An Impossible Challenge?

VS debates involving other fictional universes than Star Trek or Star Wars go here, along with technical analysis, detailed discussion, crossover scenario descriptions, and similar related stuffs.
sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: An Impossible Challenge?

Post by sonofccn » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:23 am

Lucky wrote:LOL You think big anti-capitalship guns on the coast are useless even though they were used.
I have said nothing of fixed coastal emplacements. We are speaking of the SPHAT which is a field deployed war weapon. In addition I have nothing against a niche weapon focused against starships, should it be practically designed, in general however in Star Wars due to the limited number of times we see starships actually particpating in a battle it is far more practical to give the job to a squadron of X-wings which are more flexible in their use than specilized wargear.
They are heavy artillery, and that means big, heavy, long range, and deployed far behind the lines.
The SPHATs? That variant employs a line of sight beam weapon and are deployed on the front lines as we saw in AOTCs. With a gun that can't move at all according to the wiki saying it has to turn its entire body to shoot at a target making it sound like the Star Wars equivilent of the German assault guns like the STUG III except dedicated against air targets instead of fixed fortifications and it has a gun set at what appears to be about 30 degrees instead of you know straight ahead. Which means the SPHAT can only be used against enemy ships who are directly ahead of it and who consideratly are thirty odd degrees above in relation to it. I consider that a crippling design flaw.
Artillery is slow, and ripe targets for air strikes and armed infantry in the real world.
Big artillery, the kind which is slow and ripe targets, tend to be placed behind the front lines and have a long reach. As we saw in AOTCs the SPHATs were deployed in support of the AT-TE. Its role its supposed to fill appears closer to being this a type of self-propelled gun than big bertha. It's just really bad at its job.
Take a look at all the exposed wires, motors, and stuff that scream shoot me, and this is when you are standing nearly level with the cab.
Okay. However Here is a picture from the one deployed to Endor and I just see like two or possible three black tubulars and what appears to be gears with metal skirts protecting them. And it goes even further with this one taken from the EU where its all metal with nothing exposed.

In addition its a relativly easy patch up job to fix "after market" so to speak. Just weld some plate of steel over it if it comes down to it. Not to downplay an actual defect of course, I've never claimed the AT-ST was a brilliantly designed piece of hardware, merely am failing to see it as a crippling bad defect which renders it the worst design ever in the multi-verse.
A Bradly IFV is meant to carry troops
Yes it is.
and has actual armor
The AT-ST is comparativly armored as is.
weapons
Bushmaster vs blasters the AT-ST has heavier weaponry.
and sensors
Well I don't know what sensors if any an AT-ST posses so I don't know how it stacks up in that department.
I'm sure that if you removed the armor, room for cargo, and replaced the weapons with couple of AA-12, a Bradly could be made just as small if not smaller like this:
1. Your creation would no longer be the M2 Bradly fighting vehicle in any meaningful way and could not perform its duty of supporting infantry.
2. I fail to see what any of it has to do with my point. That the AT-ST is not a particuarly large target, that is is smaller than a comparative vehicle which isn't insta killed.

As to your videos if I'm understanding what you are arguing yes you could build something smaller than an AT-ST. Now if you wish to compare performance between the AT-ST and these vehicles that might be interesting but goes beyond the scope of the OP you selected.
A speeder should have a mass similar to the logs, and have the advantage of being powered.
It would depend slightly on the speeder in question they appear to come in a diverse range, and say Luke's speeder appears to have a very fat wide "point" which would help distrubute the impact, but yes a speeder should be capable of taking out an AT-ST.

However you have to hide this roughly car sized contraption in wait for my walker and any supporting infantry I have, rev up and "take off" without being shot by aformentioned infantry or the AT-ST, banking that if you succeed the walker won't just step aside at the last minute and then if succesful you've just waxed yourself a pilot. Again you'd be better off just breaking out a case of PLX-1 missile launchers and be done with it.
An AT-ST has a horrible firing arc
What's so horrible about it?
and I doubt the effectiveness of anti-infantry weapons on even unaromored vehicles.
An AT-ST essentially throws downwind megajoule blasts in rapid fire mode, making it a faster firing Sherman tank in that regard IIRC, give it a chance and it could kill an MBT. Unarmored civvie vehicles will not stand up to that.
And JMS did a horrible job at defending something that is easier to destroy then a pickup truck.
Okay looking at your links the truck smacked a tree off to the side, instead of head on, had a fairly wide trailer house dropped on the roof of its cab, had a wrecking ball smack its bumper in the direction it was designed to move, as opposed to dropping the weight directly ontop of the engine block which would have killed the bloody thing, and through its sputtering to life after riding a building down was impressive the vehicle was far from remotely drivable or useable by that point.

As well they soaked it in ocean water and set it on fire but we have no comparable examples of the AT-ST to draw conclusions from.

Comparativly had one swung a nine ton cylindrical projectile about a meter in diameter at the truck's cabin it would have punched through and killed anyone unlucky enough to be within it.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: An Impossible Challenge?

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:01 am

mojo wrote:someone want to explain why my post was deleted?
No one, not even a mod can delete your post, except you or an Admin. I think your post wound up in the wrong thread as it was in the "Brave Delta Zero" thread for some strange reason, and so not knowing it was intended for this thread, I moved it to the Trek/Wars forum as it's own thread.
-Mike

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: An Impossible Challenge?

Post by mojo » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:38 am

that's a weird glitch.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: An Impossible Challenge?

Post by mojo » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:57 pm

well, this dumbass thing has got my vote. it has all the problems of the other at series vehicles, and the goddamn pilots are completely exposed.

Image

you ever notice how many open-air combat vehicles there are? every time i watch a war movie, i'm always like, 'man, why do they make so many tanks with convertible tops?'
i know it's only a lego set, and i don't watch the clone wars cartoons so i don't know if it's actually in the cartoon. i hope it isn't. but the fact that someone thought this was a good enough idea to actually make it a toy hurts my head so bad.
i would think one of the first questions you would ask when designing a war vehicle would be, 'can the pilot be shot directly in the head while driving this thing,' and if the answer is 'yeah', then maybe go back to the drawing board. for christ's sake, there's not even a windshield to keep bugs off his helmet!

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: An Impossible Challenge?

Post by Lucky » Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:38 am

mojo wrote:well, this dumbass thing has got my vote. it has all the problems of the other at series vehicles, and the goddamn pilots are completely exposed.

Image

you ever notice how many open-air combat vehicles there are? every time i watch a war movie, i'm always like, 'man, why do they make so many tanks with convertible tops?'
i know it's only a lego set, and i don't watch the clone wars cartoons so i don't know if it's actually in the cartoon. i hope it isn't. but the fact that someone thought this was a good enough idea to actually make it a toy hurts my head so bad.
i would think one of the first questions you would ask when designing a war vehicle would be, 'can the pilot be shot directly in the head while driving this thing,' and if the answer is 'yeah', then maybe go back to the drawing board. for christ's sake, there's not even a windshield to keep bugs off his helmet!
It's like riding horseback, or on a motorcycle, and people do ride into combat in Star Wars on animals. One could ask why legs, but it works in canon as well as it's composition.
_____
I believe i have found a worse design: The Leo from Gundam Wing. I'm pretty sure they blowup just because one near it blows up a few time.

Post Reply