NationStates Jolt Archive


Weapons - How far from modern technology am I allowed to go?

19-12-2003, 09:06
I'm reading the Int'l Incidents forum and I see someone getting called out for using lasers on their ships. Obviously, no one yet uses or (so far as is common knowledge) has even created a giant laser weapon IRL. I think it's acceptable, then, to ignore anyone who wants to destroy your fleet with a giant laser.

But on the other hand, since I want to get involved RPing some wars sooner or later, yet I don't know much of anything about RL weaponry (I can hardly tell one thing from another in those lists of weapons that people post), I was hoping I could come up with some 'new' stuff that doesn't exist IRL, but doesn't completely stray from the possibility of currently existing.

What I really wanted to do was rip off a bunch of Star Wars stuff, like the AT-AT (All-Terrain Armored Transport):

http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/pagestuff/ATAT.gif

etc...

My plan was to explain how something like this could exist in what i figure to be fairly realistic terms... instead of laser weapons it would have machine guns, rockets etc.; it's supposed to be 45 ft. tall, but I would make it out of thick titanium to explain its relative indestructability and allow for its slow speed to be used against it, as well as other weaknesses.

So I guess my real question is: if I were to manage to get one of these deployed during a battle, would the other RPers be in the right to ignore it?
Presgreif
19-12-2003, 09:17
The basic rule is this: if you can do a good job at rping the research and development of a technology, you can use it. Remember though, it takes money, time, and lots and lots of RPing. The more effort you put into your research, the more reseptive the other players will be to your idea.
How far can you take it? As far you want. We got players cruising around in grav-ships and super star destroyers and stuff, for pete's sake.
Roania
19-12-2003, 09:18
Well...

A) In modern tech, I'd just missile it into oblivion.

B) In space tech I'd turn it into scrap metal with my starship planetary bombardment weapons.

C) In fantasy I'd turn it into a frog.

D) And in... that's about it, actually.
Sakkra
19-12-2003, 09:35
Don't forget midieval times. You'd hack at it with an axe, or fire a ballista at it.
19-12-2003, 09:36
The basic rule is this: if you can do a good job at rping the research and development of a technology, you can use it. Remember though, it takes money, time, and lots and lots of RPing. The more effort you put into your research, the more reseptive the other players will be to your idea.
How far can you take it? As far you want. We got players cruising around in grav-ships and super star destroyers and stuff, for pete's sake.

Thanks for the reply. The problem with star destroyers and stuff like that is I think most good RPers will ignore it (at least, from what I've seen no one is deploying stuff like that... I've seen some talk of space ships but many of those could more or less exist today if enough interest and money were poured into it).
19-12-2003, 09:53
Well...

A) In modern tech, I'd just missile it into oblivion.



It's 45 ft. tall, the armor is several feet thick titanium, and due to its lack of speed, I realize not to deploy it in enemy territory except in very special circumstances lest I turn it into a sitting duck. Of course, I would argue that anything fewer than several cruise missiles would have a hard time denting it - but maybe I'm overestimating how indestructible all that titanium would be. Even so, there would be other ways of bringing it down, short of nuking it or depleting your cache of missiles.

In the movie the good guys tripped it with a harpoon cable around the knees, but that would have to be some hella strong cable to not snap what with the strength of this behemoth. Plus, they had to fly around it with a small snowspeeder that has a flight ability that might not be matched IRL (though maybe it could). I'd complement it with all sorts of stuff so people wouldn't be able to just run up to it and climb it or whatever. :)
19-12-2003, 09:56
Don't forget midieval times. You'd hack at it with an axe, or fire a ballista at it.

Heh... Even if you had an axe that could chop through titanium, it would take a while. Plus it'd probably fall on you if you did.

And I doubt a flying rock would scratch it.
Adejaani
19-12-2003, 10:02
United Microstates, I've only got one piece of advice if you're going to go uber tech (aka "the sky's the limit" tech): Make a weakness or two.

Take, for example, my Dreadnoughts. It's designed pretty much with a "Star Wars" type "Superlaser" which can burn an entire continent. But it's not exactly a Godmod/Godmodding weapon because I've deliberately built weaknesses into it. Take for example, that the ship is something like one and a half kilometres long. Not only is the thing going to move like a pregnant elephant, there's also no way I can provide effective shields. Furthermore, the ship is so large I need two power plants, which makes for constant recalibration to control the feed and make sure a sudden surge or power drop offs don't cripple my systems.

And so on and so forth. You have to design weaknesses which can be exploited in your technology so you won't always win. That's my advice.
GMC Military Arms
19-12-2003, 10:27
Err, avoid Star Wars ground vehicles like the plague, especially the AT-AT. Full armament in a limited-traverse mount + no effective anti-personnel armament + ridiculously narrow legs + an apparent turning radius of several miles =/= good.
19-12-2003, 10:31
Yes, I realize this - that's half the fun of it. Depending on the situation, it could be a complete success or a total disaster.
Quippoth
19-12-2003, 11:10
Well...

A) In modern tech, I'd just missile it into oblivion.



It's 45 ft. tall, the armor is several feet thick titanium, and due to its lack of speed, I realize not to deploy it in enemy territory except in very special circumstances lest I turn it into a sitting duck. Of course, I would argue that anything fewer than several cruise missiles would have a hard time denting it - but maybe I'm overestimating how indestructible all that titanium would be. Even so, there would be other ways of bringing it down, short of nuking it or depleting your cache of missiles.

In the movie the good guys tripped it with a harpoon cable around the knees, but that would have to be some hella strong cable to not snap what with the strength of this behemoth. Plus, they had to fly around it with a small snowspeeder that has a flight ability that might not be matched IRL (though maybe it could). I'd complement it with all sorts of stuff so people wouldn't be able to just run up to it and climb it or whatever. :)

Well i'd just kill the pilot inside, simple, easy, and I get to keep the AT-AT after.
Der Angst
19-12-2003, 11:31
Anything is allowed, just make sure that you balance your tech when interacting... (Don`t attack modern tech nations with orbital bombardements, etc.)

Aka, you can have a 500gt yield antimatter bomb for giggle, but using it would result in ignore...
19-12-2003, 13:05
Well i'd just kill the pilot inside, simple, easy, and I get to keep the AT-AT after.

There isn't exactly a red carpet leading inside. :)
Treznor
19-12-2003, 13:38
Any tech is allowable, provided you can RP it well. If all you're interested in is proving that you can kill anybody at any time under any circumstances, then nobody is going to be interested. There are two reasons for this.

If you're interested in wargaming, then nobody will want to play with you because you'll never allow yourself to lose. Nobody wants to play with a spoilsport. If nobody is willing to allow themselves to lose, then all war RP just degenerates into name-calling and flamefests. Which is, curiously, the majority of what I see in war threads around here.

If you're interested in character role-playing, then the technology is really irrelevant. Character role-playing uses technology for a background, not a focus.

Claim whatever tech you like. Someone is going to complain, but that's their problem. So long as you have a well-thought out structure that's balanced for positive and negative consequences, go for it. It's all about the role-playing, after all.
Taka
20-12-2003, 00:27
Any and all tech is allowable, but if you take your ubber tech against modern tech, expect to be ignored. As a hint, make weaknesses that can be found and expoited by modern nations, for example, Takian combat armor has lightly armored joints, meaning that a lucky shot or a well trained sniper can easily take a Takian marine out of duty, while our space ships have a hard, if not impossible time targeting all but the biggest of countries, much less shooting cities from orbit. Though it'll make most starwars fans cringe at the reminder, Ewoks can defeat ATST's and storm troopers, so you are not invulnerable, and roleplay between a past nation and a future nation is not only possible, it also has the potential to be well done, and a fun roleplay for all involved.
Roania
20-12-2003, 03:02
Well...

A) In modern tech, I'd just missile it into oblivion.



It's 45 ft. tall, the armor is several feet thick titanium, and due to its lack of speed, I realize not to deploy it in enemy territory except in very special circumstances lest I turn it into a sitting duck. Of course, I would argue that anything fewer than several cruise missiles would have a hard time denting it - but maybe I'm overestimating how indestructible all that titanium would be. Even so, there would be other ways of bringing it down, short of nuking it or depleting your cache of missiles.

In the movie the good guys tripped it with a harpoon cable around the knees, but that would have to be some hella strong cable to not snap what with the strength of this behemoth. Plus, they had to fly around it with a small snowspeeder that has a flight ability that might not be matched IRL (though maybe it could). I'd complement it with all sorts of stuff so people wouldn't be able to just run up to it and climb it or whatever. :)

When I missile something, I go all out.

Nuclear weapons, HEM rounds, Daisy Cutters...
Kanuckistan
20-12-2003, 03:13
TOW-2 to a leg joint, and your AT-AT ain't going anywhere, except, possibly, down. Alternitivly, snipe the crew through the cockpit windows; no armoured flass is going to stop a .50 cal anti-material sniper rifle.

Walkers are very bad designs.
Clan Smoke Jaguar
20-12-2003, 15:51
Well...

A) In modern tech, I'd just missile it into oblivion.



It's 45 ft. tall, the armor is several feet thick titanium, and due to its lack of speed, I realize not to deploy it in enemy territory except in very special circumstances lest I turn it into a sitting duck. Of course, I would argue that anything fewer than several cruise missiles would have a hard time denting it - but maybe I'm overestimating how indestructible all that titanium would be. Even so, there would be other ways of bringing it down, short of nuking it or depleting your cache of missiles.

In the movie the good guys tripped it with a harpoon cable around the knees, but that would have to be some hella strong cable to not snap what with the strength of this behemoth. Plus, they had to fly around it with a small snowspeeder that has a flight ability that might not be matched IRL (though maybe it could). I'd complement it with all sorts of stuff so people wouldn't be able to just run up to it and climb it or whatever. :)
The armor shouldn't be titanum (too expensive), and you should go for a hardened composit structure instead, and it won't be more than a few inches thick (even the Star Wars one doesn't have 1 ft thick armor). On the other hand, it's actually not that slow. At 60 km/h, the real AT-AT is towards the low end of modern MBTs, most of which have a speed of 60-75 km/h). And if you want a cheap, simple way of taking it out: 16" APC. 'Nuff said.

I could go on, and I actually do have comparison notes somewhere, but believe it or not, a modern-tech army would stand a surprisingly good chance against a Star Wars one. You'd be surprised at how many disadvantages Star Wars tech has when you look at the official specs.
21-12-2003, 07:02
The armor shouldn't be titanum (too expensive), and you should go for a hardened composit structure instead, and it won't be more than a few inches thick (even the Star Wars one doesn't have 1 ft thick armor). On the other hand, it's actually not that slow. At 60 km/h, the real AT-AT is towards the low end of modern MBTs, most of which have a speed of 60-75 km/h). And if you want a cheap, simple way of taking it out: 16" APC. 'Nuff said.

I could go on, and I actually do have comparison notes somewhere, but believe it or not, a modern-tech army would stand a surprisingly good chance against a Star Wars one. You'd be surprised at how many disadvantages Star Wars tech has when you look at the official specs.

The Titanium I get around because the United Microstates was more or less founded as a group of Titanium-mining colonies, so there is plenty of it around for us. The speed I'm slowing down because I think the Star Wars speed would be unattainable if someone were really building something that looked and worked like an AT-AT... I want to stick close to modern technology so I'm trying to bring the AT-AT and other SW stuff 'down to earth' so to speak. 60 mph seems a bit fast IMO, I'm willing to knock it down to 30 mph or so but make up for it by making it, if complemented correctly, nearly indestructable.
21-12-2003, 07:14
as of now for me, I'm just gonna RP in mondern times and hopfully when I do start to RP for realz (working on getting a fairly decent sided military) then I'll find people who RP in mondern times. So just look/msg people to RP in the future, past, whatever.
Sakkra
21-12-2003, 07:15
60 kph and 60 mph are two different animals. I think it's 2.5 km to the mile? I may be wrong.
Sketch
21-12-2003, 07:22
I think a good example of when you would be ignored is this thread here. Peopl keep insisting on how fundamentally flwed your AT-AT idea is, but you keep insisting that its not an issue. Titanium armor, etc, etc, basically not accepting a weakness or disability. You'll find that people will acept just about anything as long as its RP'd well. Either that, or you establish a rep for being a pushover (how else do you think I had fleets of Star Destroyers with no problem?)

Sakkra: 1 mile = 1.6 km, roughly
Carlemnaria
21-12-2003, 13:02
i WAS rather fond of the ewok approach

anything on jointed leggs can be tripped

and the hinges themselves are always points of vulnerability

and while the 'hull' might be invulnerable, the anti-personal weapons and their mountings would not be.

it is also not neccessary to penetrate a hull to homoginize (or induce other effects on) any organic life form within with the right combination of ultrasonics

"... if you go out in the woods tonight you'd better not go alone ..."

wish i knew the words to the ewok's picnic or i'd be quoting them

=^^=
.../\...
21-12-2003, 17:50
Err, avoid Star Wars ground vehicles like the plague, especially the AT-AT. Full armament in a limited-traverse mount + no effective anti-personnel armament + ridiculously narrow legs + an apparent turning radius of several miles =/= good.

Since this is my hobby and expertise:

Full armament in a limited-traverse

180 degrees.

no effective anti-personnel armament

Not needed, and wrong, too.

ridiculously narrow legs

Which doesn't break.

an apparent turning radius of several miles

180 degrees in 12 seconds.

Add 32 Kilotons max firepower, 60 Kph max speed and armor which can withstand tactical nuke level blasts, with the exception of a small area in the neck. It's not shabby considering its a glorified APC.

it is also not neccessary to penetrate a hull to homoginize (or induce other effects on) any organic life form within with the right combination of ultrasonics

I have no clue what you are talking about. Infrasound tend to penetrate objects but are harmless, ultrasound doesn't and isn't.
Of the council of clan
21-12-2003, 18:19
AT-4, Hellfire, TOW-2 to the undercarrige.


i mean a lightsaber cut and a concussion grenade took out one.
21-12-2003, 18:46
AT-4, Hellfire, TOW-2 to the undercarrige.


i mean a lightsaber cut and a concussion grenade took out one.

Yeah, an energy weapon which can cut through anything and an internal explosion is a good estimate that a guided anti-tank missile can do the same.[/sarcasm] It takes proton torpedoes, which is a directed yield nuclear weapon.
22-12-2003, 10:29
I think a good example of when you would be ignored is this thread here. Peopl keep insisting on how fundamentally flwed your AT-AT idea is, but you keep insisting that its not an issue. Titanium armor, etc, etc, basically not accepting a weakness or disability. You'll find that people will acept just about anything as long as its RP'd well. Either that, or you establish a rep for being a pushover (how else do you think I had fleets of Star Destroyers with no problem?)

Sakkra: 1 mile = 1.6 km, roughly

Uh...? I've repeatedly discussed the AT-AT's weaknesses. I know that in a real fight the AT-AT would get its butt kicked and I plan on letting it get its butt kicked if I deploy it but only if I truly think it is getting its butt kicked. If someone Daisy Cutters its legs out or (even cooler...) its head off, fine. But if someone whines that his cruise missile didn't knock a hole in the side of it, tough; just use a better weapon, or tactic, or shut up. The point is that I am -not stupid enough to deploy it in just any given circumstance- and feel that the thing has few uses.
22-12-2003, 10:38
i WAS rather fond of the ewok approach

anything on jointed leggs can be tripped

and the hinges themselves are always points of vulnerability

and while the 'hull' might be invulnerable, the anti-personal weapons and their mountings would not be.

it is also not neccessary to penetrate a hull to homoginize (or induce other effects on) any organic life form within with the right combination of ultrasonics

"... if you go out in the woods tonight you'd better not go alone ..."

All true. I could (and should) add some things for better defense to the troops and crew inside the hull. One is an override of the controls for the commander within the hull if something were to happen to the head or its crew, so that the hull could be lowered and opened and the troops wouldn't be stuck 45 ft. in the air...

And I've never hated the idea of Ewoks kicking the Empire's butt either, really. I just think the fight scenes were so poorly done... 20 guys with guns should NOT be surrendering to an army of furry midgets with sticks, no matter how many they number.

But those logs crushing and tripping the AT-STs was the bomb back in '83...



wish i knew the words to the ewok's picnic or i'd be quoting them

=^^=
.../\...

You mean "nak nak nibby naboo..." or whatever? :)
22-12-2003, 10:56
Since this is my hobby and expertise:

Full armament in a limited-traverse

180 degrees.

no effective anti-personnel armament

Not needed, and wrong, too.

ridiculously narrow legs

Which doesn't break.


Thank you. I feel vindicated. :) Do you know any websites that list this stuff for SW weapons? The official site didn't deal with these.


an apparent turning radius of several miles

180 degrees in 12 seconds.

I think you mean head while he means the entire body, but point taken. There's little reason for something this indestructible to turn and run, and if there were it would probably be too slow to do so anyway.


Add 32 Kilotons max firepower, 60 Kph max speed and armor which can withstand tactical nuke level blasts, with the exception of a small area in the neck. It's not shabby considering its a glorified APC.

As I wrote earlier in the thread, I'm changing from lasers to rockets and machine guns, and slowing the speed down since I think it's unattainable IRL. (Though it would be cool if someone built this and proved me wrong...)

it is also not neccessary to penetrate a hull to homoginize (or induce other effects on) any organic life form within with the right combination of ultrasonics

I have no clue what you are talking about. Infrasound tend to penetrate objects but are harmless, ultrasound doesn't and isn't.

Isn't there some sort of 'microwave' weapon or something that can fritz electronics from the inside out? (What was the bomb they used in Oceans 11?)
22-12-2003, 10:59
AT-4, Hellfire, TOW-2 to the undercarrige.


i mean a lightsaber cut and a concussion grenade took out one.

Yeah, an energy weapon which can cut through anything and an internal explosion is a good estimate that a guided anti-tank missile can do the same.[/sarcasm] It takes proton torpedoes, which is a directed yield nuclear weapon.

So what you're saying is I should forget about selective usage and make this my main weapon? ;)
Quippoth
23-12-2003, 16:33
Well as I said before, anything thats got humans in it has some way in.

The main weakness I can see in the AT-AT is it really can't be used anything but in a battle on your home terrain. They move like snails and really do look too large to be transported on anything unless of course your using stardestroyers, even then, getting them up there would be a problem. Of course this could be put aside by making a second modular version which could be dissassembled and reassembled at its destination.

If your going to make them immune to nuclear blasts then you really can't have titanium armor cause it would turn to slag in that heat, perhaps an incredibly high tech ceramic would work.

If you want some viable ways to make it vulnerable heres some.

1: Helicopter drops, a helicopter drops a crew with cutting equipment and they basically attempt to comandeer the vehicle. Considering you've only got those two main turrets in the front its possible unless you add missile racks or something.

2: An attack directed to the knees with a penetrator sabot. A hypervelocity sabot could punch throught the lesser knee armor.

3: AT AT Traps, huge ditches that are concealed. When an AT AT puts a foot in it falls over because one legs just dropped 40 feet down. If not over it at least gets stuck.

4: Pinpoint attacks to the "eyes" Speaks for itself.

5: Electromagnetic Pulse, unless their shielded all of its electronics will go down the tube.

Well there ya go.
25-12-2003, 15:15
Thank you. I feel vindicated. :) Do you know any websites that list this stuff for SW weapons? The official site didn't deal with these.


Not really. I've gathered this sort of stuff for a long time; you can't really get it unless you go to the source - the movie itself. It's also the highest canon.


180 degrees in 12 seconds.

I think you mean head while he means the entire body, but point taken. There's little reason for something this indestructible to turn and run, and if there were it would probably be too slow to do so anyway.

No, I mean the whole thing. When the AT-AT shoots down a snowspeeder, it moves approximately 15 degrees in less than a second - which if we conservatively assume 1 sec, makes 180 degrees in 12 seconds. The head obviously turns much faster. Was there really anyone that thought the thing can't turn?


As I wrote earlier in the thread, I'm changing from lasers to rockets and machine guns, and slowing the speed down since I think it's unattainable IRL. (Though it would be cool if someone built this and proved me wrong...)

Well, you're right as far as the "laser" firepower goes; we don't have anything that can generate that sort of power in a laser. It's not even theoretically possible with what we know. The closest would be a nuclear-powered x-ray laser.

Isn't there some sort of 'microwave' weapon or something that can fritz electronics from the inside out? (What was the bomb they used in Oceans 11?)

Correct, but this wasn't what he was talking about. It can also be protected against.
25-12-2003, 15:16
AT-4, Hellfire, TOW-2 to the undercarrige.


i mean a lightsaber cut and a concussion grenade took out one.

Yeah, an energy weapon which can cut through anything and an internal explosion is a good estimate that a guided anti-tank missile can do the same.[/sarcasm] It takes proton torpedoes, which is a directed yield nuclear weapon.

So what you're saying is I should forget about selective usage and make this my main weapon? ;)

Nah, that's up to you. Diversity is always best.
25-12-2003, 15:39
Well as I said before, anything thats got humans in it has some way in.

The main weakness I can see in the AT-AT is it really can't be used anything but in a battle on your home terrain. They move like snails and really do look too large to be transported on anything unless of course your using stardestroyers, even then, getting them up there would be a problem. Of course this could be put aside by making a second modular version which could be dissassembled and reassembled at its destination.

If your going to make them immune to nuclear blasts then you really can't have titanium armor cause it would turn to slag in that heat, perhaps an incredibly high tech ceramic would work.

If you want some viable ways to make it vulnerable heres some.

1: Helicopter drops, a helicopter drops a crew with cutting equipment and they basically attempt to comandeer the vehicle. Considering you've only got those two main turrets in the front its possible unless you add missile racks or something.

2: An attack directed to the knees with a penetrator sabot. A hypervelocity sabot could punch throught the lesser knee armor.

3: AT AT Traps, huge ditches that are concealed. When an AT AT puts a foot in it falls over because one legs just dropped 40 feet down. If not over it at least gets stuck.

4: Pinpoint attacks to the "eyes" Speaks for itself.

5: Electromagnetic Pulse, unless their shielded all of its electronics will go down the tube.

Well there ya go.

1. You got any idea how impossible that is? Choppers aren't magical, y'know.

2. You assume a sabot round (conventional?) could penetrate, and that the knee armor is weaker. There's no proof of this, quite the opposite.

3. Yeah, but you have to be bloody fast digging those traps, y'know? Those things move, hmm? Imagine digging traps ahead of moving WWII tanks, that's the same thing. You would have to dig them many miles ahead, and hope they actually go the route you dug holes in..

I think this misconception is from when Luke runs up to one AT-AT, which at that time is only moving about 10 m/s. Its pretty obvious that this isnt top speed when you look at the distance they covered. It's also not the official top speed.

4. "Speaks for itself"? Please point out a sufficiently strong armor-piercing weapon that can hit with 38 cm precision, preferably at very long range. The original weapons has a range of 17.28 Km - as compared with the M1A1, about 4 Km.

5. Ever heard of Faraday's cage? In any case it doesn't matter - the AT-AT has EMP protection. Like the old AT-TE. Check it out if you like.

Now, I'm not saying the AT-AT is perfect or anything. It has obvious flaws, but none of what you guys seem to think it does..
Quippoth
26-12-2003, 02:08
Considering how slow they seemed to be moving, I think you could get a rappel team onto one.

All armor to joints has a weakness simply because of the mobility needed of it. You will never ever have a joint that has the capacity to be as heavily armored as lets say, the side plating of the At-at.

They laid tank traps in WW2. Simply put, bridges, canyons, ect would easily make it hard for the At-At to get around them. Its not as if I'm proposing you have soldiers scurry out 20 feet ahead of one and dig a hole for it. Its very plausible and its been done before.

.50 cal barret anti-materials rifle likely, its not necessary to outrange it, just escape detection. There are many cases where snipers for the simple SWAT teams have shot weapons out of suspects hands from long ranges, a handguns less than 38Cm.

EMP protection huh, does it juice carrots too? Does it have anything it can't do.

Would you like to point out some weaknesses otherwise its abject godmodeing.
Of the council of clan
26-12-2003, 06:42
AT-4, Hellfire, TOW-2 to the undercarrige.


i mean a lightsaber cut and a concussion grenade took out one.

Yeah, an energy weapon which can cut through anything and an internal explosion is a good estimate that a guided anti-tank missile can do the same.[/sarcasm] It takes proton torpedoes, which is a directed yield nuclear weapon.

maybe with the advanced star wars armor yes, but this guy is only talking about titanium plating. I think any of those anti-tank weapons would do. and yes if they penetrate they cause an INTERNAL explosion. thats how Anit-tank weapons work.
27-12-2003, 11:00
Considering how slow they seemed to be moving, I think you could get a rappel team onto one.

Covered the speed part already.

All armor to joints has a weakness simply because of the mobility needed of it. You will never ever have a joint that has the capacity to be as heavily armored as lets say, the side plating of the At-at.

Correct - but you see, we can see no weakness in the knee joint. The AT-AT that falls over, for example, doesn't compress the slightest under its own weight. We don't have anything like that today.

They laid tank traps in WW2. Simply put, bridges, canyons, ect would easily make it hard for the At-At to get around them. Its not as if I'm proposing you have soldiers scurry out 20 feet ahead of one and dig a hole for it. Its very plausible and its been done before.

I know those tank traps. While I agree that natural obstructions would be a problem, any AT-AT traps would have to be on an entirely different scale and easily visible.

.50 cal barret anti-materials rifle likely, its not necessary to outrange it, just escape detection. There are many cases where snipers for the simple SWAT teams have shot weapons out of suspects hands from long ranges, a handguns less than 38Cm.

As long as we're talking titanium and such materials..

EMP protection huh, does it juice carrots too? Does it have anything it can't do.

Would you like to point out some weaknesses otherwise its abject godmodeing.

Certainly. That's up next:

1. No weapons top, belly, sides and rear.

This isn't much of a flaw actually. Combined arms tactics negates it. Without dedicated AA support or air cover, it would be good to add a top-mounted AA missile rack, but that's about it.

2. Large visual profile.

This is again not a design flaw because it was intended - but with real world materials, this is a Very Bad Thing (tm). All mechs share this problem. Titanium armor can and will be penetrated by anti-tank rounds from for example tanks, which maintains a low profile in comparison, while they could easily hit the AT-AT at maximum range in return.

3. Flat sides.

Again, a Very Bad Thing (tm). A lot of armor strenght comes from the fact that tank armor is angular, while it doesn't take as much to kill a tank from above. Without neigh-invulnerable armor, this is BAD.

4. Obstructions.

Modern tanks float. AT-ATs don't. Shallow waters can be waded across, but try passing over a frozen lake without sinking.


I would suggest increasing armor a lot to negate the problems above. If you use armor that can be more or less easily defeated by modern AT rounds, it's a death trap. It should also be remembered that this is an APC; it needs combined arms support to be effective.
GMC Military Arms
27-12-2003, 11:09
<snipped TM wankstats>

Err, basing this on AT-AT performance on Hoth, not the technical manual. No AT-AT on Hoth turns it's head anything like 90 degrees to either side even when tracking speeders, no AT-AT on Hoth uses anything but it's primary head armament against infantry despite Luke attacking one directly from the ground, and the one the shoots the shield generator takes a ridiculously ponderous [if *very* cool-looking] step to the side beforehand.

Anyone can wank up some cool-sounding stats afterwards, but in combat they kinda show themselves up as, err, giant mechanical donkeys.
Western Asia
27-12-2003, 11:43
Just a note: there are RL laser weapons.

A large chemical laser weapon (w/support the size of a large military building/warehouse and a focusing/targeting array the size of a very large observatory building) has (reportedly) been powerful enough to knock old US sats out of LEO.

A smaller version, known as Nautilus or THEL, has proven the capability of intercepting and destroying Katyushka rockets (fired singly or in salvos) as well as artillery shells. The size of the prototype unit is ~5-6 standard shipping containers...the expected size of the deployed unit is about 1 standard shipping container (able to fit on a large military transport vehicle) and a smaller version (shorter range) is supposed to be about the size of an M270 (MLRS) unit. For SRBMs, cruise missiles, rockets, artillery and other indirect-tactical fire weapons.

Another small version has been fitted into a 747 body and is known as the ABL (AirBorne Laser)...with a range of ~300km horizontal. This is meant to take out ICBMs/IRBMs/SRBMs.

Lasers are alive and well in modern warfare development.

As for the walkers, any ATGM would take out the legs or the 'head' and thus kill the entire unit. Shorten the height to about 8-10m, meld the head into the body (or put it on a more secured mount), and add missile launcher boxes to the top or sides and you have something that is really large, yet possibly practical and maintains a lot of movement ability over rough terrain. Also, make it wider...and figure out how you'll even fit these things onto transport vessels when they have a hard enough time with a 70 ton Abrams, let alone a 100+ ton monster like this.
Moontian
27-12-2003, 12:10
you can have a 500gt yield antimatter bomb

However, there is a slight problem with that. So much anti-matter would require a lot of matter to make the bomb go down towards the ground. Anti-matter has NEGATIVE mass, which makes it go UP instead of DOWN.
27-12-2003, 13:29
<snipped TM wankstats>

Err, basing this on AT-AT performance on Hoth, not the technical manual. No AT-AT on Hoth turns it's head anything like 90 degrees to either side even when tracking speeders, no AT-AT on Hoth uses anything but it's primary head armament against infantry despite Luke attacking one directly from the ground, and the one the shoots the shield generator takes a ridiculously ponderous [if *very* cool-looking] step to the side beforehand.

Anyone can wank up some cool-sounding stats afterwards, but in combat they kinda show themselves up as, err, giant mechanical donkeys.

Never owned or read a TM. If you had read my posts, you would notice I BASED IT ON DIRECT OBSERVATION. Official data is just to fill in blanks, NOT override the movie - can't ever do that.
27-12-2003, 13:31
you can have a 500gt yield antimatter bomb

However, there is a slight problem with that. So much anti-matter would require a lot of matter to make the bomb go down towards the ground. Anti-matter has NEGATIVE mass, which makes it go UP instead of DOWN.

Antimatter does NOT have negative mass. It has OPPOSITE CHARGE.
Western Asia
27-12-2003, 20:52
you can have a 500gt yield antimatter bomb

However, there is a slight problem with that. So much anti-matter would require a lot of matter to make the bomb go down towards the ground. Anti-matter has NEGATIVE mass, which makes it go UP instead of DOWN.

Antimatter does NOT have negative mass. It has OPPOSITE CHARGE.

Agreed. Antimatter, except for (theoretically) "anti-gravitons," would be affected similarly within gravity fields. If you had (somehow) an anti-planet then the gravity of that planet (if it were somehow endowed with theoretical anti-gravitons (gravitons are still very theoretical)) would have a repulsive force similar to electromagnetic similar-charge forces.
27-12-2003, 21:41
In RP terms, my nation is still in the process of designing these things (I won't introduce them for a while, since it's costing a lot of money and my country is still fairly small). So to everyone posting their points and counter-points, etc., thanks.

Yes, it will be made from out nation's largest resource, Titanium. I'm sure this alone brings many problems with it, but Titanium is usually viewed as being a 'space age metal' and is supposed to be one of (or the?) toughest metals. I'm sure whatever metal in the SW universe AT-ATs are made from is going to be stronger than anything currently known IRL, so I'm making the armor much thicker, maybe a couple of feet thick (unless anyone has any objections to the possibility or practicality of this). I'll probably add top-mounted anti-air weapons to the top front edge of the body, or perhaps a row of them down the middle of the body's top. The speed will be brought down to 40-50 mph (which *I* thinks seems very fast for something this size to move IRL, but the legs have long reach and it has to be considered that there will be many situations where the AT-AT won't be moving at that top speed for various reasons) and the body turning completely around in 15 seconds doesn't seem attainable IRL. More later...
Holy panooly
27-12-2003, 21:43
Make some modern and futuristic stuff, but no starfighters... It works if you keep to the laws of nature and physics
27-12-2003, 21:46
I'd use plasma or phasers because lasers are to weak. just a beam of light. Tehy might be powerful, but matter tends to be more powerful then this laser crap-plasma is so much better
Clan Smoke Jaguar
28-12-2003, 01:47
In RP terms, my nation is still in the process of designing these things (I won't introduce them for a while, since it's costing a lot of money and my country is still fairly small). So to everyone posting their points and counter-points, etc., thanks.

Yes, it will be made from out nation's largest resource, Titanium. I'm sure this alone brings many problems with it, but Titanium is usually viewed as being a 'space age metal' and is supposed to be one of (or the?) toughest metals. I'm sure whatever metal in the SW universe AT-ATs are made from is going to be stronger than anything currently known IRL, so I'm making the armor much thicker, maybe a couple of feet thick (unless anyone has any objections to the possibility or practicality of this). I'll probably add top-mounted anti-air weapons to the top front edge of the body, or perhaps a row of them down the middle of the body's top. The speed will be brought down to 40-50 mph (which *I* thinks seems very fast for something this size to move IRL, but the legs have long reach and it has to be considered that there will be many situations where the AT-AT won't be moving at that top speed for various reasons) and the body turning completely around in 15 seconds doesn't seem attainable IRL. More later...
It's already been stated that it's completely impossible to have armor several feet thick, of any kind, especially on the legs and neck. Not even battleships have armor two feet thick, so you can drop that idea right there. 2 feet of armor protection (not two feet of actual armor) would be pushing it to the extreme, and the thing is that, even with titanium, this will be very vulnerable to tank fire. You also have two very, very important things to consider: weight and bulk. Too much armor and you won't be able to provide working legs capable of holding it up, and if the armor is too thick, it will interfere with other mechanisms. Also, titanium is actually very malleable, much like gold and silver. It's only when it is used as part of certain alloys that it becomes strong, so you'll still have to be importing some significant amounts of other metals just to use it as the standard component. Composites would be cheaper.
Also remember that heavy armor cannot protect everything. There will always be vulnerable positions like the joints, hatches, and viewports, as well as a number of other areas. It's these weak points in the armor that allows for things like a Bradley's 25mm cannon to take out a T-72 (still, it's a lucky shot, but this thing's going to have some pretty big weak points, so such shots wouldn't be uncommon).

Finally. quit confusing miles and kilometers. This just doesn't seem to be sinking in. 1 mile is equal to 1.6093 kilometers. The listed speed of 60 kilometers per hour is only 37.284 miles per hour. This could maybe go 48 kilometers per hour, but that's only 30 miles per hour.
Omz222
28-12-2003, 01:54
The Titanium I get around because the United Microstates was more or less founded as a group of Titanium-mining colonies, so there is plenty of it around for us.

Still, much of the cost of titanium comes from processing it. Since titanium is almost never found pure (and almost never found mixed with others in large amounts), it would be very expensive to process titanium into pure form. And with that, you'll still have to make it into alloys or other compound metals.

The amount of rocks/etc. containing titanium does not matter (even iron ore, for example, is a source of titanium -- although not necessarily a best choice to get pure titanium from), it matters at the process of turning it to an useable form. No matter how much "stuff" with titanium you can mine, that doesn't stop you from processing it. Surely, there will be more efficent ways to process titanium, but it will still be expensive.
Foe Hammer
28-12-2003, 02:07
You can go as far from modern technology as you want in this game. For example, I'm a militant nation with a massive Armada of space vessels (About 904). I have over a hundred 9km long Capitol Ships, a few hundred 1km long Destroyers, Cruisers and Research Ships, hundreds of thousands of Space fighters, a medium-sized water navy, my own Star System with numerous shipyards, etc.

Or, if you want to take a step back, you could be a past nation, like post WWII, American civil war, etc. Even a medival Fiefdom is fine.

If you want to be a massive, powerful Space-based nation, I can help you build up a fleet and move you into space.
Moontian
28-12-2003, 07:23
you can have a 500gt yield antimatter bomb

However, there is a slight problem with that. So much anti-matter would require a lot of matter to make the bomb go down towards the ground. Anti-matter has NEGATIVE mass, which makes it go UP instead of DOWN.

Antimatter does NOT have negative mass. It has OPPOSITE CHARGE.

Agreed. Antimatter, except for (theoretically) "anti-gravitons," would be affected similarly within gravity fields. If you had (somehow) an anti-planet then the gravity of that planet (if it were somehow endowed with theoretical anti-gravitons (gravitons are still very theoretical)) would have a repulsive force similar to electromagnetic similar-charge forces.

I was meaning complete anti-atoms, including anti-gravitons.
GMC Military Arms
28-12-2003, 08:32
Never owned or read a TM. If you had read my posts, you would notice I BASED IT ON DIRECT OBSERVATION. Official data is just to fill in blanks, NOT override the movie - can't ever do that.

'Direct observation' of precise kiloton yields, head traverse twice anything that happens in the films, nonexistant AP weapons and turn circles on AT-ATs walking in a straight line?

The Hoth scene, while cool, is one of the most preposterously contrived in the whole trilogy, and an AT-AT, while, again, cool, could easily be split down into four tracked APCs and an artillery battery which would present a more dispersed target and also have fewer issues with ground pressure. It's a waste of material.
Norahc
28-12-2003, 08:44
I'd use plasma or phasers because lasers are to weak. just a beam of light. Tehy might be powerful, but matter tends to be more powerful then this laser crap-plasma is so much better

In my experience plasma weapons have a tendency to overheat and subsequently kill the bearer. If you have a solution to overheating plasma I would like to buy the solution off you for $20 million.
Santa Barbara
28-12-2003, 08:54
Star Wars=wank

Plasma weapons = wank

Hundreds of thousands of fighters (space or otherwise) = wank

Now then, I would like to insert here that I do use titanium alloys extensively in almost everything worth armoring, but they do cost quite a bit. Neighborhood of $110,000 per metric ton, alloyed with aluminum. (More for more exotic alloys. Much more.)
Western Asia
28-12-2003, 11:02
I was meaning complete anti-atoms, including anti-gravitons.

Anti-gravitons are anti-gravitons...anti-atoms will experience normal gravity under the (theoretical/possible) influence of the so-called gravitons under all normal conditions. Graviton theory holds that the gravitic field is essentially the reflection of a reality where each particle collects a certain number of gravitons, which provide it with mass...each type of particle tends to have a certain number of gravitons. The gravitons are part of the surroundings, not a part of any particle or atom.
07-01-2004, 20:48
'Direct observation' of precise kiloton yields

Yes. We know the distance to the fireball when the shield generator blows up (17.28, and we know the unit - km); hence we can calculate the yield with E = (4p/3)r³p/(y-1) = (p/6)D³p/(y-1). You think I'm inventing stuff, outright lying?

Head traverse twice anything that happens in the films

When was it ever needed? There's nothing to stop the head from goin 90 degrees either direction; you show me it can't be done, and you have a case.

nonexistant AP weapons and turn circles on AT-ATs walking in a straight line?

What "nonexistant AP" are you talking about? Of course they aren't dancing around; their orders was to destroy the shield generator, pronto, or a very angry Sith Lord is waiting for you. That means going from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss.

The Hoth scene, while cool, is one of the most preposterously contrived in the whole trilogy,

I think you just don't really understand the scene.

and an AT-AT, while, again, cool, could easily be split down into four tracked APCs and an artillery battery which would present a more dispersed target and also have fewer issues with ground pressure. It's a waste of material.

It might surprise you, but I agree completely. However, waste of material was never a concern for the Empire. The AT-AT was built with the same intention as the Death Stars, the Star Destroyers, or the Executor. Overkill.
07-01-2004, 21:22
Never owned or read a TM. If you had read my posts, you would notice I BASED IT ON DIRECT OBSERVATION. Official data is just to fill in blanks, NOT override the movie - can't ever do that.

'Direct observation' of precise kiloton yields, head traverse twice anything that happens in the films, nonexistant AP weapons and turn circles on AT-ATs walking in a straight line?

The Hoth scene, while cool, is one of the most preposterously contrived in the whole trilogy, and an AT-AT, while, again, cool, could easily be split down into four tracked APCs and an artillery battery which would present a more dispersed target and also have fewer issues with ground pressure. It's a waste of material.

Too true.
When calculating expense, also look at the power plant. Also note that the advanced control systems necessary to operate a walker on a battlefield do not exist, and, if your system makes any small mistake it could easily bring the whole thing crashing down. Being so tall, AT-AT's automatically lose the element of suprise and could never hope for cover from an aerial attack.
P.S. Depleted uranium, currently used in American tank rounds, can penetrate titanium.
P.P.S. Think of the astronomical maitenence costs, every single joint has a massive amount of titanium bearing down on it almost constantly, and if one fails... This idea just isn't practical militarily, it has no firepower advantage and significant defense disadvantages over the hundreds of tread vehicles you could make if you weren't wasting so much money on research and development, not to mention production costs.
P.P.P.S. Even if you did make it invincible a la Star Wars, what's to prevent a large explosion hitting it in the side from knocking it over?
07-01-2004, 21:27
It might surprise you, but I agree completely. However, waste of material was never a concern for the Empire. The AT-AT was built with the same intention as the Death Stars, the Star Destroyers, or the Executor. Overkill.

The AT-AT is not overkill, it is a waste of resources that could be more effectivly used to achieve greater overkill.
GMC Military Arms
08-01-2004, 08:49
Yes. We know the distance to the fireball when the shield generator blows up (17.28, and we know the unit - km); hence we can calculate the yield with E = (4p/3)r³p/(y-1) = (p/6)D³p/(y-1). You think I'm inventing stuff, outright lying?

Sure, if we assume the explosion came from the AT-AT's shot and wasn't an internal explosion from the shield generator itself. Care to explain why shots from AT-ATs weren't vapourising everything else they hit?

When was it ever needed? There's nothing to stop the head from goin 90 degrees either direction; you show me it can't be done, and you have a case.

, Shane Johnson]...The pilot and co-pilot can swing the "head" in arcs of 60 degrees (vertically) and 90 degrees (horizontally)...

That'd be my case.

What "nonexistant AP" are you talking about? Of course they aren't dancing around; their orders was to destroy the shield generator, pronto, or a very angry Sith Lord is waiting for you. That means going from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss.

Luke walks under AT-AT. AT-AT completely fails to notice or engage Luke. QED, either the AT-AT's crew are morons or the AT-AT has no antipersonnel armament.

And in terms of turn circles, in the films the AT-ATs on Hoth have to walk in a straight line. On Endor, an AT-AT is briefly seen, again walking in a straight line. The step to the side the AT-AT takes in the Hoth scene is the only time in the entire trilogy an AT-AT turns at all.

I think you just don't really understand the scene.

I understand that the Rebel base, a huge facility apparently built and operated in complete secrecy, conveniently has a shield generator that stops the Imperial fleet ortillerying the hell out of it, conveniantly has a completely flat approach wide enough for an entire squadron of AT-ATs which even more conveniently leads to a point with an excellent view of the shield generator, conveniently has a squadron of snowspeeders which have harpoons with cables the AT-ATs can't just snap by moving for absolutely no definable reason, and conveniently has an ion cannon which can stop the Star Destroyers in orbit from intercepting the rebel transports and which the Imperial Fleet utterly failed to notice or do anything about.

And the Imperial fleet decided the AT-ATs didn't need air cover.

What's your definition of 'contrived,' exactly?
Western Asia
08-01-2004, 10:35
When was it ever needed? There's nothing to stop the head from goin 90 degrees either direction; you show me it can't be done, and you have a case.

, Shane Johnson]...The pilot and co-pilot can swing the "head" in arcs of 60 degrees (vertically) and 90 degrees (horizontally)...
That'd be my case.

Miscommunication noticed: lack of common definition of terms.
Amending.

An arc of 60 degrees along the y-axis means +/- 30° from level...an arc of 90 degrees along the x-axis means +/- 45° from the center.

This is actually a fairly large movement for such a large object, but I must caution that it is still just about jack for a unit that lacks AP weaponry on a serious scale or other abilities to defend itself. I have a micromachines model AT-AT sitting in my room right now (my cousins removed it from its home in the basement two days ago) and it looks like a newborn horse...all of the proportions are wrong, it's just about ready to keel over at any second, and (unlike a young horse) the only weaponry is in the head...why? Didn't the Millennium Falcon have those two powerful, small turrets? Couldn't turrets be on the side of the main body?

Simple changes:

- Add SAM-launch boxes to the top of the unit.
This will give it independant SHORAD coverage (perhaps out to Medium Range, depending on the system used) and it will also protect troops.

- Include Hellfire-like missiles on boxes along the sides
As nice as the laser-blasts were, they can't really get to the same effect as a nice missile flying in and taking out armored units, reinforced structures, enemy heavy weapons emplacements, or other systems...from many km farther out than most other weapons. This will protect the units from many ground targets and allow a slight lightening of the armoring. Hellfires are fairly small and could theoretically be placed on a rotating mount system (I've done this on a few NS systems) so that special missiles can be 'ordered up' for different target types. The height of the unit (even half of its current height) would allow it to spot enemy targets and fire from distant ranges.

- Add small caliber guns/lasers/lazers/etc. under the main body.
It's simple to have a gunner or two tasked to small arms for ground-attack. The truth is that the AT-ATs have to be vulnerable to ground fire with the uberarmoring that they have...IRL, there would be at least a few LMG/MMG mounts for attacking smaller (personnel) targets...since there was a very poorly diversified force deployed to Hoth (for modern day equivalent, imagine the US army sending out Abrams MBTs and lightly-armed APCs, but no APCs with larger (anti-vehicle/armor) weapons like the Bradley).

Such weapons are relatively cheap, and well worth it for something that must approach a couple billion dollars in price. A secondary role could be engaging the Snowspeeders that are buzzing around the AT-ATs like flies around a horse...AAA never really died anyways.

- Cut the length of the legs by at least half.

There is some tactical advantage to being able to move across rough terrain using legs over using tracked or wheeled vehicles, but the advantage only lasts so long as the benefit doesn't endanger the unit otherwise (by, say, making it a huge target that can be easily trapped). By cutting the length of the legs (perhaps the scale of the entire unit), mobility might be enhanced (lighter unit, less weight to move) but the definite improvement will come in making it difficult for wrap-around maneuvers to take place as the pilots would have to fly much closer to the ground to have the full effect (and your light weapons could have an easier shot there, as the Snowspeeders or other aircraft/vehicles have less maneuverability close to the ground).

-Add wire-cutters (basically a sharp strip of metal) along the front and back of each pair of legs

They're common in certain trucks, APCs, and in well-equipped helicopters. In WWI there was a nasty happenstance of hanging wire across a road at about head-height for truck-borne troops (most was unintentional, such as friendly telegraph and phone lines)...when the soldiers came through, the wire would catch the ones who had their heads exposed...either knocking them out of the truck (killing or seriously injuring them) or simply beheading them (Mention is made in "All Quiet on the Western Front")...the possibility of enemy forces using this (or, for helicopters, of hitting unseen power and telephone lines in urban environments) was dealt with by adding sharp strips of metal to the superstructure that would displace or cut the wires. They should be able to cut any entangling devices.

I've seen a number of 'walker'-type SW units that are much better designed than the AT-AT (for instance, some of the units deployed in Pt. II, which both have leg-advantages and a relatively squat structure for protection from enemy fire)...I think you could make one.


What "nonexistant AP" are you talking about? Of course they aren't dancing around; their orders was to destroy the shield generator, pronto, or a very angry Sith Lord is waiting for you. That means going from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss.

Luke walks under AT-AT. AT-AT completely fails to notice or engage Luke. QED, either the AT-AT's crew are morons or the AT-AT has no antipersonnel armament.

I have to agree with GMC here, there is a pointed lack of AP abilities in the AT-AT design. I've covered some of this above, but I'll expand upon it here.

If your orders are to destroy the generator then the best option is to move quickly, but without loosing your strike force to ground fire. The AT-AT's secondary weapons seem just barely capable of engaging fairly large aircraft or large ground weapon emplacements (save some scattered ground fire/bombardment action against bunkers and enemy trenches). Shooting down the enemy aircraft and wiping out the ground forces nearby could certainly make the job a helluva lot easier.


But there is one more practical point about the AT-ATs...they're supposed to be personnel carriers, but how the hell do the personnel get quickly and safely to the surface? Does the AT-AT kneel down (like a trick horse, an easy target)? Or is there supposedly an elevator system that reaches that whole length? I've read that they supposedly fast-rope or rope-glide down to the targets, but that hardly sounds reasonable for normal operations.
GMC Military Arms
08-01-2004, 13:48
Does the AT-AT kneel down (like a trick horse, an easy target)?

, Shane Johnson]AT-AT walkers load and drop the troops they carry by "kneeling" to allow the use of a ramp in the main body.
Western Asia
09-01-2004, 03:28
Ok...so it kneels down to disgorge its infantry, bringing itself close to the ground and limiting its weapons' abilities to virtually nil.

A shorter unit could have the men 'fast-rope' down much like a blackhawk would...it would be fairly rapid and training required would be minimal. I guess you just try to unload troops when you're not yet on the battlefield to protect the unit from enemy fire...which defeats the point of an armored personnel carrier anyways.
09-01-2004, 05:18
Ok...so it kneels down to disgorge its infantry, bringing itself close to the ground and limiting its weapons' abilities to virtually nil.

A shorter unit could have the men 'fast-rope' down much like a blackhawk would...it would be fairly rapid and training required would be minimal. I guess you just try to unload troops when you're not yet on the battlefield to protect the unit from enemy fire...which defeats the point of an armored personnel carrier anyways.

Because fast-roping takes very little training?
Derieties
09-01-2004, 05:47
Never owned or read a TM. If you had read my posts, you would notice I BASED IT ON DIRECT OBSERVATION. Official data is just to fill in blanks, NOT override the movie - can't ever do that.


Actually, the official data is more accurate than the movies, and this is why.

firstly, take into account that in movies you only see the good stuff, never the bad. secondly, there is a little something know as 'movie magic' in which hollywood fudges what could actually happen given the specs of a machine in order to create a better movie.
Western Asia
09-01-2004, 19:29
Ok...so it kneels down to disgorge its infantry, bringing itself close to the ground and limiting its weapons' abilities to virtually nil.

A shorter unit could have the men 'fast-rope' down much like a blackhawk would...it would be fairly rapid and training required would be minimal. I guess you just try to unload troops when you're not yet on the battlefield to protect the unit from enemy fire...which defeats the point of an armored personnel carrier anyways.

Because fast-roping takes very little training?

It certainly takes a fair bit of training, but since the storm troopers that tend to be sent in are basically the equivalent of paratroopers (arctic special warfare soldiers) then it should be well-within their training abilities. And fast-roping from a 20 foot walking unit would be both safer and easier than doing the same from a helicopter hovering at 20ft.

As far as the training of the crack storm trooper forces, they might just use a system similar to the one that Mr. Skywalker uses to lift himself up to the unit...only in reverse. Clip, jump, and glide to the ground...with the unit slowing you about 10ft before you hit so the impact on the ground is less than that of landing with a parachute. It would still take only a few seconds and would be safe for both men and carrier. A low-tech version is just a carabiner with a climbing belt...one hand to control the slip rate and you have the same effect. A bit safer than fast-roping but it takes a little time to unhook oneself from the line.