venator. Or you could scale them up, to be thousands of times more massive (the gun itself not the whole AT-TE) to the size of heavy turbo lasers.
...
I think the best explanation can be implied from sourcebooks. In many cases, the armour itself on SW vehicles is "powered" by internal forcefields that greatly enhance the material strength and resistance to enemy fire (see ICS entries for AT-TE, LAAT, and the TX-225 combat assault tank page from Star Wars: Rogue One: The Ultimate Visual Guide. Mandalorians dursasteel armour was also powered, otherwise I doubt it would be blaster proof)). Tensor fields are an example of this.
...
So when Grevious ordered for all shields to be diverted toward the front, this may well have included the armour enhancing forcefields (which is certainly implied by the devastating damage inflicted by comparatively diminutive AT-TE guns). This means the rear of the ship was not only unshielded but relatively unarmoured too (something like titanium or steel instead of the equivalent to super material).
...
The AT-TE walkers are still demonstrating massive firepower in this clip to blast such big holes through up to several meters of metal. But if the metal was properly powered then the same firepower wouldn't have even scratched the paint (maybe could destroy windows or external systems like sensors & smaller turrets). For a non-canon gameplay comparison, note how in DICES Battlefront game series, the heavy vehicles like AT-AT and MTT are totally impervious to firepower until they are shot at with an ION disruptor, which renders them vulnerable to the same firepower. These vehicles are armoured not shielded, so this would be because the armour enhancing forcefields are temporarily impeded by the powerful ion weapon, thus rendering the armour much less effective.
@@blastech4095 Yeah pretty much exactly like the Iowa-class battleships. Though it should be noted that the AT-TE's mass driver cannon could also fire solid energy bolts like most standard energy weapons in addition to a variety of solid shelled ammunition which like I stated above got enveloped in plasma as it exited the barrel similar to a bowcaster. We don't really know whether or not they were using solid shelled or solid energy ammunition against Grevious's ships.
It should also be noted that the 6 anti-infantry cannons it has each bolt they fire rivals if not succeeds the energy of a lighting bolt.
As for the powered armor on star wars vehicles I'd say that is definitely true on some, while others are just shielded. In the AT-TE's case it's stated that the AT-TE possess the same thermally superconducting armor that the A6 Juggernaut possess. My guess also for the ION Disruptors would be similar to what yours is they weaken the armor so that small arms fire can harm the vehicles.
@@blastech4095 there is no hole from the shot.... that’s just the shot exploding.
@@UnknownPersononGoogle It may have cratered the armour without blasting a hole right through it. This would be impossible to see through the fireball and smoke/vapour.
It’s also probably why Anakin used AT-TE’s to flank and destroy Separatist warships
It’s just wild that their very first battle was charging across open terrain with zero cover
To be fair the separatist setup their core ships on an open terrain
You can thank the jedi for that one, they actually had no idea how to be generals or warriors in a conventional war, they hadn't done it in over a thousand years come time of the clone wars. Like they said in the movies a million times "we're peace keepers not soldiers" they basically put the damn UN white helmets in charge. And while Mgee58 has a point based off what you can see in the movie, in lore that wasn't true, there was plenty of cover. Also in lore the jedi's incompetence was so vast, even from masters such as mace windu, they attempted a file and rank style of warfare against droids, even implemented special commando units into this and wasting basically half of their special forces commandos before the war had even started.
to be fair, there hadn't been a warfare to this scale in over a millenium. they were using old strategies in a new kind of war.
what really ruins my suspension of disbelief is that they kept doing it throughout the rest of the clone wars. it would've been cool to see tactics to have changed on both sides by revenge of the sith.
Its a fantasy film
@@PepeBote11a well no shit, doesn’t mean that realistically tactics wouldnt change over time
I absolutely love how the gunships drop off the walkers
The gunships drop off troops but the drop ships are different, they drop off the walkers.
The beautiful LAAT/c.
Dude I absolutely love the ominous music. It’s so fitting. Your channel is freaking awesome and I always love seeing appreciation for the awesome power and destructive capabilities of Star Wars guns, be them hand held or ship/vehicle based.
Dark Star 1974, a classic Carpenter film ;)
I c a champion yayayayayaya forsen
@@henlofrens eyy mang your pfp is same as mine! I c a fellow champion mane yayayayayaya
forsenE 🤝forsenCD PagMan
Note the absence of exposed gunners manning the main guns. The exposed gunner position is apparently optional. 00:39 - 00:40 , 00:52 - 00:54
Is it possible that it's merely a mistake by the animators?
@@raghuvarv Maybe, but I doubt it. The AT-TE warrants greater discussion at some point on the site. Perhaps a dedicated page,. A compulsory exposed gunner position doesn't make sense in a lot of contexts, especially if the walker is intended to be used to provide direct-fire-support as a breakthrough tank (as depicted). The exposed position is the high-risk position when operating within a conflicted battlezone or within enemy territory such as an urban environment, The exposed gunner position is too vulnerable to infantry small-arms during an ambush, proximity blasts from nearby explosives and sniper fire; therefore, the exposed gunnery position makes the most sense in-between heavy combat and when providing indirect fire-support serving as long-range artillery. In the midst of a warzone, the gunner may retreat inside the tank and control the gun remotely.
If the gun could not be controlled remotely from within the tank, as seen at the 1st battle of Geonosis, then the role of the main gun would be relegated to indirect-fire-support & artillery, as the gunner would frequently be either forced to retreat inside the vehicle or become incapacitated when engaged in heavy combat when attempting to occupy enemy territory, severely handicapping the AT-TE combat walkers ability to fulfil the role of 'breakthrough tank' (rather it would serve the dual roles of artillery from long range and as armoured personnel carrier through conflicted zones).
@@blastech4095 Makes sense to me.
Also, it's because, the main gunner isn't on his gunner seat, at the canon, while the AT-TE is trasported by an LAAT/c, because it's dangerous up there, while transport.
Than the AT-TE's are dilevered instantly at the dangerous frontline.
I think just later, in battle, the gunners got up the hatch and to there gunner seats at the canon.
(In a technical book there is a second seat, for the Gunner, in the cockpit, right behind the pilot.
@@DavidLangeYU91 Good point. The "spotter" (who coordinates the 5 gunners) positioned behind the pilot in the cockpit might be able to control the main gun when there is no gunner in the exposed gunnery position. The AT-TE's were firing their main guns in this battle even when no clones were situated in the exposed gunnery position, showing that remote control of the weapon is possible. I see the following possibilities:
...
1.) there is a control panel within the vehicle's main body that allows remote control of the main gun.
2.) the spotter can take control of the main gun remotely from the cockpit.
3.) the pilot can take control of the main gun remotely from the cockpit.
4.) Other gunners who are manning the ball turrets could remotely control the main gun from where they are situated (instead of controlling the ball turret).
5.) The main gun could be automated, controlled by a simple AI, when not controlled by a gunner.
Wow, they have made a whole series of those Haynes Owners Workshop Manuals, I just found one for TIE Fighters released in May of this year! And best of all there's even a whole page just for the TIE's laser cannons explaining how they work, and that description says: "Operating under the same principles as blaster weaponry, laser cannons convert energy-rich gas to a glowing particle beam that can pierce, melt through, and even disintegrate targets."
FINALLY!!! A Canon description of what the hell they're shooting!
Well my wish for more Star Wars technical books is coming true, because I just found out they're releasing a Haynes Owners' Workshop Manual for Rebel Starfighters in November! Those fictional Haynes Manuals are always awesomely detailed.
Remember this when someone says a fight between an ISD and the Enterprise is an instant win for the Enterprise. People hang up on the TNG episode where they were shot at by lasers, and it did nothing, but we also got the wattage of that shot. That's around the wattage of a mere TIE, not a turbolaser.
Old space battle forum fight xD. The TNG enterprise was used always except against the borg at "do not kill if possible", if they did shot at everything else like they shot at the borg cube many episodes would have been 5 min long. Anyway the comparison is always meh, because oficial technical manuals more often than not are written in a way that show they haven't thought well the fuck they are writting, they are just cool fan books. I saw for example (dunno from where the actual data was pulled out) that an imperial blaster was roughly equivalent to 82kg of TNT, which is very funny seeing what happens when people get shot by it. I mean, from the very first scene you can see unarmored people get shot by it and fall in one piece, not melted, not burned, not in pieces.
Returning to the ISD fight vs the Enterprise... funny as this can be, the Enterprise maneveurs much like an starfighter does, it's agile,and while way bigger than starfighters obviously, it still retains a tremendous amount of advantatge in that regard to an ISD. I mean, an ISD will hit more often the Enterprise than an starfighter, but it will still fail miserably at any range beyond spitting distance.Star Trek ships rarely fail with energy weapons, even at ranges over 100.000 km, which admitely is not usually shown due to scenographic reasons, but in some episodes has been done, either by the Enterprise or other federation ships.
Anyway, I only wanted to say that Wattage data on tech manuals (both in ST and SW) are hilariously just cool technobullshit and that calculations are based on random screenwritter ideas.
Star Wars doesn't use lasers. Turbolaser is technical jargon that doesn't actually apply, they fire plasma
Even more that they can beat a Trek ship.
Also no, smaller weapons use lasers.@@StaticYonder
@@tyrongkojyThey dont, they have said it many times trough the novels
@KarolusTemplareV the enterprise hardly moves like a fighter, its comparable in both size and maneuverability to something like a corvette in star wars.
Pilot: What do you mean there's no main characters on board?
Wide AT-TE gonna be president of the Republic
Additionally, there is no driver present within the gunner position of the tank, meaning that it can be controlled remotely.
No one is driving in the AT TE Gunner seat
Yeah, that was the case for all AT-TE in the first battle of Geonosis. The exposed position must be optional. Good spot :)
can be used from the inside many aspects of the at te are for aesthetic purposes only like the driver chamber its so exposed
I'd imagine that since it's in the frontal Arc and since the target is really big and not moving I'm pretty sure that they could remotely fire the gun although I'm not sure if they can actually aim it from within the AT-TE itself.
Idk why but the zoom and the mysterious alien abduction music was so hilarious to me
Big shoutout to the hailfire droids.
Clone Gunner thought to himself: For the Republic!
Isn't that almost directly on a fuel cell though? Is it possible the explosion is from a fuel leak due to a puncture or spilled fuel?
It's implied the LAAT mass drivers, which are more powerful than the AT-TE guns couldn't penetrate the fuel cells. . The LAAT guns had to strike a relative-weak-spot "just above the fuel cells" to have an effect.
Then the fuel cells fall to the ground, intact, without exploding. QUOTE: "Aim right above the fuel cells" - Anakin Skywalker directing LAAT crew on mass driver missile placement for effect against a Hardcell transport.
Blas Tech but the explosion is well below the area the LAAT fired on. To be a 20 meter fireball, it would need a lot more than a single round impacting the side of a ship. A turbo laser I could understand some. Not the dorsal gun of a AT-TE.
Personally going with a spilled fuel explanation as it makes a bit more sense than a single blast causing that big an explosion all on its own
@@zachrich7359 That's my point. The LAAT shot above the fuel cells under Anakin's guidance because the cells were too heavily armoured (otherwise you'd shoot AT the fuel cells), and then the fuel cells hit the ground intact without being compromised or exploding after the fact. The AT_TE gun which is less powerful than the LAAT's mass drivers could not penetrate that armour either, so the blast must be from the gun and not from the fuel cell. That's my logic on it, interpretation. And it's not the only example of such large blasts being produced by a vehicle cannon, starfighters have produced similar effects at times (heavy TIE destroys ~100 meter wide asteroid in the Solo movie). So has an MTT (multi-troop-transport) in another example. I'll add more images to the related webpage at some point. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though I understand your sentiment :)
@@zachrich7359 a turbolaser would've blasted the area wide open, you are severely misjudging how powerful those guns are. Why do you think that no acclamator was using its guns during the fight?
@@zachrich7359 btw, that would cause a chain reaction that would've blown the entire cell up, so your argument becomes invalid
Not sure if relevant but i noticed that some Clone Trooper squads following Jedi numbered about 11 but are said to be canonically 9 troops. And not to mention that on Corusant at the end of EPS2, it showed Clone Battalions having about 624 troops.
AT-TE is very goated, gentlemen.
ojala algun dia hagan un live action de las guerras clon, o aunque sea un corto seria bastante sublime
10/10/23
Uhhhm...
I'd like to... uhmm, order 15 of these... uuhm canons.
99% certain it just hit a fuel cell since we never see it’s rounds explode like this again
I wonder... was it the DSD1 dwarf spider droids who took down those LAATs? It seems to be so, those things were mighty powerful
Nope! Most likely to be the Hellfore droids, Hailfire Droids. Don't remember which is their correct name.
@@CHRF-55457 hellfire i think. Also, no, because the LAAT was very obviously hit by a blaster bolt, but the Hellfire only has a light repeating blaster for anti-infantry purposes. The DSD1 is more likely because its cannon could switch in powersetting and fire rate, a weaker but faster fire rate for anti infantry and a slower but heavier one for anti-vehicle.
@@michelecastellotti9172 Perhaps yeah. Or maybe it's actually the AAT. Those tanks were on Geonosis and could shoot down any plane or starship flying.
@@CHRF-55457 oh yeah, they were shown in the deleted scenes, i didn't think anout that
1e9 joules is about 1/4 of a ton of TNT.
It's within 2 orders of magnitude of the smallest tactical nukes ever used, which had a yield of ~10 tons of TNT.
Odds are that the SPHA-T is probably 1-2 orders of magnitude more powerful; we're talking "bigger than Operation Hardtack's FIG detonation".
if I'm not mistaken those are the thrusters so it could easily be that the at-te hit a highly volatile point on that Hardcell ship
The day the Jedi doomed themselves
Why the hell do you think AT-TE's were used?
why even land troops when you have air superiority?
To take out enemy AA
@@1nfinitune533 *wondering what sort of AA the enemy has at this point that can damage an aclimator...
Perhaps the Geonosians had the idea that any landing force wasn't going to make it past their orbital and anti aircraft defences AND that it would be completely suicidal to deploy ground forces. So they only set up small anti armor artillery type batteries scattered across the surface.
When there is nobody in the gunner seat?!?! 🤔 🧐 🤨
Cause it got dropped off from the dropships and it can be controlled from inside anyway.
So why can’t we have walkers in the US military ? (Sarcasm)
Using an HE round
This is not a moon. It's an AT-TE
показаные транспортники не имели брони а щиты были отключены
их даже камень насквозь мог бы прошить
мы видим как в одну точку стреляли дважды и только на второй раз возник всполох
так как это не военное судно то и кампоновка в нутри нацелена на эффективность прямых задач а это грузоперевозка
I just noticed. There's no gunner at the gunner seat of the mass driver cannon. Is that supposed to be like that or was it a mistake?
It has the ability to be controlled from inside. just like all the other turrets, however controlling from up top is preferred for long range direct engagements. Reason it was probably firing without a gunner here is it probably got dropped off from the dropship so they dont have time using a top gunner
@@MillionsofDollar100 Ahhhh! Okay that makes sense! Thanks!
Not to mention, a battle like this is too dangerous to gun the turret outside. Imo that’s another reason why they were gunning inside the walkerZ
ATTEs seem especially impressive when you consider the fire rate of the Mass Driver. One of them fires in a rapid burst of 3 shots in this video at 0:30 . ua-cam.com/video/HwHVsWSJmv4/v-deo.html .
In that show tho, it is severely underpowered.
Tho even jn here you can see it fire very quickly much faster than most our irl tanks main guns
@@michelecastellotti9172 Honestly I think its a matter on much different type of rounds that were used, that would sound more likely especially in a heavily specialized military like the clone army was. I would assume in geonosis the AT-TE's are probably equipped with select variety of ammunition and were using one that packed a bit more punch to try and do some damage to the massive transports but calling them similar to HEAT rounds would be a severe understatement with the power differences. The rapid 3 round burst is probably a more anti-infantry/high explosive round that can be shot more rapidly for dealing with lots of infantry while still being able to take out armored targets with a well placed shot. Sorry for responding a couple years late but I wanted to leave this here for anyone who might be interested in reading it in the future.
@@michelecastellotti9172 In that show AT-TEs are also shown ambushing and fighting off a group of Munificent cruisers by attaching themselves to asteroids. There's also a scene where an AT-TE turret gunner intercepts a missile mid-flight by shooting it with his cannon before it can hit its target. I wouldn't call that "severely underpowered".
I have long suspected that blaster weaponry operates on a similar principle to lightsabers, and that has been pretty much confirmed by the materials that Disney has released. Blasters/Lasers/Turbolasers/Superlasers all use some kind of crystal that generates the coherent particle beam. Kind of like phasers in Star Trek, huh? The First Order even created much more powerful Turbolasers by using Kyber crystals.
What's really crazy is, when a lightsaber is ignited underwater, no water is heated. The user isn't instantly boiled alive in superheated water. And blaster bolts fly right through the air, or even through the water, seemingly without any interaction (no heating or displacement), just like the lightsaber beams. This was seen in TCW. They only act like DET when they finally hit a solid, at which point there is a whole load of thermal heating. They also have those crazy momenta effects, where people get thrown through the air by blaster bolts. There's some space magic going on with them, even if there is a particle beam/plasma or/and laser inside the bolt. The bolts also fly at different velocities depending on how far they have to travel & appear unaffected by planetary gravity (except for mass drivers, which often seem to fire a projectile guided blaster bolt to achieve indirect fire ability).
@@blastech4095 The variable speed of the bolts is explained in the Attack of the Clones Visual Dictionary; the plasma is electromagnetically accelerated out of the gun. The Essential Guide to Warfare calls it the Actuating Module. As for the bolt not heating the air or water, that's explained by a forcefield surrounding and containing the plasma, which it would need to keep it coherent.
You wouldn't need to suspect anything. It's easy to look up how blasters work. They use gases, not crystals. That's why they're plasma bolts and not all lasers.
？？？？？？？
Eh the ATTE is way too overrated. I mean the top gunner and the pilot are easy pickings, the walker is slow as hell compared to repulsorlifts and the ATAT at least makes up for it. Honestly the AAT is just way better, even if the ATTE technically has stronger armour and a more powerful gun, the glaring weakspots ruin both of those things.
It looks cool, like all Star Wars vehicles, but thats the only aspect about their design. Realistically they all make zero sense and would make horrifically terrible military hardware
@IguanaIWanna But I am talking within the context of Star Wars. 'They are all ludicrous' doesn't refute the fact that the ATTE is ludicrous even in universe.
The AT-TE was a versatile and adaptable walker that had several strongpoints in its designs, such as:
- a low profile and center of gravity, which made it more stable and less vulnerable to tripping or toppling than something like the AT-AT or AT-ST.
- six legs with magnetic claws that allowed it to climb on vertical surfaces and even on the hulls of starships. This gave it an advantage in maneuverability and mobility over the AT-AT, which could over traverse flat or slightly inclined terrain.
- it had a 360-degree rotating mass-driver cannon and eight laser cannons on its front and rear, giving it a wide field of fire and anti-infantry capabilities.
- it could carry up to 20 clone troopers and four speeder bikes inside its hull and deploy them through side hatches. This made is a useful transport, assault vehicle, and mobile command center.
- it was highly modifiable, and could take various attachments such as missile launchers, shield generators, spotlights, and grappling hookers, which allowed it to adapt to different environments and perform specialized tasks.
Compare that to the AT-AT, which was primarily designed to look so intimidating that the enemy would simply surrender before it ever needed to fire its guns. On the flipside, the AT-AT did have thicker armor, more precise cannons, and was cheaper to manufacture than the AT- TE due to its design's relative simplicity.
In conclusion, the AT-TE was a multifunctional and adaptable walker that served the Republic well during the Clone Wars but was not without its flaws. Likewise, the AT-AT was designed to fit the specific needs of the Empire and had its own notable flaws as well. Both walkers had their strengths and weaknesses, and their performance depended largely on the tactics and strategies of their commanders and crews.
@@DovahFett The AT-TE is a terrible military vehicle by design standards. It looks super cool, but thats about it.
@@DovahFett But the ATTE, due its vulnerabilities, wasn't even a jack of all trades. To call it multi-functional is an insult to actual multi-functional vehicles. It is too slow to be effective and too large a target with too few upsides too it. Yes, the ATAT has weaknesses, but unlike the ATTE, it is actually viable. It is far easier to target and destroy a column of ATTEs than it is to destroy an ATAT.
:l