Starfleet Jedi

FInd a worse vehicle design then an AT-ST.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/All_Terr ... _Transport

The design must not have been purposely designed to be bad in or out of universe.

You said it.

Mission impossibile.

I'd nominate the SPHAT big, slow with a limited traverse line of sight cannon. And this thing was the inital heavy artillery for the GAR.

As for the AT-ST check this old discussion for a sci-fi war vehicle it isn't that bad. Its an ungainly Infantry fighting vehicle with a very high profile. You could do a lot worse.

First, AT-ST is not IFV. IFV carries infantry into battle and provides support. ATST only does the latter thing.

Second, only thing where I can imagine it being useful is in urban warfare against poorly-armed militias, on mostly flat terrain (it could handle maybe 30-degree slope, but if it gets on it, throw a puding at it and it will turn over and die). It is too unstable, and its positioning of cannons (on chin) means that it cannot fire effectively over any obstacles higher than 3.5, maybe 4 meters. Given that walker itself is around 7-and-half meters tall, it means that, in an urban terrain with many (relatively) low, tightly packed buildings (think of favellas or old Near-East cities), it can be fired upon without having chance to return fire (not to mention what would happen to it in modern cities). And unlike current MBT's, it doesn't have heavy anti-infantry weapon at top, and no protection at all for anyone who decides to pop out and shoot.

As for GAU-12, JMS conveniently ignored its ROF. Given what it does to modern tanks...

It is adequately protected against Star Wars infantry weapons, however, and its high profile might come handy in trench warfare, for chasing infantry outof trenches (like ones at Hoth), or maybe in desert warfare as observation point. Unless it trips over. And yes, it might have smaller overall profile when compared to modern MBT, but it is also a lot slower.

All in all, it seems to have been designed with WWI combat in mind, that is, slowly walking up and down enemy trenches on flat terrain while firing in them.

Picard wrote:First, AT-ST is not IFV. IFV carries infantry into battle and provides support. ATST only does the latter thing.

And allow me to deeply apologize for mixing the classifications of military hardware.

Picard wrote:Second, only thing where I can imagine it being useful is in urban warfare against poorly-armed militias

I would disagree. We have what is a long legged, in terms of endurance, fifteen ton war machine which can hit as hard if not harder than a MBT and basicly shrug off almost anything not an anti-tank munition.

Picard wrote:it could handle maybe 30-degree slope, but if it gets on it, throw a puding at it and it will turn over and die).

Well I'd be the first to admit it has stability problems by what are you basing it can't possibly handle greater than 30 degree slope or that a "puding" would cause it to slip.

Picard wrote:It is too unstable, and its positioning of cannons (on chin) means that it cannot fire effectively over any obstacles higher than 3.5, maybe 4 meters.

Presuming it can't tilt its head back any or those guns can't traverse at all.

Picard wrote: Given that walker itself is around 7-and-half meters tall, it means that, in an urban terrain with many (relatively) low, tightly packed buildings (think of favellas or old Near-East cities), it can be fired upon without having chance to return fire (not to mention what would happen to it in modern cities).

A tank or similar war machine would suffer similarly from surronding high vantage points. As well a battletank would more likely find itself cramped or cornered in the littered city streets than the relatively nimble and lean AT-ST would.

Picard wrote:And unlike current MBT's, it doesn't have heavy anti-infantry weapon at top, and no protection at all for anyone who decides to pop out and shoot.

I don't see a lack of a blaster mounted hatch side as a crippling defect, if my only defense against infantry hiding several floors above is that I've already lost the battle. Obviously I won't deploy these things in vacuum, I'd rather let my infantry deal with "upstairs" which strikes me as more efficent than hoping a coaxial gunner spots the RPG man before he fires.

Picard wrote:As for GAU-12, JMS conveniently ignored its ROF. Given what it does to modern tanks...

Are you sure? Here talks about the gun and lists its armor penetration at 38mm at 1000 meters and 69 at 500 meters which are fairly close to the figures he ran with. As well there is a huge gap between between a poorly armed militia and an A-10 warthog.

Picard wrote:And yes, it might have smaller overall profile when compared to modern MBT, but it is also a lot slower.

Actually the page Lucky linked too cites 90 km/h. The T-90 is rated at 60-65 km/h while the Leopard 2 rated at 72 km/h and the Challenger at 56 km/h. So in a straight up race It appears the AT-ST would win.

Picard wrote:All in all, it seems to have been designed with WWI combat in mind, that is, slowly walking up and down enemy trenches on flat terrain while firing in them.

While I do agree Star Wars military doctrain kinda petered out circa 1918 the AT-AT seems to be the linebreaker of the two of them, and were what broke the Rebel line on Hoth, with the AT-ST a screening force fending off anything too small for the big boys notice, like infantry, and supporting Imperial soldiers as they secure and widen the breech the AT-AT's made.

Also sorry for the nitpick but No man's land is hardly conductive for flat, even land.

sonofccn wrote:Presuming it can't tilt its head back any or those guns can't traverse at all.

I was talking about attacking ground targets. It will be able to fire into targets higher than its head.

A tank or similar war machine would suffer similarly from surronding high vantage points. As well a battletank would more likely find itself cramped or cornered in the littered city streets than the relatively nimble and lean AT-ST would.

AT-ST may be lean, but modern MBT's are far nimbler than it is.

I don't see a lack of a blaster mounted hatch side as a crippling defect, if my only defense against infantry hiding several floors above is that I've already lost the battle. Obviously I won't deploy these things in vacuum, I'd rather let my infantry deal with "upstairs" which strikes me as more efficent than hoping a coaxial gunner spots the RPG man before he fires.

Maybe, but you can't rely on infantry alone. Althought they are by far best defense against such things.

Are you sure? Here talks about the gun and lists its armor penetration at 38mm at 1000 meters and 69 at 500 meters which are fairly close to the figures he ran with. As well there is a huge gap between between a poorly armed militia and an A-10 warthog.

As I said, he (and that page too) ignored its rate of fire. GAU-8 is a gattling cannon, and that penetration is most probably per bullet, althought it may also be per second - althought that makes no sense.

It fires 70 bullets per second. So, if penetration is per bullet, every 0.1 seconds GAU-8 will penetrate 266 mm of RHA equivalent. That will penetrate Abrams within 4 seconds.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Actually the page Lucky linked too cites 90 km/h. The T-90 is rated at 60-65 km/h while the Leopard 2 rated at 72 km/h and the Challenger at 56 km/h. So in a straight up race It appears the AT-ST would win.

I don't care what that page says. We never see it, best we see from AT-ST is way below modern-day MBT's.

While I do agree Star Wars military doctrain kinda petered out circa 1918 the AT-AT seems to be the linebreaker of the two of them, and were what broke the Rebel line on Hoth, with the AT-ST a screening force fending off anything too small for the big boys notice, like infantry, and supporting Imperial soldiers as they secure and widen the breech the AT-AT's made.

Also sorry for the nitpick but No man's land is hardly conductive for flat, even land.

First, on Hoth, heavy walkers did most of the killing. Ostriches appeared later.

Second, there was no no-man's land. Not on Hoth, not on Endor.

Picard wrote:I was talking about attacking ground targets. It will be able to fire into targets higher than its head.

Sorry then but isn't that an advantage compared to a MBT? I mean it isn't like they could easily shoot over a 13 foot barrier or peer over it to spy enemy forces.

Picard wrote:AT-ST may be lean, but modern MBT's are far nimbler than it is.

One being smaller allows it more freedom of movement in cramped or debris littered enviroment than a tank in the same situation. Two look here @ 9:40 the AT-ST before it falls and dies swings side to side by a fair ways. I may be mistaken but I don't think a tank could similarly "lean" to the side like that.

Picard wrote:As I said, he (and that page too) ignored its rate of fire.

And I'm asking why do you think they are not taking ROF in account? The page I linked to is talking about the Avenger gun including its armor piercing capability. Why would it purpously sell the gun short?

Picard wrote:I don't care what that page says. We never see it, best we see from AT-ST is way below modern-day MBT's.

We only seen them crossing an ice field on Hoth and at Endor's forest moon, hardly ideal situations to push the pedal to the metal as it were. It should still be valid unless Lucky chooses not to include C-canon.

Picard wrote:First, on Hoth, heavy walkers did most of the killing. Ostriches appeared later.

Yes. That is my point. You wouldn't want to send AT-ST's against a Rebel trench ala Hoth they'd get slaughtered. You'd send in AT-AT's with chicken walkers spread out slightly behind and to either side to act as a screen force against anything either attacking from a flank or too small to be of notice to the bigger walker ie infantry which as Luke demostrated AT-AT's are not completely immune from.

Picard wrote:Second, there was no no-man's land. Not on Hoth, not on Endor.

Never said there was. But I thought the contradiction between stating the AT-ST will fall over if you cough at it, or throw "puding", and saying it was designed for WWI style combat to assault trenches was large enough to comment on. A nitpick as I said but I think a valid one.

sonofccn wrote:Sorry then but isn't that an advantage compared to a MBT? I mean it isn't like they could easily shoot over a 13 foot barrier or peer over it to spy enemy forces.

It is, but difference is quite neglible. Abrams can shoot throught walls, and has some fancy toys. Althought it can do so with anti-infantry weapons, so yes, it would be advantage, in certain scenarios. But it just shows that AT-ST is primarly urban warfare vehicle, with its high centre of gravity and general clumsiness.

One being smaller allows it more freedom of movement in cramped or debris littered enviroment than a tank in the same situation. Two look here @ 9:40 the AT-ST before it falls and dies swings side to side by a fair ways. I may be mistaken but I don't think a tank could similarly "lean" to the side like that.

As I said, tank is far more stable.

And I'm asking why do you think they are not taking ROF in account? The page I linked to is talking about the Avenger gun including its armor piercing capability. Why would it purpously sell the gun short?

Beacouse it only puts armor penetration in millimeters, and GAU-12 has variable ROF. So it can't be per second, since penetration per second would vary based on ROF selected.

We only seen them crossing an ice field on Hoth and at Endor's forest moon, hardly ideal situations to push the pedal to the metal as it were. It should still be valid unless Lucky chooses not to include C-canon.

I got impression that ice field at Hoth is quite solid. But it only shows they are somewhat faster than AT-AT - say, 40 - 50 kph.

Yes. That is my point. You wouldn't want to send AT-ST's against a Rebel trench ala Hoth they'd get slaughtered. You'd send in AT-AT's with chicken walkers spread out slightly behind and to either side to act as a screen force against anything either attacking from a flank or too small to be of notice to the bigger walker ie infantry which as Luke demostrated AT-AT's are not completely immune from.

Correct.

Never said there was. But I thought the contradiction between stating the AT-ST will fall over if you cough at it, or throw "puding", and saying it was designed for WWI style combat to assault trenches was large enough to comment on. A nitpick as I said but I think a valid one.

What I was saying was that AT-ST is designed to walk up and down alongsite trenches while shooting into them, similar to WWI tanks.

Picard wrote:It is, but difference is quite neglible. Abrams can shoot throught walls, and has some fancy toys. Althought it can do so with anti-infantry weapons, so yes, it would be advantage, in certain scenarios.

I think you underestimate it. Shooting over the wall is more efficent than shooting through it, which wastes a shell that could otherwise be used in combat, and most certainly reveals the location of the firing tank if it wasn't already known.

Picard wrote:But it just shows that AT-ST is primarly urban warfare vehicle, with its high centre of gravity and general clumsiness.

While I would agree it is in a cluttered enviroment such as Endor's Forrest moon or cityscape where a tank would have trouble properly deploying that it would truly excel I don't see your reasoning the AT-ST is primarly an urban warfare vehicle. I see nothing which would prevent it from operating in plains or desert enviroment, while its profile it stupily tall it is a relatively small target capable of surprising nimbleness for a fifteen ton beastie.

Picard wrote:As I said, tank is far more stable.

I don't doubt it but the AT-ST made a controlled step about what I estimate based on the mark I eyeball half its width and a semi-controlled step in the other direction about twice that. We're talking about a real if small chance of an AT-ST sidestepping an enemy's shot something I do not think a tank could replicate.

Picard wrote:Beacouse it only puts armor penetration in millimeters, and GAU-12 has variable ROF. So it can't be per second, since penetration per second would vary based on ROF selected.

Here would be a third source suggesting 38-69 mm penertration as well suggesting an A-10 only fires in one to two second bursts.

In addition remember the Warthog can't however over its target so realisticly there can only be so long a window when its gun lines up with the target. All in all I have seen nothing to suggest the penertration figure is per bullet.

Picard wrote:I got impression that ice field at Hoth is quite solid. But it only shows they are somewhat faster than AT-AT - say, 40 - 50 kph.

I was thinking more of losing traction and falling over rather than ice thickness but even accepting that 40-50 km/h is fairly on par with MBT average speed. I don't see cause to warrent them being far below tanks.

Picard wrote:What I was saying was that AT-ST is designed to walk up and down alongsite trenches while shooting into them, similar to WWI tanks.

All right analogy understood through I disagree. I do not think the AT-ST has demostrated being exceptionally good at taking trenches in the Star Wars universe. I think its closer to the Infantry tank opposed to the "breakthrough" tank concept of the AT-AT. While not hundred percent fitting the concept I do think it matches well a war machine quite capable of supporting infantry formations, effectivly in my opinion, as well as acting as a light support/meatshield for its bigger brother.

sonofccn wrote:I'd nominate the SPHAT big, slow with a limited traverse line of sight cannon. And this thing was the inital heavy artillery for the GAR.

SPHA-T does it's job well. Sure it could be better, but it's job is to shoot at ships that are taking off or landing. The drive train sucks, but it doesn't really need to move much.

sonofccn wrote:As for the AT-ST check this old discussion for a sci-fi war vehicle it isn't that bad. Its an ungainly Infantry fighting vehicle with a very high profile. You could do a lot worse.

Take a good close look at the area between the AT-ST's legs. The base of the cockpit is a big shoot me here sign, and an urban environment would be murder on an AT-ST since a single car/speeder can take one out like the logs did.

In the spirit of the OP could you please give examples of worse designs, or at least one just as bad?

[quote=“sonofccn“] I think you underestimate it. Shooting over the wall is more efficent than shooting through it, which wastes a shell that could otherwise be used in combat, and most certainly reveals the location of the firing tank if it wasn't already known.[/quote]

I think a shell can pass throught wall before striking target, at least if it is kinetic penetrator.

Also, one would think that being higher than wall also reveals location ;-).

Lucky wrote:SPHA-T does it's job well. Sure it could be better, but it's job is to shoot at ships that are taking off or landing.

A crippling niche involving starships kind enough to lift off a preset distance from it, one which could be done by X-wings with proton torpedoes with greater tactical flexibility and likely at lower cost.

In addition the vehicle is slow, large and as you mentioned employs an overly complicated drive system. In other words a ripe target for artillery, air strikes or infantry armed with anti-armor weapons.

Lucky wrote:Take a good close look at the area between the AT-ST's legs. The base of the cockpit is a big shoot me here sign

Your talking about the bottom of the cabin? As in up through its legs? At that range not only have I obviously failed specatcularly at the whole war thing but what wouldn't be a huge inviting target?

As to the cabin as a whole no while more visible than Earth bound designs its actually a somewhat smaller target than the Bradley fighting vehicle.

Lucky wrote:and an urban environment would be murder on an AT-ST since a single car/speeder can take one out like the logs did.

While I'm sure ramming one hard enough would knock it over I find it dubious you will find room to build up speed and reach the AT-ST without being destroyed by its guns or sidestepped.I do think in an urban environment you'd be better served busting out the RPGs instead of trying to make a suicidal charge.

In case your curious car sized projectiles was brought up in the link I provided and I agree with JMS in that while it possible it simply isn't practical to conceal,surprise and destroy the AT-ST with.

Picard wrote:I think a shell can pass throught wall before striking target, at least if it is kinetic penetrator.

Sure a kinetic penetrator should cut through it like butter but that won't remove the wall and won't deal with infantry and decreases the odds it will hurt say an enemy tank bunkered in the rubble of a nearby house.

Picard wrote:Also, one would think that being higher than wall also reveals location ;-).

No! We are just metallic trees pay no heed! :)

True enough but it erodes an advantage, however slim, the tank might have possesed in this situation.

sonofccn wrote: A crippling niche involving starships kind enough to lift off a preset distance from it, one which could be done by X-wings with proton torpedoes with greater tactical flexibility and likely at lower cost.

LOL You think big anti-capitalship guns on the coast are useless even though they were used. They are heavy artillery, and that means big, heavy, long range, and deployed far behind the lines.

sonofccn wrote: In addition the vehicle is slow, large and as you mentioned employs an overly complicated drive system. In other words a ripe target for artillery, air strikes or infantry armed with anti-armor weapons.

Artillery is slow, and ripe targets for air strikes and armed infantry in the real world. I guess that's why we never deploy large guns to shoot invading warships in the real world like we actually did.

sonofccn wrote: Your talking about the bottom of the cabin? As in up through its legs? At that range not only have I obviously failed specatcularly at the whole war thing but what wouldn't be a huge inviting target?

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images ... sthoth.jpg
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.

sonofccn wrote: As to the cabin as a whole no while more visible than Earth bound designs its actually a somewhat smaller target than the Bradley fighting vehicle.

A Bradly IFV is meant to carry troops, and has actual armor, weapons, and sensors. 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiacOOHbqJg&feature=fvsr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6S3NbLu ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtPeAac8 ... =endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSvyYNf6 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVNWRCFW ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiacOOHb ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQYp9fOJ9VI

sonofccn wrote: While I'm sure ramming one hard enough would knock it over I find it dubious you will find room to build up speed and reach the AT-ST without being destroyed by its guns or sidestepped.I do think in an urban environment you'd be better served busting out the RPGs instead of trying to make a suicidal charge.

A speeder should have a mass similar to the logs, and have the advantage of being powered.

An AT-ST has a horrible firing arc, and I doubt the effectiveness of anti-infantry weapons on even unaromored vehicles.

sonofccn wrote: In case your curious car sized projectiles was brought up in the link I provided and I agree with JMS in that while it possible it simply isn't practical to conceal,surprise and destroy the AT-ST with.

And JMS did a horrible job at defending something that is easier to destroy then a pickup truck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTPnIpjo ... ature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnVZXQD ... =fvwp&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTVPPTV- ... ure=relmfu

Sure a kinetic penetrator should cut through it like butter but that won't remove the wall and won't deal with infantry and decreases the odds it will hurt say an enemy tank bunkered in the rubble of a nearby house.

Can AT-ST crouch?

someone want to explain why my post was deleted?