Are WALKERS better than traditional TANKS? | Star Wars Lore
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 бер 2019
- Is an AT-AT better than a Juggernaut? We compare walkers and tanks on today's Star Wars Lore video
Thumbnail art from the Art of The Force Awakens and Rogue One respectively.
Video edited by AT-AT Chat: / @atatchat
Music: Space Echo/Endless Reflexions -- ALISON
***
🔵 ASSETS 🔵
Intro/Outro Music: Home - Resonance
Outro meme'd by: / freightmytrain
Music Playlist: goo.gl/YRzmaZ
🔵 SOCIAL MEDIA 🔵
Twitch: / eckhartsladder
2nd YT: / eckhartsladder
Twitter: / eckhartsladder
Discord: / discord
Instagram: / eckhartsladder
Merch: www.teespring.com/eckhartsladder
🔵 SUPPORT ECK 🔵
Patreon: / eckhartsladder
Paypal: www.paypal.me/eckhartsladder
Sub: goo.gl/vBao71
Join: goo.gl/5G4Xr8 - Розваги
Picking back up the Halo 3 livestream in about 30 minutes: www.twitch.tv/eckhartsladder
Thanks to AT-AT chat for the editing help! Link to his excellent channel in the description!
EckhartsLadder hello, how does the communication in star wars work? We see in most media’s that they have a full view of the person but how is that possible? Does it scan the whole body? How well has it progressed since the old republic? Would love see it discussed in a future video about how it works ! #askeck
#AskEck Are airplanes common in Star Wars? Since there is an "airport" in RoTS that Anakin lands the Separatist ship on, how common were they?
When (if) are you going to tell us the meaning or choices(s)? I've been so curious since we voted on it.
I have a question about if the way I would upgrade an AT-TE Walker tank is a good way. I would first make it higher off the ground by 3 to 5 feet then I would upgrade the armor so it covered the entire hull then I would upgrade the main cannon to a more powerful one and put it in a fully inclosed turret that the person in side of could exist down into the main hull but could get out the top if needed I would keep all 6 legs? Are these upgrades any good and I would call it The AT-TT all terrain tactical tank #ASKECK
Do you think that my upgraded Providence Class could win in a fight against either a empire SD or a first order SD? #ASKECK
"Tank beats ghost. Tank beats hunter. Tank beats everything! Aw man, I could do this all day!"
- Halo 3 Marine.
This quote sums up how I feel about Main Battle Tanks.
such marine before a scrab stepped on his tank.
*Insert generic high ground joke here*
Captain Cutter
When your friend reaches the top of the rock climbing wall in Kindergarten: “I have the high ground!”
Jack Clarkson
Mandalorian I have the true high Ground
AT-AT in sandstorm: its over AT-TE I have the higher ground AT-TE in sandstorm: fires one shot blows head off of AT-AT HAHA fuck you high ground isn't very thing I am more maneuverable
You beat me too it, im going to have to ask you to delete your comment
At-at and at-te at the bottom of a trench AT-AT I have the high ground. At-te (climbs cliff) I have the highest of ground.
Speaking purely from a technical standpoint the advantage of a tank is that it spreads its weight across the tracks. A walker like the AT-AT would be very limited in the terrain that could take its weight.
handles changes in elevation and "steps" better than treads though
Not as good as the AT-TE
not really. we have mountain vehicles in real life that function fine. Not to mention how a box on treads is so much easier to armor up than anything with limbs. literally, for any given cubic volume you can use less armor to protect it with the tank than the walker. limbs are weakpoints. and when you armor limbs, your poor, poor engine begs you for mercy. MAYBE walkers would have the edge on the planet of stairs...but aircraft would dominate there anyway...so...
Generally, a spider-like configuration would be preferable to the camel-like AT-AT. Having a wider stance would help disperse the weight over a wider area, unlike the perpendicular appendages of the AT-AT.
Also, a spider-tank would be better suited for steep environments that would throw off the aiming capability of a tread tank, as the legs can be positioned in such a way that the chassis is level, allowing the walker to act as a mobile hillside turret.
A tank is low to the ground and has a low centre of gravity, a walker will never work.
Walker:HAHAHA. You really think YOU can stop ME?! HAHA HAHA!
*Walker trips over bug*
Walker: Oh Shi-
Explodes.
I agree that height really helps the AT-AT but it is also a major disadvantage . Silhouette alone can be a major drawback since they are a bigger target .
Yup, excessively tall vehicles are almost always at a disadvantage. You can't use terrain for cover and concealment. On top of that, your enemy can begin to shoot you from MUCH further away.
Want the visibility that height gives you? An extendable sensor mast gives you the same sort of visibility while still being relatively stealthy. Want to shoot over terrain? A design with good gun depression can take up a hull-down position.
If the main weapons at your disposal are direct fire weapons with no indirect fire capabilities, which is almost exclusively what are used in SW on everything, then the only real way to extend range is to have height advantage. With high power weapons mounted on the large chassis you can make use of that range because smaller craft have to make do with low power weapons due to their lack of size for large amounts of power generation from larger generators.
This is why the AT-ATs could attack the Rebel Anti-Tank turrets from well outside their effective range and thin out the number of guns by the time the walkers did get within range of the turrets. At that point the AT-AT crews could just focus on individual turrets before they got within effective range where the turrets actually stood a chance at dealing damage to the AT-AT's armor.
Its the same kind of logic that went into WW2 Battleship design. A Battleship with a taller command tower had greater visual range to utilize for spotting, identifying, and zeroing in on shots. Allowing said Battleship to destroy enemy ships from a range where the enemy ship will not be able to do any retaliation, or effective retaliation. While Radar assistance did become a thing it was used in a supplementary way. Communication issues could cause you to mistake a friendly blip for being an enemy and vice versa.
You also got to remember that missile use in SW is a rarity, especially for small rebel cells. With some planets having an atmosphere and other environmental conditions that make missiles a waste of money.
@@TankHunter678 If you can see the enemy, they can see you. Extending range works both ways. Your comparison with WW2 battleships is skewed because they use ballistic weaponry and can fire past the horizon.
@ TankHunter 678 Agreed , I was simply pointing out the "big" disadvantage of height over a low silhouette . get it ? lol
@@Zapnl Not necessarily. Power generation is a big thing when it comes to the effectiveness of vehicle fire with directed energy weapons like what gets spammed on everything in Star Wars. As the use of Missiles and Kinetic weapons has all but died out.
Just because you can see something does not mean you can output the required energy to make use of that fact.
That is why the AT-AT is a massive vehicle for its height. It packs a colossal amount of power generation under its thick armor so that it can maximize its effectiveness with its weapons for the range it can get from its height.
Again case in point being the Battle of Hoth. They could see the AT-ATs on the horizon, but the Anti-Tank Turrets had to wait a long time before they could open fire on the AT-ATs due to insufficient power generation limiting their effective range, allowing the AT-ATs to use their height and power generation advantage to snipe them as they marched in regardless of the contours of terrain providing some cover for the turrets. To the point the Rebels had to accept shots they knew were going to be ineffective just in an attempt to do something during the one sided slaughter they were receiving.
People may say Tanks are superior because of the lack of height and small size making them easier to hide, however you need to keep in mind the fact that Star Wars uses almost exclusively direct fire energy weapons that are dependent on the power generation of the craft they are mounted in.
So Tank vs AT-AT the Tank has to try to rush as close as possible to get into the effective range its much lower power generation provides. Which gives the AT-AT plenty of time to turn the Tank into scrap. Making it so that you have to swarm the AT-AT with sheer numbers of tanks to even compete. As it is using its main guns and side turret guns to take out 3-4 tanks every volley.
Throw in environmental issues preventing the use of repulsor lift vehicles or limiting the effectiveness of tracked vehicles and unless you got some turbolaser towers backed up by a beefy power generator you wont be able to do much to an AT-AT attack force besides try to hide and wait for them to close in so you can swarm it with infantry and hope you can get enough infantry based Anti-Vehicle weapons in play to land hits on the only weakspot they are effective on: the neck.
Its WW2 Battleship mentality, without the indirect fire capable cannons.
In fact, one can call the AT-ATs walking Battleships due to how they are used as such, and their armor may be heavy enough that even if you had a bunch of tanks they might not have the power generation to be able to even have any of their shots penetrate through that armor besides weak armor points like the neck.
It would be like throwing a bunch of Destroyers that lack torpedos at a Battleship, they wont do shit other then scratch the surface. The best they could hope for would be to buy time by forcing it to keep turning to try to bring its guns to bear on them.
I mean you can’t moonwalk in a tank....just sayin
Just go reverse.
@@robertnelson9599 ITS NOT THE SAME
Thriller, but with AT-ATs and AT-STs.
But you can drift in a tank...
I wonder if you could drift and AT-TE if you had enough momentum?
Gotta disagree on several levels.
Height is terrible for combat. You may be able to see the entire battlefield but everyone on the entire battlefield can see you. Keeping a Low profile is a huge advantage in actual combat unless you really enjoy drawing tons of enemy fire.
Weak points in star wars are just bizarre. On a tracked vehicle the tracks can be immobilized but they can be fairly quickly repaired. A leg can’t be easily replaced as the destruction of one often, in Star Wars, sends the vehicle to the ground where the pilot accidentally trips the self destruct button. A hovering vehicle has no excuse to be poorly armored. It can propel itself from inside its armored chassis without anything touching the ground.
As far as not tripping mines, it’s not like the walker isn’t touching the ground, stepping on a mine would be just as dangerous for it as a tracked vehicle if not more so thanks to its subsequent fall. A hovering vehicle will only be vulnerable to mines able to sense several feet above them, and then they will still have trouble since the several feet of air between them will dissipate the force away from the vehicle.
Another issue, when your weaponry is mounted on the body, a walker bobs the weapons all over the place. Forget stabilization, just line up towards the target and try and fire when you roughly are pointed at the target.
Lastly, “all terrain”. Have you ever seen an Abrams or a Leopard get stuck? They weigh so much that they simply cannot get out of the mud. A big walker is putting a lot of force on a small area thanks to the square cube rule. The at-at on marshy ground would could easily sink several meters into the mud. Each time it tries to lift a foot out it increases the weight on the other three feet by 33%. A treaded vehicle spreads the weight across a single large “foot” and repulserlifts work through magnatronic midichlorians lifted on the dashed hopes and dreams of fans.
Now I know it sounds like I’ve just bashed walkers but they have a lot of traits that didn’t get mentioned.
1. Fording water. They sheer height of a walker means that it can cross rivers and water much deeper than any other vehicle. Repulserlifts should 100% sink by the way imo.
2. They should be fast. Okay maybe not as fast as a hover vehicle but watching most of the big walkers in Star Wars gives me the same feeling I get when holding the door for some particularly arthritic old grandma. I know that watching an AT-AT bound across the snow like a terrier would be fairly immersion ruining but it would be more accurate.
3. Redundancy. Why always use 2, 3, or 4 legs? Use 8 legs. A daddy long legs has been scientifically proven to be able to lose 3 legs without slowing down. Imagine being able to take multiple shots without losing your mobility.
4. Urban fighting. A bipedal walker can absolutely slaughter in an urban setting with its extremely short “wheel” base. They can turn on the spot, no getting stuck in tight corridors.
5. Coolness factor. Walkers are just ridiculously cool, everybody wants one but nobody wants to justify why they're there.
In the end, thanks for covering it. It's a great subject and to be fair, in my mind at least only Battletech gives even a plausible reason why everybody is stomping around in big mechs.
Props for being the on;y guy to bring up the square cube law.
@@jkevo16 I mean the thing is 20 meters long and 22.5 meters high. It looks about 8 meters across. Based off of modern armored vehicles weight and dimensions, an AT-AT makes the P. 1000 Ratte look easily feasible.
Worth mentioning, there have been tracked vehicles that can turn on the spot since the '40s, to say nothing of the possible agility of magical hover-tanks.
@@jkevo16 Hey now other people brought it up they just didn't specifically say "sqr cube law"
Why would repulsor lift sink in the water? They seem to work similarly to hovercrafts, which would make them able to traverse any terrain.
Also mechs in urban area either need to be ridiculously small and commanded by an AI to have any advantage over conventional design or basically work like power armour, meaning that at that point they aren't even mechs anymore.
Hell of a lot easier to put a track back on than a leg
Imo the republic had the superior variants of the walker lineup, their's being closer to the ground and also more practical in most regards.
I'm convinced that the super tall and precarious AT-AT walkers were invented out of an obsessive need for Darth Vader to feel like he had the high ground.
Realistically speaking, walkers are totally inferior. Walker legs would be easy targets especially on something as big as an AT-AT and once just one leg is gone it's disabled. Also legs are big targets, an AT-AT's legs would be relatively flimsy, especially from side shots. The wheels on that Separatist tank are much more solid material and thus would be harder to dmg or disable. Tracks would be even better
Also it could be fair to say rep. lifts need more maintanece than walkers but there's no way walkers would be less maintanece intensive than wheeled or tracked tanks. The sheer number of joints and the forces from each leg going up & coming down would be huge.
The armor thing is also not valid because as noted before a walker's legs will need to be built to hold up the walker and thus be vulnerable to horizontal attacks and mines could be made strong enough to blow up or disable a leg and it's a long fall for an AT-AT. In the X-wing novels the X-wings were able to easily dispatch a group of AT-ATs with their lasers and I think someone used a proton torpedo. I'd bet if the rebel defenders on Hoth were firing off a bunch of concussion missiles or using actual military ships that those AT-ATs would have been easy targets.
Legged vehicles would also have severe issues with ground pressure as the surface area of feet vrs wheels or tracks is so much greater. An AT-AT should sink into the ground unless it's on reinforced terrain. We have excavators that weigh several tons but have less ground pressure than the average person. Imagine how much worse a big walker would be.
Seemingly repolsar lifts are nifty but treads would be much better in most cases. For anti-personel a couple blaster turrets would be easy additions. Also just properly armor the tank so plot convenience weak spots don't exist.
Height isn't a good thing for a frontline vehicle, it just makes it easy to spot. Realistically some kind of ship observing from space would be better for a commander.
The last thing I'd say is don't underestimate a tank's trench crossing ability. Afterall, that's part of what tanks were originally built to do. Modern wheeled vehicles also have pretty exceptional cross country performance.
Best option would be a tracked tank with auxiliary repulsorlifts.
They could lift the entire vehicle for a short time without them or the powerplant overheating to do any number of things. Cross obstacles the tracks can't handle. If a track gets thrown or blown off you can move the vehicle back to a more protected spot, rather than be completely immobile.
At lower power they could be used for longer periods to do things like climb steeper inclines or cross terrain that is softer than what tracks could normally handle. They could adjust the pitch of the tank, leaning it forward more, to help with hull down firing or, leaning it back, to get some extra elevation.
Also, having tracks and the repulsorlifts off allows the vehicle to pass through deflector shields. That is the reason, from my understanding, the Empire had to use AT-ATs with no air support on Hoth.
Sure you could build it with repulsorlifts and a reactor big enough to lift the vehicle full time, but that takes extra weight, space, and cooling.
Considering Repulsertanks in Legends can reach up to speeds of 300km/h.
And also treaded vehicles in Star Wars are not as fast.
Well, its going to be hard to compete with a Repulsorlift, considering the mindboggling speed one can bring.
Oh and the ability to literally move left and right when needed.
@@Crosshair84 Now there's an excellent idea. Hybrid vehicles should be a thing. Such a tank would be extremely versatile while removing most of the downsides to repulsors.
Another case where repolsars were stopped by shields is when the Trade Fed. was fighting the Gungans and only the droids advanced. A hybrid vehicle could have gone through the shields, no problem.
@@Crosshair84 Isn't it just Maco from Mass Effect?
The Arisen agree on all points made.
The A6 Juggernaut is the most criminally underrated vehicle in the Imperial army.
But what if... the legs had wheels?
Skate.
Walkers.
Ground pressure would be even more awkward.
Any kind of wet terrain gives tracked tanks an edge over "classic" walkers, wheels on walkers' legs would bog down immediately.
Looking at the Walker design, it doesn't appear that they even can turn around.
The thing I love about this video is that most of the points brought up in favor of walkers are also applicable to treaded vehicles. With the added benefit of greatly reduced ground pressure. For instance an Abrams has a ground pressure of only 15psi, slightly less than a fully equipped modern soldier, at around 16psi...
Then again this is star wars where everyone still uses Napoleonic era tactics. Maybe in star wars walkers might have a couple of advantages. Problem is in star wars is tanks are always used in the open, with no infantry support, and firing in close range.
Yup, in the real world, Luke would have never gotten close to the AT-AT.
@jaden bartlett he talked about tactics, not technology
@jaden bartlett fair enough
@jaden bartlett We have something more sinister than the Death Star: Global Politics
@jaden bartlett Honestly the empire is so incompetent they would probably blow themselves up before they reached us. A couple of x wings destroying the death star is equivalent to a couple of Afghans on a boat wiping out an entire US carrier.
Me: Why didnt they just use tracks instead of legs? You can put armor over them and they can support more wei...
Star wars weapon designer: *BECAUSE THEY ARE SLOW AND PRIMITIVE*
Star wars logic in a nutshell
Pretty sure Earth would stand a pretty good fight against let’s say the empire
@@immxrtxll are you high? the imperial army alone would destroy earth no matter the useless and retarded designs for walkers, let alone the navy.
Walkers are better when they are lower to the ground, like AT -TEs. The Empire likes them because they have THE HIGH GROUND
But no plot armor to protect them tho
Something popped into mind, could make for a fun topic maybe?
With how the Walkers get around, could do one on some that might of gotten reused, say a modified AT-TE turned into a mobile home and a hunting platform used by Clone Troopers Captain Rex and Clone Commanders Wolffe and Gregor during their retirement. Plus other walkers that might of been modified by they're new owners, maybe a wrecked AT-AT with damaged legs turned into a outpost or home for someone like for Rey, but with the legs took off an stood upright maybe if used by someone else.
Starship versus: Harrower class Dreadnaught vs Victory class Star Destroyer
Haven't watched the video yet...but conventional tanks are better in almost every measurable way, both tactically and logistically.
Shhh.....don't tell the truth....walkers look cool XD
AT-RT says hi
@@grandace2 How is one of those better than a speeder bike?
@@SIrL0bster is a speeder bike a walker? I haven't forgotten that 1 case in republic commando where Scorch mentioned the cheap speeder bikes are death traps. So, those fancy commando arc speeder bikes (NOT the ones used on endor), I'd take. Provided a single blaster shot can't send me out of control
Until you have to go through a minefield. It's going to take one hell of a landmine to destroy a giant foot made of metal.
Notice me, Eckharts!!
Wow, such notice! Instant gratification! Feeling better about self? No?
Congrats on 400K :)
Here's the problem with Walkers, ground pressure. The ground is not as solid as you think it is, just look at the WW2 Panther, where a substantial amount of them were taken out by sinking into the mud as the vehicle was too heavy for the size of it's treads which unduly sunk into the ground, churning it up with any present rain water creating a sticky soupy mess, which for it's size would be significantly larger than the food pads of a Walker. That's why wheeled vehicles tend to be significantly lighter than tracked vehicles as their foot print tends to be much smaller than a tanks, and unfortunately legged vehicles would have to be even lighter than wheeled vehicles to be usable, as their locomotion by it's very nature would need to be substantially more massive in comparison.
Additionally as any tanker will tell you, a visible target is a dead target, so the larger your tank the less protected it is by default, this also plays into armor coverage, the larger the target the more armor it needs to stay safe, meaning the heavier it is, meaning the slower it goes and the larger it's footprint has to be to keep from getting bogged down. All making it a massive more expensive target.
And at the end of the day, there's a reason why the concept of the Infantry Tank as a heavily armored slow moving tank capable of keeping up with Foot Infantry went extinct, whereas the Cruiser tank, later known as the Main Battle Tank, came to the fore. Because speed kills, and any lack of it gets you killed as you become a prime target for Artillery, the King of Battle. Which is suspiciously lacking in the post prequel Starwars universe.
@Komandor Cliff because ground pressure still applies to walkers. They still have less surface area in contact with the ground than treads. It becomes an issue the heavier the vehicle is, one way to fix that is by increasing the surface area in contact with the ground. On tanks that would be done by widening the track, on a walker that would probably be by increasing the size of the footpad. The problem is that also adds more weight and that puts more strain on the powerplant and transmission of a vehicle. The other option is just make the vehicle smaller, which is the direction tanks seem to be going now anyway. In any case, tanks would still be the more efficient, more mechanically reliable, and more cost effective vehicle for the job they're designed for compared to a walker designed for the same task.
@Komandor Cliff It does not matter if a vehicle is using legs, tracks or wheels, if a vehicle doesn't sufficiently distribute ground pressure, it will have issues. It doesn't matter how they interact with the ground.
@Komandor Cliff Probably not enough to make you happy, sorry. I'm only going off of what I know from just working around AFVs in the past, knowing folks who operated AFVs, the few legit AFV subject matter experts on this website, and just the basic knowledge I have on ground pressure. I'm legitimately not sure if I angered you, since tone doesn't exactly translate well in text. I suppose you could ask the Chieftain or Spookston for an in depth answer.
@Komandor Cliff TBF no. You know how folks put on snowshoes so that they don't sink into snow? My concern is that unless there is sufficient surface area to reduce a vehicle's ground pressure, that you're going have issues in lousy terrain, especially if some mad lad decides to make a 50 plus ton vehicle. I will say that I do think mechs may be useful in a limited light infantry support role, maybe like a Titan from Titanfall but a little smaller but somewhat similar armaments. You have a good day sir, and I'm glad this didn't turn into a UA-cam shouting match.
So, repulsorlift vehicles are more vulnerable to mines than walkers despite the fact they do not touch the ground at all ? I really have to disagree on that.
The only way a mine can hit a vehicle the is hovering over the ground is if it can sense targets above it. Meanwhile if a Walker steps over a mine with one of its legs, it's game over. In other words: repulsor lift vehicles would only be vunerable to proximity mines, while walkers would be vulnerable to both proximity mines AND traditional mines as well.
In fact, legs in the battlefield are easy and juicy targets, especially legs as big as the ones from the AT-AT and the AT-M6.
There are examples of good walker designs in science fiction, though. Take a look at the Battletech universe for example. The walkers there at least try to compensate for some of the inherent flaws of walking vehicles. Walkers in Battletech are far more mobile than the ones found on star wars, and they have the ability to stand up in case they knocked down, for example.
Lmfao how do you think repulses stay off the ground? By pushing on the ground. As in weight as in setting land mines off
Honestly
If you have a low ground tank walker like the AT-TE, it’s a practical and very good design
And have the legs made like the crab droids so it can move better, increase maneuverability and maybe even increase the speed
But that is my opinion
It's a good design yes, but I still think it's Ill suited for use as a main battle tank. Mainly because it lacks speed and maneoverbility. The AT-RT however is done perfectly. Small, nimble, and packs quite a lot of firepower. Hell, I even appreciate the AT-ST design as I think it's a good design for use in jungle warfare.
@@chanachon56 but using a walker supplemented with a repulser and track tank is a good thing to cover the weaknesses of each tank, but remember, track has less ability to travel over stuff compared to a walker and repulser tank's need a lot of power to operate
@@LoneWolf20213 Completely agree with you there. I'm just saying that the two walkers are good design concepts and actually look practical compared to other designs.
*glances at AT-ATs*
@@chanachon56 yeah, the AT-AT leave's a lot to be desired, if it were able to bend it's leg's the same way a crab droid, or the Scarab from Halo can, then it can work better
and the Scarab from halo is what i want my walker tank leg's to be like
@@LoneWolf20213 The Scarab legs are terrible, they would handle ground pressure terribly. Titans in Titanfall are a good example of bipedal mechs
I think nothing improves rebel morale more than enormous, highly expensive, over engineered symbols of oppression.... With absurdly exploitable weaknesses.
"Wait, we can fight THOSE.... With SNOW SPEEDERS?!?"
Great video. Now you have to choose the toughest walker vs the toughest tank for the next video to see who would win.
Vs matchup
Brute or Brute chieftain from Halo vs A Predator from the Predator franchise. With 2 rounds First round unarmed and unarmored. Second round fully armed and armored
Walkers are cool. That's all that matters.
Cool enough to be defeated by rope.
SC43 7 that a ship had to do and not a tank 😉
You are all right. Look at the civ 4 civeopedia entry for battle mech. "wheels are much better, but legs look cooler" XD
Tanks are cooler
Love that Dark Empire got some attention. Also I dig the channel logo. May the force be with you
Also an AT AT can not use any terrein advantages or camoflage itself effectifly, while a tank can. You can also creat a tank burrow from where the tank can shoot at reducing its size further and adding to its armor. Also tanks can fire and relocate very fast which they need to do to avoid aircraft. An ATAT is a well armoured sitting duck, but any X wing will still blow it up with ease.
Yep, one well aimed bomb or something like MGM-140 ATACMS, and AT-AT is gone.
Dude I and anyone with a brain would take three abrams over an AT-AT in a fight any day
@Chewbacca tanks are also pretty effective at taking out terrorists that only have infantry weapons
You guys are thinking in the real world universe. Also your considering one lone AT-AT with out support also how do we even know an abrams can survive energy projectiles. Who is to say the heavy lazers couldn't melt the abram's stopping it in its tracks. Look I am not saying the Abrams can't kill it or win. But the abrams can be disabled to its not entirely immune to damage. Yes in most cases the Abrams is superior. But I am not ruling out the AT-ATs they have their uses in the star wars universe at least. And Well If your at least half the man General Veers was you could find away to turn the situation to your favour or at least hold their own. You do have point chewbacca. But think of it of this AT-ATs and AT-M6s are like heavy german panzers and seige artillery of world war 2.They may not be the most flexible or practical vehicle at times. Maybe I wouldn't use them in most battles but when you got a well dug in enemy force with powerful defenses some times you need lumber giants to dish out the pain train and tank hits. The problem is that yes tanks like the abram's are fast and could avoid heavy artillery fire from defensive guns but the land minds can knock your tracks if you were unlucky. At Least with the AT-ATs feet they are armoured enough that most anti tank mines could be absorbed with minimal damage. But I am talking about the feet not leg joints the bottom hooves part. Although vulnerable to artillery strikes they should be amoured enough in the strong points to at least withstand a few hits per say while provide counter battery strikes and the new AT-M6 is pretty much designed to do that while transporting as well. I am not Saying AT_ATs and AT-M6s should be used in every battle situation and that tanks like Abrams are better for missions overall. But They aren't to be ruled out and should have their roles although limited and specialized in nature they still have role to play and can do it along side hover and tracked vehicles to. You see it happen in the republic and cis forces and for most part the joint support and tactics do work . So when in the case where speed isn't crucial but fire power and durability are then AT-ATS and AT-M6s do perform well in said given roles at least in star wars. As we should that have an ego and underestimating the enemy can lead to bad defeat for your forces that even the empire was not immune to such arrogance.
@Chewbacca Meh I tended to be adamant at defending the shit I love lol. If the AT-AT went to court and was charged with murder. I would be his defense lawyer and be like your honour he was just carrying out his dude against rebel scumb. If were guilty of a crime wouldn't walkers such as the AT-TE be charged with war crimes against CIS AAT tanks that only protested against the republic peacefully. Oh wait a minute thats right didn't AATs play huge role in the invasion of Naboo. Which the Naboo speeders themselves wanted to keep their own freedom from Trade Federation oppression. AT-AT was serving the empire in defeating rebel terrorist T2B tanks that attacked and killed fellow AT-STs in the line of duty bringing peace, stability and trust in the speeder citizens of the Empire. I rest my case Judge AT-M6.Lmao
you can also set the expand button on reply
you can see it all there. I am sorry for righting so much will defend imperial heavy walkers to the last. AT-STs are the only shitty design in my eyes a top heavy 2 legged walker thats poorly armoured that can be be destroyed by Ewoks. Ewoks of all things trips over logs falls over and side ways and smacks head on ground. Or Gets its hid smashed in my 2 giant logs attached to rope tethers. AT-AT yes trips to tow cables only after the speeder as his finished and doesn't crash into its strong hull. AT-AT deployed by General Veers we send rebel scumb running because we have the high ground. He only defeated when a dirty rebel Alluh Ackbar's his snow speed into the walker. You actually see AT-AT succeeding more than you do AT-ST scout walkers. However The AT-TE has the best record from the clone wars. Again sorry for length. But I like big scary toys that can crush shit with ease Long lIve the Empire and Deat to Rebel Scumb. lol.
No, give me equal tonnage of fighting force. I have not found the source but a lot of people are using 600 tons for the weight of a single AT-AT, for that mass I could take an Abrams platoon of 4 tanks, a mechanized infantry platoon, a FSTV, and an self propelled artillery platoon. Now if my combined arms detachment was made with the same technology level as the Star Wars AT-AT it might increase vehicle mass due to material density but I can put wider tracks and antigrav tech in them to offset that.
Best energy rifle: E-11 Blaster Rifle Star Wars; Type-3 Phaser Rifle Star Trek; Lazgun Dune; Type-25 Energy Rifle Halo
Imperial Guard Flashlight.
@@tanith117 The Lasgun is pretty good, actually - just not as powerful as the main infantry weapons of other factions. In the Necromunda game, it's one of the best weapons available. Also, it's very easy to maintain, is pretty reliable and barely requires any supply logistics.
I haven't watched one of your videos in a while so I was surprised by how much your voice changed, it's gotten much deeper.
The sheer amount of armor you'd need on the legs to minimize them as a weak point would be staggering, and in order to step over a landmine, you'd need an observer on the ground, which puts them in danger, defeating the point of a tank entirely
Why do certain CIS ships like the munificent and providence emanate a deep humming sound? #askeck
Hey Eck when will the Battle Of The Dreadnoughts video be released
Templin Institute did an awesome debate over mechs vs tanks, not quite walkers but similar ideas/arguments
Keep up on that good content
No. Legs are a much larger target than tracks and far easier to hit than these repulsar things that I'd imagine to be underneath the vehicle.
Also a tank is a mechanically much simplier, cheaper and easier to produce vehicle. Two boxes with a single point of conjunction. It's baffling how mecha adepts try to paint the same things as a weakness in a tank and a strength in a mecha: a single leg has at least 3 points of conjunction and apparently they never jam or can be disabled in Battletech unlike tank's turret axis.
also in battletech a mech can fall than get back up where any AT is destroyed :D
or if a mechs leg is destroyed it can prop itself up and still keep shooting;)
@@boneshaman8912 well, after watching "The Empire Strikes Back" it seems that walkers fall and then explode in star wars.
@@boneshaman8912 Thing is, A tank won't "fall" so it won't need to get back up in the first place, seeing as point blank range nukes can't flip a centurion.
Also, if a tank's tread is knocked out, it still has a turret, making both these points sorta irrelevant..
The other thing ignored is that walkers are HIDEOUSLY power inefficient. Humans and other legged creatures use tendons to store a great deal of the energy used in locomotion, but even there, we're FAR less efficient than any wheeled or tracked vehicle in distance per power. Mecha have none of this energy saving tendons, so the amount of power to move is probably at least an order of magnitude over a tracked vehicle, and probably close to two orders over wheeled or repulsor tech.
So you need an engine 10x the size as a tracked vehicle, or you move 10% of the speed.
Even in SW, that kind of crippled maneuverability is lethal to the vehicle.
The power requirements are so big that the smaller walkers really are pure fiction - you couldn't possibly build one that moved, let alone with the speed they do carrying the weight they do, with any power source available.
Best personal shield: Body shield Dune; Energy shield Halo; Kinetic barrier Mass Effect; Shield belt Star Wars
I'll take the one that won't give me radiation sickness.
Kinetic Barriers lose right off because they offer zero protection against any form of radiation, and there's no equivalent other shield type to cover that deficiency as there is in Star Wars. Halo probably has the best general purpose personal energy shield tech. It may not be the strongest shielding ever, but it's stupidly efficient and recharges from zero to full in a hurry. The downside is that it's almost always installed in the most high end powered assault armor, and not cheap enough for mass deployment. I'm not sure if you wanted to count the Covenant arm shields, since they're not a passive barrier.
you raised some nice points, as usual.
Congrats on 400k subs!!!!!
#askeck What do you think about the lowest levels of the coruscant underworld? (I.e level 1 and 2) It is said that there is nothing down there but there could be as this is Star Wars. I know there are videos on it but I just want to know what you think of it.
I think in the lore the lowest level that is inhabited is level 5 and I’m pretty sure that level 1 and 2 are completely full of trash and some mutant creatures
Realistically speaking, all these points are moot, especially when talking about imperial walkers in Star Wars.
Legs are vulnerable, why would they not be and how would they avoid stepping on mines? A disabled leg takes the walker out.... completely, with no way to get it back in action quickly.
Walkers are more exposed, nearly no way to take advantage of cover and even the underside is open to attacks. That makes them an easy target even from afar.
The Star Wars walkers are considerably slower than other vehicles and not really that useful on difficult terrain. They have been shown to loose balance fairly easily and destroy themselves as a result. Larger walkers may be able to step over trenches, but large tanks can accomplish the same.
Congrats on 400k
Great vid
Reapers (Mass effect) vs the Flood (Halo).
Notification Squad where you at
Fire team Apollo on site
Fireteam Bravo, reporting.
Fireteam Charlie, reporting.
I thought we were talking about real life tanks going into this video.😂
I think the only example of legs being used well in star war is in the cliff battle in The Clone Wars movie where the AT-TEs climb up cliff. And even that could be replicated on a tracked vehucle by putting a smaller versions of the clawed feet on each track link.
#AskEck
Can you talk about our lord and savior: The Halo Valiant class Superheavy Cruiser/Battlecruiser?
Height isnt advantage. Only think you ahive by extended height is, that every tank, Anti Amor and even fkn Anti air can shoot on you XD
And, the most importantly, the artillery.
Meanwhile, high observation point could be achived by using infantry, UAVs or just folding periscopes...
You just hit 400k 🥳
A tank can typically engage targets in every direction but walkers, especially star wars ones have to completely turn around to engage.
Surely they have the tech to bind a knee or ankle joint on a walker which would disable it far more thoroughly than a mobility hit on a tank would.
Tanks will have far lower ground pressure for the same weight, have far less external area to be armoured, have less exposed systems and be able to actually hide in a defensive position.
A tank has the advantage of stability meaning that they can fire more powerful weapons and are not likely to fall over on unstable terrain.
A tank requires less weight and volume for propulsion and would likely require far less maintenance than a vehicle with all those articulated joints.
The biggest advantage is that a tank is smaller and from a combat point of view, small tends to beat tall.
So we aren't going to talk about AT-TEs in the Republic, Way better than the AT-AT
Seeing as how Walkers aren't real and reality sucks I would say yes
Spongebob SquarePants about that... ua-cam.com/video/RYzn_gmFs5w/v-deo.html
Soon
And you saw what happened with the batmobile www.popularmechanics.com/military/a11263/dont-look-now-but-darpa-is-building-the-batman-tumbler-17195925/
Spongebob SquarePants I mean, not entirely. You’ve seen the Boston dynamics robot dog, that one seems modestly workable.
just remember that 10 years ago we didn't have Supersonic VTOL aircraft either.
Reality sucks? Have you seen what kind of crazy weapons we have these days?
Wrong I have experience with these things because that's why I say military tanks are a lot cooler what they can do That can jump and could smash through houses and their like a force of Destruction.
The tactical consensus has been that making it harder to see you is the best defence. Whether this is through passive or active (yet to be invented) camouflage and radar absorbing materials etc. Modern tanks just cannot have enough armour to defeat armour penetration- if you are talking about equal forces, so the best strategy is having a low profile. A walker by its nature is going to have a high profile and present a larger target than a tank.
Though there might be places where a walker might have an advantage such as in an urban environment where the terrain is very uneven. But then you could just do away with the traditional tank turret and have the main gun at the end of an articulated armature and you retain the advantage of a low profile by only needing to expose the gun to fire it.
If you ask me, something like the AT-AT is a walking battleship when it comes to ground fights. I don't think you'd really want it to be something that needs to turn around, like just put the guns evenly around the walker. Now I know in real life, having multiple guns is a problem for the tank officer or whatever they call the person in charge of marking out targets, which is why this should be a droid's job as ships and vehicles by the time of the Last Jedi era have mostly been computerized to reduce crew sized. Even in the Clone Wars, it's already been done for the Recusant Class, why not scale down?
Star wars tanks are a joke. They aren't designed properly. The reason we have tanks over walkers in reality is because legged vehicles simply aren't practical. Modern tanks would easily out run them and are already considered all terrain anyway. Tanks were originally developed to tackle the trench problem of WWI. Another point is that a tank displays a smaller target which is difficult to hit especially when combined with its speed and the ability to go hull down. A tracked vehicle can also do a 180° turn much more quickly and efficiently then a walker.
...and so on, and so on, less transporting capacity for walkers, easier target for artillery and airforce, need to use heavier armour to maintain the same thickness of armour, suspension damage is likely to render the vehicle not only unable to move but also to aim properly, problems with recoil handling for heavy guns, awkward ground pressure, expensive internal components, inability to be operated manually in case of circuitry failure, need to use artificial inteligence just to move around uneven terrain properly...
Eck gets asked a question, he explains the question but doesn't answer it. Can you trust this man?
Unlike popular belief, military wheels used on modern armored car aren't that vulnerable, they are much more easier to reinforce than a long thin leg due to the structure of the mentioned objects. Also, a 4 wheeled car can still move with only 3 wheels left, a tank can be repair on sight if their tread is broken by replacing a few damaged link and chain them back together, the tank then go back to battle on sight. A tall vehicle like an AT-AT, imagine what happen if they fell over to the side or got one of their leg broken, you will need a heavy machinery or another AT-AT to pull the vehicle back up before you plan to repair it, and if their leg is damaged, good luck attaching new leg on a machine that high. If they rebel has the weapon to take out the AT-AT legs, those walker will go out of business immediately. The different between an AT-AT and traditional armored vehicle is that you only have to go after the AT-AT legs to take them out, while other tread and wheel based armored vehicle can still stay in combat as the enemy must take out the hull.
Lastly, being high present major blind spot on your vehicle, you can't see anything bellow you.In the fifth episode, Empire AT-ATs was unable to deploy any counter measure when Luke climbed up to their walker's belly and screwed them up, and they couldn't provide any cover to the infantry and very small synergy with smaller vehicles by being so "safe" all the way up there, making it difficult for infantry or other vehicle to push along with them. Enemy commander (given that the enemy has sufficient preparation to take on the Empire) can just order his men to focus fire on AT-AT's support forces while heavier weapon take care of the walkers separately. Their height advantage can easily be covered by air and space support, they dont really have to be that tall.
I don't really get why Luke didn't just cut through AT-AT legs and be done with them.
Quick answer is no and they never will be.
What? Open terrain would benefit fast wheeled chassis. Visibility is easily fixed with telescopic recon devices. Walkers need a terrain where they are the only option that can reliably navigate.
@bender rodriguez Well the point is to bender they wouldn't be actively hunting tanks they would generally have their own tanks supporting them. Heavy Walkers are ment to replace tanks just ment as siege support or transportation. Yes I know proper howitzer guns would be make more sense. But it allows for more assault gun style support as you can see the enemy defenses directly and blast fortifications. that why they worked so well on hoth as they weren't actively hunting fast moving targets they were blasting a part bunkers and base defenses cause fear and panic among the rebel trench forces.Yes you can argue tanks can do that to but i am pretty sure that Anti Tanks would inflict heavy losses if you compare the battle the battle of kursk in world war 2 you could see how Russian at guns good stall the advance allowing for counter attacks.
@@DzinkyDzink tank vs mech aka who would winning this war spreading fast culture popular
2 views and 32 likes? UA-cam is broken!
When is it not broken?
Those two people just really, really liked it.
UA-cam's always broken. Look at how rewind turned out
UA-cam comments are broken, since I see this comment everywhere.
It's just drunk again
As much as I love walkers, the TX-130 is my favorite tank in Star Wars. That thing is so quick, nimble, and sexy.
Superior stability of tracked vehicles means they can have one massive gun on a fully rotatable turret which is capable of firing in any direction (other than the extremes in vertical fighting of course, but that seems to apply to the walkers as well so who cares) rather than several smaller guns that have a fixed firing arch. Put a couple of modern MBTs on Hoth and the battle may have gone very different. At the very least, the light walkers wouldn't have been able to set one foot within a mile of their target. APFSDS kinetic penetrators are no joke. Especially to tanks that can be killed by logs on the ends of rope.
Walkers are like any combat vehicle. The are superior is some situations and locations and completely useless in others. A smart military would use any and all variety of combat vehicles needed in the most efficient and effective way possible to complete a specific goal with minimal losses. Tanks are good for flat open ground or more urban areas as well on high gravity. Walkers are good for rough or mountainous ground plus low gravity environments. Each has a part to play and when used together well are a force to be reckoned with.
Walkers would actually fair poorly in marshes or any other soft terrain because all their weight is distributed into their legs, which would cause them to sink. Treads distribute their weight evenly and would fair better in such terrain, and even then their is no tank in existence that doesn't get stuck in mud. Walkers would likely be worse.
Now where walkers would excel in (especially designs like the AT-TE) is mountainous terrain.
agreed i just said what you said lol but more rambling lmao. Yes Military's are machines themselves with many different parts. While some vehicles, soldiers and weapons seem impractical alone working together in tandem on the battlefield really shows their effectiveness. Like bombers are shit with out a proper fighter escort as WW2 has proven that already. Like Rebel Y wings couldn't excute expert strikes with out x wing support in keeping tie fighters of them. Because if the tie fighters are forced to dog fight the x wing then it frees up the y wing pilots to focus on the mission without fear of enemy fighters on their tail given that empire doesn't have corvettes present to provide screening fire for larger capital ships.
If you wanted to think about it realistically, some systems, like toddler-crawling or rolling the entire vehicles sideways, are going to be way worse in nearly any situation given the same amount of weight.
Walkers are absolutely terrible for rough or marshy ground due to their extremely high ground pressure which pierces the ground like a needle into a barrel of porridge, and gain no benefit from low gravity enviroments that tracked vehicles do not get.
Walkers are kind of like rolling the entire vehicle sideways in that the situations where it will be better than a tracked vehicle occur far too rarely and are far too niche to be viable for production since a vehicle of a given weight will cost more materials and labor hours due to the greater complexity of its locomotion, and perform worse overall in nearly any situation you might think of.
@@Hust91 Yes but they have there pros to and work well with other smaller tanks that are wheeled or hover based.
I think this point is well illustrated in the 40k universe, while the scale is rediculus the armies will imploy whatever vehicle or mix of vehicles is best suited for the task, walkers, tanks, gunships, Titans, hover speeders, masses of millions of soldiers etc etc
*hi*
hi
@@crustypaladin *hello there*
@jaden bartlett much appreciated! HAHA
@jaden bartlett HEY! :-)
Great synthwave
AT-ATs were actually well designed for their role at the battle of Hoth. The rebel base was protected by a shield, which repulsor craft couldn’t get through, but legged vehicles like AT-ATs could. They were placed outside the shield and they walked in. Their goal was to destroy the shield generator so the Empire could use orbital bombardment and land troops right at the base, as well as bringing in TIE fighters for air superiority. The high vantage point of the AT-AT allowed it to get a clear shot at the shield sooner, giving the Rebels less time to evacuate and/or repel the AT-ATs.
Nah, they just downgraded them, tanks are better in my opinion
Walkers are better for uneven ground, unless you have anti-gravity tanks.
@@robertnelson9599
By that argument, what's wrong with using the tech to develop a tank that hovers?
It would make a lot more sense but would be less cool.
@@robertnelson9599 Are you actually trying to tell us that a tall vehicle with legs handles uneven terrain better than a short vehicle with a wide tread base?
@@robertnelson9599 Walkers are better for uneven ground... yeah no a tracked vehicle is much more stable, doesn't have center mass put 10 stories above the ground and does not have easily damagable legs.
@@Volke_ There may be walkers, which are better for the uneven ground, but they'll look more like this - ua-cam.com/video/2pJwDZXasKU/v-deo.html
First comment first like and second view.... Last time I was this early Star Wars theory wasn’t such a bald one
#NotificationSquad
sombertownDS 1
2 views, now 28 likes
Do not Touch the red button I just refreshed it and 47 coments!! I have never been this lucky to be the first one to comment before
Just wanted to point out that there are a few comics from the Clone War Era (I think the ones I'm talking about are specifically regarding the Jabim Campaign; where Obi-Wan is assumed to have been KIA) in which, if my memory is correct, early iterations of the ATAT, as well as other Republic Walkers, were taken out by mines set utilized by the Jabimi Separatists. I'm sure there are other instances of this, but the walker's legs are often regarded as some of the weakest and most exploitable points (especially the joints) and although they may be able to bypass some defenses, mines, I don't believe should count among those as one mine can cripple a walker.
Walkers are basically large targets saying "get behind me and destroy my legs I can't do anything about it"
Replicators vs a Unified Star Wars universe (469th try now, *_I._** WILL NEEEEVER EEEVER GIVE UP!!!)*
I think walkers are fundamentally a solid idea, but the Empire's, and by extension the First Order's, implementation of the idea is generally poor. The AT-TE is an ideal design.
I just want a star wars video game that I can control an AT-AT off rails. The absolute power you felt while moving one through Rhen var and Hoth in star wars battlefront 1 was unmatched.
Yes But we also should have controllable AT-M6s to lol in Star Wars game, Just imagine playing Xbox live with your friends stomping trough enemies lines with AT-ATs and AT-M6's .If you thought your powerful in an AT-AT I wonder what an AT-M6 would be like. I just am tempted to say "Unlimted Power Unlimited Power" like old Sheev himself and do the evil laugh and maybe the his crazy 920 degree spin he does lmao. But nah the spins a bit to challenging to do for the average fan like me. But Still Unlimited Power Unlimited Power haha.
would loe to see this topic covered further across more franchises, such as the scarab in Halo,
I play Eldar in 40k, so I always have a soft spot for anti-grav tanks.
I unfortunately play filthy Tau, and I too dislike walkers and treads, preferring my anti-gravity Hammerheads. Well, there's battlesuits, but they don't count.
Now if only my Fire Warriors could survive against Geneatealers in melee combat...
@@downrangecash2418 Battlesuits are power armor, super-heavy infantry, they do indeed not count because they move like infantry that can fly.
Even Space Marines get them now, with the Primaris Repulsor tank.
Yes. No. Maybe
Got anything better to do?
Damn it Justin, you should've said "Maybe so"
Ha! I got here before you!
Zann consortium tanks : hold my beer
eckhartsladder vs spookston debating wich is better, tanks or walkers. that be a really cool video idea
A walkers greatest strength is also its greatest weakness, it height. It gives it an excellent field of view, but at the same time makes it an easy target. You can build trenches that'll protect everything but the turret of a tank making an incredibly resilient temporary fixed gun enplacement that can bug out if things go south, not to mention the fact that tanks have a smaller target profile and are capable of being concealed for sneak attacks.
I bet Anakin ordered the construction of AT-AT to rub it in obi wan face
Haha, that's funny, although not lore friendly as the AT-AT was in prototype phase and used in a limited capacity in the Late Clone Wars.
@@reonthornton685 who cares about lore when it is a joke
Idk if I missed it or something but is he still gonna put out the video on his channels name?
Which Republic vehicle is your favorite? My favorite is between the AT-TE and the Juggernaut tank.
#AskEck
How do huge ships like venator class destroyers are Able fly slowly but stabile in a atmosphere. And how do they sustain strutural stability when not in a vaccum ?
Sorry for the bad english
Considering some planets repulsion tech is literally impossible to use, like Jabiim, walker tech is quite appealing. That and the feet of walkers can be equipped/modified to allow some sort of gravitational "grip" or magnetic device to allow for use in low gravity planets and celestial objects. (The Clone Wars episode of AT-TEs taking a nice stroll on some asteroids and droid ships.
Found this guy who talks about the disadvantages of all walker/mec type vehicle's and hover tanks if anyone is interested in a well informed opinion on heavily armored vehicles.
Part 1- ua-cam.com/video/5jzOxVM7krU/v-deo.html
Hover tanks:
ua-cam.com/video/2dThnJAiJw4/v-deo.html
Clone war era armor- ua-cam.com/video/_ywHBnnhdxA/v-deo.html
Resistant to mines? A tank that takes a mine is merely disabled, but if a walker loses a foot, it can very easily fall over (unless it has six or more legs), rendering the entire vehicle useless. As for dealing with difficult terrain, a standing human has a ground pressure of ~8 psi (twice that or more for walking, and even more in carrying a load), an M1 Abrams has ~15 psi (so about the same as a human when standing on one leg), while an elephant has ~35 psi. I don't know how much ground pressure the AT-AT exerts, but it's got to be at least as much as an elephant, maybe more. So for dealing with soft terrain, tracks are clearly superior to legs.
Any kind that can blow off a atat foot will kill any tank that hits it
1:02 Oh you're cheeky with that clip from Auralnauts lol
The main reason for the long legs on the AT-AT when compared to the AT-TE was to make it more resistant to landmines and IEDs. You see, the blastwave has more room to dissipate before it reaches the hull. In an army that was in essence trying to fight mostly terrorists, rather than another military, that is a useful thing to have.
4:20 Although that also enlarges it’s profile. That’s the reason modern tanks are so much shorter compared to older ones, because tankers realised that tall tanks could often make it incredibly difficult to use cover, and outright impossible to use depressions in land to your advantage (Where in an open field there’s an area that dips down enough so that if you’re on one side of it it can act as cover)
Having a low profile also significantly helps to protect against aerial attacks
After the Clone Wars, it really seems robotics took a backslide. Granted the AT-AT is bigger but it is so stiff and lacking articulation you would expect for a walking tank.
That said the question "Are walkers better than tanks?", really comes down to application, terrain, and the kinds of weapons the vehicles will be up against. In general application across sci-fi, legged tanks, mechs/mecha, and so on are usually capped at about 20-30 feet tall max for ground based units. This is so they can hide and avoid being hit, while also being light enough to be quick and mobile. while deep space applications can bee literally as big as you want. Space is big and you have room for being huge.
A machine like the AT-At is just a massive walking target that relies on the lack of any real kinetic weapons being used against it. The amount of energy you can output for a large blaster cannon would be easily enough for a railgun punch a 10kg slug at well over 5000ft/sec. Keep in mind most Star Wars armor if designed to function primarily as an ad hoc heat sink to counter the bulk of the effects of blaster fire. Kinetic damage is rather minimum and based more on the explosion blasters cause with the heat from the plasma bolt fired. It is debatable if bullets or shells would work. AT-ATs are built like tanks after all, but it is reasonable to assume large solid slugs would be wildly more effective than blaster fire.
This is based on the economy of the galaxy shifting toward spraying enemies with blaster fire than precision inserting solid projectiles into a target to kill it in ONE shot. Energy weapons become a weapon of blitz offense and screening defense with solid projectiles being used for precision one-hit kill attacks.
..boy, did I wander way off target.... sorry.
In the Psycho-Pass movie the South-East Asian UN used tanks with treads that folded out into legs to get over/around rough terrain. These were sold to them by Japan along with AI operated drone weapons and other technology including the SYBIL system.
Great episode! Split the comments 50/50 hating the ATAT or loving the high-ground :D If you think it's worth delving further, maybe do a scenario comparison between tanks, repulsors and walkers on Hoth, Geonosis, Kashykk and Naboo. Maybe even some human terrain as well?
Repulsorlifts are lit. The immense speed of many kinds of repulsorlift vehicles would allow them to run circles around most walkers. If they made better use of repulsorlifts they would be the greatest weapon they could have. Imagine just stacks of explosives on a repulsorlift remote-controlled vehicle. Those things could hit an enemy before they could even know what happened. Think about a sort of armored gyrosphere with repulsorlifts on it and 2 heavy cannons. You could roll it into battle, or use repulsorlifts to avoid tough terrain, and use the same repulsorlifts to find a sniper position to fire on enemies. Repulsorlifts can be great for hit and run tactics, being in and out before the enemy even sees them.
What happend with the video of the systems alliance?
witch faction of the do you think is stronger the infested tearens the bass zerg swarm or the primals