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.Lucky wrote:LOL You think big anti-capitalship guns on the coast are useless even though they were used.
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.They are heavy artillery, and that means big, heavy, long range, and deployed far behind the lines.
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.Artillery is slow, and ripe targets for air strikes and armed infantry in the real world.
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.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.
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.
Yes it is.A Bradly IFV is meant to carry troops
The AT-ST is comparativly armored as is.and has actual armor
Bushmaster vs blasters the AT-ST has heavier weaponry.weapons
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.and sensors
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.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:
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.
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.A speeder should have a mass similar to the logs, and have the advantage of being powered.
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.
What's so horrible about it?An AT-ST has a horrible firing arc
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 I doubt the effectiveness of anti-infantry weapons on even unaromored vehicles.
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.And JMS did a horrible job at defending something that is easier to destroy then a pickup truck.
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.