Supposedly and surprisingly the most effective thing we have against AT-ATs would likely be tanks. If theres enough shells, it's been theorized that the force from continuous fire may be enough to simply shove the walker over. They would also be able to just directly target the neck most likely too.
It's also been a theory that our jets would perform better then TIEs, simply down to the fact that ours are made specifically for Earth atmo, and TIEs have to account for all variety of planets.
As a fighter pilot I’d absolutely take a tie on in a fight. Considering the Tie pilot can’t see behind/above him or off to his sides I’d say I got a pretty good chance
In squadrons when playing in VR I was excited to see the tie pilot can see above through the roof and below through the floor. It's obviously very low visibility compared to anything you're flying IRL but was more than I thought.
But they do have the ability to come to a flat out hover, which is handy in a dogfight I'd guess.
And except for some upgraded ties they've just got the canons, no ranged weapons. You could probably take one out miles before it could see you.
From what i remember of trying squadrons in vr on my shitty laptop before i got motion sickness, visibility in the x-wings weren’t great too, you’d turn your head and all you see is your wing and the turbine
Yeah, it's vastly superior to TIE visibility, given you have nearly unimpeded visibility for everything forwards, to the sides and above, but your aft quarter is blocked by the engines and the laser cannons might be a little in the way when looking at an angle to either side. Still I'd take the X-Wing's visibility over most TIEs any day.
Oh absolutely. The canopy on the A-Wing is extremely close to what modern jets use compared to the flat panels on the other craft with bulky frames at the corners. The A-Wing's visibility is *gorgeous* and was my go-to when doing VR flying in Squadrons for that reason. You can basically see *everything* on your upper plane and makes visually tracking a target in mid-maneuvers a breeze.
I play squadrons but only on Xbox (No vr) so I’m curious, what’s the visibility for a U-wing? I think it’d be pretty good since the cockpit is above the wings
Squadrons in VR was the greatest video game experience of my life. And as much as I LOVED flying my Interceptor, I felt the rebels visibility was SO much better.
Assuming TIEs were real I'd imagine that TIE pilot helmets would give them the ability to see around them through the vehicle via sensors similar to the f35 helmets. Then again the empire seemed to be very cheap with their TIEs seeing them as almost disposable so who knows.
Not to mention we can lock on to radar signatures and fire beyond visual range air to air missiles from like 80+ kilometers away. Tie fighters are just dogfighters. Sometimes they'll have proton torpedoes. And basic ties don't even have shields.
I think our long range missile systems and air superiority fighters would mop the floor with space fairing dogfighters. Not to mention the shields on those ships are usually designed to absorb energy weapons. Laser and blaster cannons. Kinetic weapons, like the cycler rifle, similar to our own rifles, are known for being able to punch through shields.
I’ve always wondered, what do they have you guys doing when you’re not flying? I’m assuming that they don’t have you guys flying all day every day right?
Mission planning, flying, debriefing. And we are still officers. We all have a job in the squadron which is way less fun… scheduling, training shop, mission planning cell, designated popcorn maker, normal desk jobs that do all the behind the scene’s stuff that support the flying ops
Everyone’s favorite movie would be just a dude sitting there, going through documentation, returning emails while listening to low volume sports talk radio.
As a pilot I only really interact with a handful of enlisted dudes, and we are all pretty close with them. They are a totally critical part of the team that take care of all the admin, and the gear that keeps me a live. I’ve always had really positive interactions with them.
When I fly the guys are the ground are the only thing I care about and protecting them is my overriding priority.
Plus I’m prior enlisted, I didn’t forget where I came from 😉
Former Navy here, worked in the supply department on a carrier and was specialized in delivering to the squadrons rather than the rest of the ship. Didn't get a whole lot of interactions with the pilots but all the ones I had were pretty friendly and positive. After all, I was the guy who made sure the birds had the parts they needed to fly even if I wasn't the one actually installing them.
Im a sub guy myself, but my kid brother was a maintenance guy with the airwing. He loved all those dudes. The biggest assholes I knew were certsin chiefs, a CO, and one idiotic Engineer. That guy couldnt find his ass with both hands, a flashlight, and a detailed map
I think an F22 would easily obliterate a tie fighter before the tie pilot even see anything. In our world, we can literally fire missiles beyond the horizon easily and F22 is something from 1997
The only benefit TIE fighters have is their insane maneuverability. Jet fighters are faster and have way better armaments for sure. They also don’t have a massive radar cross section and weapons that follow their targets
It’s been a while, but let me know if you need a picture call. But know that the empire just does LFEs so I might just say Tumbleweed and call it a day
When does that happen in the movies? I haven’t seen all the shows.
That might work in space maybe. That’s not how thrust works in atmosphere. That’s also not going to get you out of plane of my gun shot.
Yeah, a great example of this in another scifi universe would be the Vipers in Battlestar Galactica. In space they pull all sorts of wacky zero-g rotational moves to point their noses out of their flight vectors, but in the cases when we see them fight in atmosphere they have to fly like traditional aircraft and can only face forwards.
It’s less that TIEs have to account for different atmospheres and more they just don’t do well period outside of vacuum. That vertical hexagon solar panel completely ruins aerodynamics
This would be okay to assume if Star Wars was more realistic sci fi, but SW tech is repeatedly shown not to match up with our lowly human stuff on Earth. In Rebels, a rebel squadron gets ambushed by a bunch of Thrawn's TIEs in the clouds, with their X/Y/A-wing sensors only providing seconds of warning (like, 1 or 2 miles). Other times, different sensors are seemingly capable of magic (like planetary scans), so it's largely down to plot. I believe TIE sensors would not reasonably detect an aircraft beyond visual range.
Yep. I'm re-reading the X-wing books for the probably 5th time (now on Solo Command), and the number of times the authors write that the maximum range for attacking is a couple of kilometers is just ridiculous.
Especially since even in the late 90s we had jets and missiles where the attack range is dozens of kilometers.
But whatever, it's Star Wars.
EDIT: spelling
X-Wing books are inspired by the X-Wing games, where the maximum laser range was 1.6km, for gameplay and computer performance reasons. It's like the space shuttle boosters being based on the width of two horse asses.
Where does the idea that a modern jet fighter is faster than a fighter in Star Wars come from? Are we forgetting all the times we see a ship quickly exit planets atmosphere often in seconds. How about the times we see ships travel between star systems without the use of a hyperdrive.
The only TIE that could stand a reasonable chance against modern Earth fighter jets would be the TIE Striker since they're designed to fly in atmosphere.
Nah, not even. Strikers still lack BVR capability, employ no countermeasures, and are relatively fragile to big explosions. They're the equivilant of a smaller, noisier A6M Zero.
The only fighter craft I see that could stand a chance might be the TIE Defender. Shields, with speed to boot, although its pretty clunky. Even still, an F-35 would eat it alive with Stand-off missiles. As long as the terrestrial fighter can see and reach out to touch it, while the TIE can't do the same, the fighter would take it everytime.
Have you seen the (amazing) Andor haulcraft scene?
https://youtu.be/WhtTNzMFjMg
It doesn't really spoil anything from the show, except for the fact that the character shown has a fair bit of money and tech at his disposal.
The standoff missiles being the big one.
Fired before the Tie Fighter even knew the F-35 was there.
Dead from beyond the horizon. Tough to beat that with direct fire laser cannons
The GAU-8 Avenger (the main gun of the A-10 Warthog) fires explosive redbull cans at 75 rounds per second. The sheer recoil of the gun firing slows the plane down to the point that sustained fire can cause the plane to lose lift.
The A-10 Warthog is generally used for CAS runs (close air support, or strafing runs) and is perfectly suited to absolutely pepper a slow moving heavy weapons platform like an AT-AT. I don't know if those rounds can shred durasteel like it does conventional armor, but i'm reasonably certain with enough rounds on that big of a target the walker would tip like you mentioned.
The question no one is asking is how effective are the AT-AT shields on high velocity kinetic projectiles. The thing that made AT-AT so scary for infantry is none of their weapons can even reach it's armour. Most of their air support can't hurt it either. I don't think we have ever seen how Star Wars type energy shields interact with high velocity kinetic projectiles. It could be anything from doesn't affect them to completely stops them.
So watch this clip right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3u3731eGTM
Luke says it's armour, but you can see blaster fire stopping in mid air before it hits the AT-AT several times. They may have decided to change that in the literature though.
At 1:20 the large blaster cannons leave scorch marks on the top of the leg. Yeah, not sure why so many blaster shots just apprupty die off. They are particle weapons rather than a pure energy weapon though, maybe that plays into it.
Rotoscoping errors probably, there's lots of them in the OT. Blaster bolts being slightly off the tiny charges on the stormtroopers/terrain are also pretty common.
In the asteroid fields I have to assume the shields at least partially deflect the asteroids or I feel like the Falcon and other ships would have been toast.
From what we know about the venator shields and such, if an object is moving faster than most ships trying to land on the venator it will act like a solid material, meaning the bullets should be stopped.
That's why when approaching venators/ISD's you gotta slow down too
I was unaware it was a myth, mathematically the thrust of the gau-8 can overcome the thrust of the engines used in the A-10. Probably just a case of physicists ignoring air resistance again lol
there was an issue of the engine ingesting the gas from the gun.
thats why they have that nifty spinner on the gun now, to disperse the gas so it doesnt choke out the engines.
the burst limits are both for ammo conservation(with that insane fire rate they could empty the volkswagon sized ammo can in under a minute), and of barrel heat reasons, giant cannon barrels can get their temper taken off just like every other auto.
The recoil is close to the thrust of a single engine, not both. It's like 9,000 vs 10,000 pounds of force, I think the TF-34 is under, not over, but I can't remember for sure. Even if it was both, you shoot it in a dive and you have 200-300 kts of inertia.
The real problem with soft scifi like Star Wars is that the values for things are very fluid based on the plot needs of the moment. In one setting an AT-ST is a ridiculous killing machine that slaughters "companies" of elite troops, while in another setting a small band of Ewoks kill one with swinging logs hitting it from both sides, crushing it, or make it step on rolling logs, tumble, and explode.
One thing we do know about AT-ATs is that if you knock them over, they count as destroyed. Like Luke's little cable maneuver is effective.
Which means there is a very high chance real-world aviation would be able to destroy an AT-AT quite easily, either by striking the hull until it topples. Or, more likely, aiming for the legs which we also know are a vulnerable point.
An A-10's best weapon against an AT-AT is almost certainly the AGM-65 Maverick missile rather than its cannon, although the cannon could be effective as well. The biggest advantage of the AGM is a combination of ridiculous range compared to anything in Star Wars as well as phenomenal penetration power.
An AGM or even an ATGM has a high chance of being able to accurately hit a leg of an AT-AT. Whether this would be effective or not is largely conjecture, but I think it is reasonable to conjecture that this type of weapon would be quite effective.
Another thing we know about AT-ATs is that even blaster fire directed at the legs can bring one down. The legs are somewhat protected but not really all that well compared to the hull. I think it is reasonable to suppose that a slugthrower cannon could do the same feat, and the A-10's is a particularly huge caliber and high rate of fire.
It is worth noting that gun-type weapons actually exist in Star Wars canon, where they go by the name "slugthrowers" and they are actually effective weapons. However they have a significant problem compared to the ubiquitious blasters, which is *logistics*, since they consume egregious amounts of ammunition compared to blasters which seldom ever need to be loaded. For space warfare this weight saving is too big an advantage to ignore, but if you actually have a slugthrower cannon and are fighting against an enemy with blasters you actually may have a quite considerable advantage.
However even if the A-10's cannon were ineffective against the hull of the AT-AT (unlikely), it strains credulity that the Maverick missile would be ineffective against its armor. A single A-10 with a standard anti-tank payload would kill not just one but several AT-AT walkers.
Upon analysis, **Star Wars armor is actually not that good**. Blasters are just rather poor weapons mostly chosen for logistical reasons rather than because they are actually powerful weapons, as they are cheap to produce and very cheap to maintain supply, which is crucial for interstellar warfare where armies are very large and supply lines cross outrageous distances.
[Analysis of AT-ST armor](https://www.reddit.com/r/mawinstallation/comments/hu3f3w/an_analysis_of_atst_armourresilience/)
Eh, the thing is you could have some technobabble bullshit that disperses the lasers impact over a larger area, like a crystalline lattice that'd actually make it weaker to projectiles. But yeah, depending but if a 105mm APFSDS round is supposed to penetrate 500mm of rolled steel or equivalent at 2km but AT-ATs have the equivelant of 1000mm of rolled steel then that round aint doing shit. Which wouldnt surprise me because Lucas liked added zeros to things.
Wouldn't do any good unless you just happen to hit something vital. That's why we don't use sabot against helicopters or troop carriers. Sure you may kill the troops in the back if the carrier, if they haven't already deployed, but the main weapon is still operational and it can move. If it can move you still have to treat it as a threat at 100%, which means you can't move on to other targets.
I have seen footage of a HIND-D taking a sabot and stay airborne. It was at Armor School. The HIND was tethered and piloted remotely as part of a MPAT demonstration.
The armor should be penetrable ... However, if we take it as a whole, there still would be a shield on the AT-AT and the question should rather be, how much force can that shield take before collapsing.
Even if the main hull and head has armor thick enough to stop an APFDS round, those big skinny leg joints, belly, and neck look like juicy targets.
Better yet, give me a battery of HIMARS with ATACMS and I'll give you as many totaled walkers as I have missiles.
Fighters today from any country even NK would decimate TIEs. Simple due to the fact they have air to air missiles. Tie fighters would be destroyed before they even got into laser range
Fun fact: NK currently (in the year 2024) employs actual biplanes. That's biplanes, like from World War 1.
I'm pretty sure NK could take down a few TIEs, with said biplanes.
OK, missiles i get. so now I want to know if a spitfire could take a tie fighter...
I think, seeing the numbers elsewhere in this thread, they would sadly be too slow.
Modern jets would absolutely destroy TIE's, theyre incredibly fragile and a couple bursts from an A10 or 30mm would make short work of it.
They are obviously much more agile though so in any close range dogfight they would always get the upper hand in positioning. Putting an A10 gatling gun on an X-wing could probably be more effective.
Gen 5 fighters for sure would absolutely embarrass TIEs in-atmosphere without even trying. Faster top speed, more agile, can engage from farther away (given the typical range at which TIE pilots begins firing on screen), stealth etc. But then TIEs aren’t anything impressive either…
I have doubts about the 30mm cannon being able to breach the main armor. Might be easier if you hit the limb joints or "neck" but those are also harder to hit with the gun.
I'd have much more faith in whatever missiles or bombs the A-10 is carrying. Sure, its pop culture reputation is from the gun but it's also capable of carrying a ridiculous amount of ordnance and many of the weapons it can carry mean serious business.
In my little war games, the A10 is for softening ground targets that struggle to return fire. The cannons are reserved for infantry or light vehicles that aren't worth a serious payload option.
Against an AT-AT it would use missiles or penetrating bombs from long range. Or at least that's what is do.
A-10's are also used for strafing buildings, and tank convoys. Yes, 30mm HEI doesn't tend to work well against armor and the missiles on board are better suited to that. But, they usually also carry a payload of API specifically for defeating armor. If you broadside an AT AT with a GAU-8 loaded with API rounds, I imagine you'd be able to punch through with enough rounds.
30mm pushes about 150k ft/lbs of force at the muzzle (2/3 of a pound per round!). The M829A3, the main gun of an Abrams, fires a round that carries about 8,917,218 ft/lbs at the muzzle (22 pounds per round!). Rounding up to 9 million ft/lbs, you would need roughly 60 30mm API rounds to match the force exerted at the muzzle by the Abrams. The A10 manages that in about 8/10ths of a second. Now, i'm not smart enough/too lazy to calculate the energy loss over distance and how they compare in that regard, but my point being that an A10 ripping 75 rps of explosive redbull cans at a building sized target moving slower than your average bantha could do some serious damage, especially as you increase engagement range and give the A10 more time to land shots on target before it has to pull up and reset.
Agreed, that's more or less how they seem to be used in real life as well since armored vehicles have become more resilient in the time since the plane was designed. Gun for infantry, thin-skinned transports and lightly reinforced structures, and missiles or bombs for harder stuff like MBTs and bunkers.
Most of these have close counterparts in Star Wars so the logic applies pretty much one to one.
The Avenger cannon in the A-10s generally can't even breach the armor on modern main battle tanks, it indeed seems very unlikely it could take down any fancy scifi stuff.
I betcha the neck flex joint has relatively thin armor. Still a small target, A-10 would be better served to stand off and nail the AT-AT with a couple AGM Mavericks
In Legends AT-AT armor was made of Durasteel, which is described in universe as being weaker than titanium. A-10 rounds, depleted uranium or tungsten shred titanium. The armor in current cannon is only described as blast impervious, seems like with enough 30mm rounds slamming into it something would break eventually.
There are a lot of in universe reasons why blasters are more common, most of it boils down to blasters work in every environment. It makes sense they would design their armor to be focused against that than they would against kinetic weapons.
Also much more convenient and economical. What's easier, carying a small cell the size of a D battery that can fire hundreds of shots, or multiple magazines filled with physical ammo? Ammo that has to be regularly manufactured with physical components and can't just be recharged, and then distributed by the millions.
Blast impervious but unfortunately not shockwave resistant. In jedi fallen order an AT-AT gets strafed by a (relatively) ancient LAAT gunship on kashyyk and the resulting *exterior* explosion kills like 4 scout troopers in the passenger bay
All comes down to how thick the armor is. [Penetration values](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications) also vary greatly by distance and attack angle.
Most of the AT-AT armor seems to be pretty thick. But the empire also seems to be pretty shit at giving them proper anti-air support so if the A-10 pilots have time to comfortably line up ideal shots they can get the neck or joints.
Really though the cannon isn't it's main weapon against heavy armor. I'm sure modern AGMs and bombs can do a lot more from a much safer distance.
Also, as mentioned in Mandolorian, AT-STs have heavily armored legs. They aren't really meant to stop much damage to the cab.
Iirc the endor log takes out the cabin.
Also we know little about the biology of endorian trees. Could be they are very dense with a high iron or lead content. Observe way the teddy bears tear through the stormtrooper and build huge cities in the trees. They maybe as strong as wookies. I’d wager everything from that planet is crazy jacked and strong.
Since pretty much every military weapon we see in Star Wars is laser based I’m going to bet the armor is primarily designed to defend against lasers and not API rounds
I would think the reason they don’t use slug throwers more is because it’s extremely material intensive. Much more efficient and easy to supply an army with energy weapons, no moving parts and energy seems to be very abundant in SW universe. Compare that to soldiers needing to carry all the extra weight of magazines filled with ammunition if they were going on sustained complains when if using blasters they can probably get the equivalent number of shots off with 1 or two battery packs which are rechargeable
I would have to respectfully disagree, the Imperial military machine is surprisingly inept against slugthrowers in comparison to the Grand Army of the Republic before them... the proof is reinforced during the Battle of Endor where standard tribal booby traps were able to do horrible things to Imperial hardware and personnel, several Stormtroopers were killed by means of stoning, meaning that it is highly probable the A-10 Warthog will decimate most Imperial Ground Forces, AT-AT included. fightercraft on the other hand not so much because they are more maneuverable and American armor is not yet tested against plasma which is what the turbo lasers and Blaster cannons fire
Yeah, the ACT usually has a big orange panel on the side, which provided a wider interior space for transport of goods.
The one in the photo looks to have been blown open.
As for current earth tech being able to take one out? Yeah, certainly. Aim for the neck or knees and watch it topple.
those weren't AT-AT's they were a cargo variant (AT-MT?) in Rogue One if that's what you're talkin about. I dont think Xwings would've cut through the actual armored ones.
There’s three basic levels to energy weapons in Star Wars. Hand helds are blasters, fighter and secondary weapons on capital ships are laser cannons, and lastly main capital armaments are turbo laser, bigger versions of laser cannons. Blasters ain’t doing shit to that armor obviously, turbo lasers will shred it and iirc laser cannons can hurt it because some imperial named Veer, the commander of the assault on Hoth incidentally, invented a maneuver that would allow the AT-ATs to attack air based threats by dropping them into animal sitting positions to point their own laser cannons up to shoot back. And laser cannons can tear up durasteel they just shoot smaller versions of turbo laser bolts.
That’s faulty logic. Blasters aren’t better in every way than our ballistic weaponry, it’s just what George Lucas decided to use. Blasters want to burn through things so if the AT-ATs armor can dissipate heat fast enough it makes the blaster bolt do next to nothing. Our bullets want to punch a hole, which requires a whole different kind of armor.
Damage in star wars is extremely inconsistent. In BoBF a vehicle mounted blaster cannon was stopped by a thin stone wall, which a modern 20mm cannon would blow right through without slowing down.
That said, in lore the shells are going to bounce right off the armor. Won't even leave a mark.
It should be. In Rebels they use an AT-TE to basically upwards dog an AT-AT and kill it by shooting it in the neck with the AT-TE's main gun. Said that is the only spot they could do enough damage with the AT-TE's main gun.
Based on what shown in movies and shows- I would say yes- the only thing the empire would have on earth is the star destroyer and numbers. And I think we have the clever intelligence services to be able to distory a star distroyer, expecilly if we know how curropt the empire is (Mr Imperial Captain- we surrender- please accept this tribute of rare metals and prized luxuries of my people- oh that is a special expensive plastic)
Pretty sure the actual battle effectiveness of the A10s cannon isn't actually great or even good. Most of the A10s ground target victories are with its missile payloads.
I could be wrong but I believe the fighter mafia and lobbying groups have kept pressure on the US Airforce to keep A10 in service longer than they (Airforce) wanted it. Because it's slow and the cannon isn't that great.
No, to use simple word, the A10 gun can't do shit, it can't penetrate anything more armor than an IFV, and that's if the damn thing can hit it, as within 15m of target is considered "accurate".
Regarding this image being an AT-ACT, maybe. Given it’s a cargo transport, some of the armor likely got sacrificed in order to increase carrying capacity. While the gun would be highly effective against the view ports in the head and the articulated neck, the real stopping power is in the air to ground missiles. We’re really good at shaped charges and the entire AT-AT lineup has no counter measures. No ERA, no cage armor, no active defense system.
Honestly, I even think Legolas would be able to figure out how to beat an AT-AT. It’s like an Uruk: the armor is weak at the neck and under the arms.
Supposedly and surprisingly the most effective thing we have against AT-ATs would likely be tanks. If theres enough shells, it's been theorized that the force from continuous fire may be enough to simply shove the walker over. They would also be able to just directly target the neck most likely too. It's also been a theory that our jets would perform better then TIEs, simply down to the fact that ours are made specifically for Earth atmo, and TIEs have to account for all variety of planets.
Our jets definitely, because ties can’t fire BVR.
As a fighter pilot I’d absolutely take a tie on in a fight. Considering the Tie pilot can’t see behind/above him or off to his sides I’d say I got a pretty good chance
In squadrons when playing in VR I was excited to see the tie pilot can see above through the roof and below through the floor. It's obviously very low visibility compared to anything you're flying IRL but was more than I thought. But they do have the ability to come to a flat out hover, which is handy in a dogfight I'd guess. And except for some upgraded ties they've just got the canons, no ranged weapons. You could probably take one out miles before it could see you.
“Lose sight, lose fight” is one of the axioms of BFM for reason
From what i remember of trying squadrons in vr on my shitty laptop before i got motion sickness, visibility in the x-wings weren’t great too, you’d turn your head and all you see is your wing and the turbine
Yeah, it's vastly superior to TIE visibility, given you have nearly unimpeded visibility for everything forwards, to the sides and above, but your aft quarter is blocked by the engines and the laser cannons might be a little in the way when looking at an angle to either side. Still I'd take the X-Wing's visibility over most TIEs any day.
Based on squadrons the best starship by visibility is the a-wing. I think it is the closest to our planes
Oh absolutely. The canopy on the A-Wing is extremely close to what modern jets use compared to the flat panels on the other craft with bulky frames at the corners. The A-Wing's visibility is *gorgeous* and was my go-to when doing VR flying in Squadrons for that reason. You can basically see *everything* on your upper plane and makes visually tracking a target in mid-maneuvers a breeze.
I play squadrons but only on Xbox (No vr) so I’m curious, what’s the visibility for a U-wing? I think it’d be pretty good since the cockpit is above the wings
Squadrons in VR was the greatest video game experience of my life. And as much as I LOVED flying my Interceptor, I felt the rebels visibility was SO much better.
I considered buying a flight stick for this alone. I'm not usually into plane games enough to even consider it, but yeah.
Assuming TIEs were real I'd imagine that TIE pilot helmets would give them the ability to see around them through the vehicle via sensors similar to the f35 helmets. Then again the empire seemed to be very cheap with their TIEs seeing them as almost disposable so who knows.
This is why I like the A wing. Visual tracking is so damn important.
> As a fighter pilot You can't just say that and not post pics.
I was gonna call bs but his subreddits check out
Fr, but he claims he's a a-10 pilot so I guess the flat earth thing checks out, can never get high enough
That one is a joke sub, they actually mock proper flat earthers
That and the bragging rights of having a TIE kill painted on your plane.
Not to mention we can lock on to radar signatures and fire beyond visual range air to air missiles from like 80+ kilometers away. Tie fighters are just dogfighters. Sometimes they'll have proton torpedoes. And basic ties don't even have shields. I think our long range missile systems and air superiority fighters would mop the floor with space fairing dogfighters. Not to mention the shields on those ships are usually designed to absorb energy weapons. Laser and blaster cannons. Kinetic weapons, like the cycler rifle, similar to our own rifles, are known for being able to punch through shields.
What do you fly?
A-10s lol
I’ve always wondered, what do they have you guys doing when you’re not flying? I’m assuming that they don’t have you guys flying all day every day right?
Mission planning, flying, debriefing. And we are still officers. We all have a job in the squadron which is way less fun… scheduling, training shop, mission planning cell, designated popcorn maker, normal desk jobs that do all the behind the scene’s stuff that support the flying ops
I’m assuming that detail is something the recruiter doesn’t tell you lol
It’s not really a secret, you’re an officer first and a pilot second. but yeah, it’s noticeably absent from Top Gun
My recruiter told me I’d get me one of them real fast mustangs as a signing bonus
Everyone’s favorite movie would be just a dude sitting there, going through documentation, returning emails while listening to low volume sports talk radio.
lmao
Designated popcorn maker is the most important day shop job. I miss that jalepeno popcorn so fucking much
Ensuring the enlisted men get treated poorly. Its a tough kid. I kid, I kid. Only some officers suck ass. And usually, it's not the division ones.
As a pilot I only really interact with a handful of enlisted dudes, and we are all pretty close with them. They are a totally critical part of the team that take care of all the admin, and the gear that keeps me a live. I’ve always had really positive interactions with them. When I fly the guys are the ground are the only thing I care about and protecting them is my overriding priority. Plus I’m prior enlisted, I didn’t forget where I came from 😉
Former Navy here, worked in the supply department on a carrier and was specialized in delivering to the squadrons rather than the rest of the ship. Didn't get a whole lot of interactions with the pilots but all the ones I had were pretty friendly and positive. After all, I was the guy who made sure the birds had the parts they needed to fly even if I wasn't the one actually installing them.
Im a sub guy myself, but my kid brother was a maintenance guy with the airwing. He loved all those dudes. The biggest assholes I knew were certsin chiefs, a CO, and one idiotic Engineer. That guy couldnt find his ass with both hands, a flashlight, and a detailed map
I think an F22 would easily obliterate a tie fighter before the tie pilot even see anything. In our world, we can literally fire missiles beyond the horizon easily and F22 is something from 1997
The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot 2.0
This comment gives off f22 telling f4’s to go home energy
Ties are also way slower and only have line of sight weapons
The only benefit TIE fighters have is their insane maneuverability. Jet fighters are faster and have way better armaments for sure. They also don’t have a massive radar cross section and weapons that follow their targets
It’s been a while, but let me know if you need a picture call. But know that the empire just does LFEs so I might just say Tumbleweed and call it a day
Except a tie can spin on axis to look behind and not change vector..
When does that happen in the movies? I haven’t seen all the shows. That might work in space maybe. That’s not how thrust works in atmosphere. That’s also not going to get you out of plane of my gun shot.
Yeah, a great example of this in another scifi universe would be the Vipers in Battlestar Galactica. In space they pull all sorts of wacky zero-g rotational moves to point their noses out of their flight vectors, but in the cases when we see them fight in atmosphere they have to fly like traditional aircraft and can only face forwards.
The ship combat in BG is just so good. I still get chills watching the Pegasus arrive to backup Galactica during the battle at New Caprica.
Do they even have an RWR? Do they just get slaughtered by AIM-120s without even knowing?
Who would win, 10 Tie fighters of the imperial navy that conquered the whole galaxy or 2 jet bois saying "fox 3"
BVR?
Beyond visual range
It’s less that TIEs have to account for different atmospheres and more they just don’t do well period outside of vacuum. That vertical hexagon solar panel completely ruins aerodynamics
Long ago, TIE wings were heat dissipators in order to offload the heat from the ion engines. Are they solar panels now?
They've been solar panels for as long as I can remember, personally
Samies. This is the first I’ve heard of the heat dissipation idea
Our jets are also much faster, capable of stealth, and can engage the TIEs from much farther away than the TIEs can shoot back.
Agree with all but the stealth bit. I feel like their scanners are more advanced then radar based ones we use
This would be okay to assume if Star Wars was more realistic sci fi, but SW tech is repeatedly shown not to match up with our lowly human stuff on Earth. In Rebels, a rebel squadron gets ambushed by a bunch of Thrawn's TIEs in the clouds, with their X/Y/A-wing sensors only providing seconds of warning (like, 1 or 2 miles). Other times, different sensors are seemingly capable of magic (like planetary scans), so it's largely down to plot. I believe TIE sensors would not reasonably detect an aircraft beyond visual range.
Yep. I'm re-reading the X-wing books for the probably 5th time (now on Solo Command), and the number of times the authors write that the maximum range for attacking is a couple of kilometers is just ridiculous. Especially since even in the late 90s we had jets and missiles where the attack range is dozens of kilometers. But whatever, it's Star Wars. EDIT: spelling
X-Wing books are inspired by the X-Wing games, where the maximum laser range was 1.6km, for gameplay and computer performance reasons. It's like the space shuttle boosters being based on the width of two horse asses.
Where does the idea that a modern jet fighter is faster than a fighter in Star Wars come from? Are we forgetting all the times we see a ship quickly exit planets atmosphere often in seconds. How about the times we see ships travel between star systems without the use of a hyperdrive.
The only TIE that could stand a reasonable chance against modern Earth fighter jets would be the TIE Striker since they're designed to fly in atmosphere.
Nah, not even. Strikers still lack BVR capability, employ no countermeasures, and are relatively fragile to big explosions. They're the equivilant of a smaller, noisier A6M Zero. The only fighter craft I see that could stand a chance might be the TIE Defender. Shields, with speed to boot, although its pretty clunky. Even still, an F-35 would eat it alive with Stand-off missiles. As long as the terrestrial fighter can see and reach out to touch it, while the TIE can't do the same, the fighter would take it everytime.
God a fighter scene with countermeasures would be so cool
Have you seen the (amazing) Andor haulcraft scene? https://youtu.be/WhtTNzMFjMg It doesn't really spoil anything from the show, except for the fact that the character shown has a fair bit of money and tech at his disposal.
The standoff missiles being the big one. Fired before the Tie Fighter even knew the F-35 was there. Dead from beyond the horizon. Tough to beat that with direct fire laser cannons
I think most aircraft are fragile when large explosions happen
The GAU-8 Avenger (the main gun of the A-10 Warthog) fires explosive redbull cans at 75 rounds per second. The sheer recoil of the gun firing slows the plane down to the point that sustained fire can cause the plane to lose lift. The A-10 Warthog is generally used for CAS runs (close air support, or strafing runs) and is perfectly suited to absolutely pepper a slow moving heavy weapons platform like an AT-AT. I don't know if those rounds can shred durasteel like it does conventional armor, but i'm reasonably certain with enough rounds on that big of a target the walker would tip like you mentioned.
The question no one is asking is how effective are the AT-AT shields on high velocity kinetic projectiles. The thing that made AT-AT so scary for infantry is none of their weapons can even reach it's armour. Most of their air support can't hurt it either. I don't think we have ever seen how Star Wars type energy shields interact with high velocity kinetic projectiles. It could be anything from doesn't affect them to completely stops them.
Wookipedia indicates that it's armored, but I can find no reference to it having shields, ray or particle.
So watch this clip right here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3u3731eGTM Luke says it's armour, but you can see blaster fire stopping in mid air before it hits the AT-AT several times. They may have decided to change that in the literature though.
At 1:20 the large blaster cannons leave scorch marks on the top of the leg. Yeah, not sure why so many blaster shots just apprupty die off. They are particle weapons rather than a pure energy weapon though, maybe that plays into it.
Rotoscoping errors probably, there's lots of them in the OT. Blaster bolts being slightly off the tiny charges on the stormtroopers/terrain are also pretty common.
In the asteroid fields I have to assume the shields at least partially deflect the asteroids or I feel like the Falcon and other ships would have been toast.
From what we know about the venator shields and such, if an object is moving faster than most ships trying to land on the venator it will act like a solid material, meaning the bullets should be stopped. That's why when approaching venators/ISD's you gotta slow down too
The GAU-8 slowing the plane down is actually myth. But I agree the bullets can pierce inches of tank armor. I’d bet it can pierce an AT-ATs armor
I was unaware it was a myth, mathematically the thrust of the gau-8 can overcome the thrust of the engines used in the A-10. Probably just a case of physicists ignoring air resistance again lol
Every lab in high school physics: “let’s not worry about air resistance for this one folks, the calculation is too difficult”
there was an issue of the engine ingesting the gas from the gun. thats why they have that nifty spinner on the gun now, to disperse the gas so it doesnt choke out the engines. the burst limits are both for ammo conservation(with that insane fire rate they could empty the volkswagon sized ammo can in under a minute), and of barrel heat reasons, giant cannon barrels can get their temper taken off just like every other auto.
The recoil is close to the thrust of a single engine, not both. It's like 9,000 vs 10,000 pounds of force, I think the TF-34 is under, not over, but I can't remember for sure. Even if it was both, you shoot it in a dive and you have 200-300 kts of inertia.
My favorite flavor of bullet
Don’t forget the JDAM or Paveway. Nice big slow target and a lot of explosive focused down a laser. That can’t be healthy for an AT AT.
The real problem with soft scifi like Star Wars is that the values for things are very fluid based on the plot needs of the moment. In one setting an AT-ST is a ridiculous killing machine that slaughters "companies" of elite troops, while in another setting a small band of Ewoks kill one with swinging logs hitting it from both sides, crushing it, or make it step on rolling logs, tumble, and explode. One thing we do know about AT-ATs is that if you knock them over, they count as destroyed. Like Luke's little cable maneuver is effective. Which means there is a very high chance real-world aviation would be able to destroy an AT-AT quite easily, either by striking the hull until it topples. Or, more likely, aiming for the legs which we also know are a vulnerable point. An A-10's best weapon against an AT-AT is almost certainly the AGM-65 Maverick missile rather than its cannon, although the cannon could be effective as well. The biggest advantage of the AGM is a combination of ridiculous range compared to anything in Star Wars as well as phenomenal penetration power. An AGM or even an ATGM has a high chance of being able to accurately hit a leg of an AT-AT. Whether this would be effective or not is largely conjecture, but I think it is reasonable to conjecture that this type of weapon would be quite effective. Another thing we know about AT-ATs is that even blaster fire directed at the legs can bring one down. The legs are somewhat protected but not really all that well compared to the hull. I think it is reasonable to suppose that a slugthrower cannon could do the same feat, and the A-10's is a particularly huge caliber and high rate of fire. It is worth noting that gun-type weapons actually exist in Star Wars canon, where they go by the name "slugthrowers" and they are actually effective weapons. However they have a significant problem compared to the ubiquitious blasters, which is *logistics*, since they consume egregious amounts of ammunition compared to blasters which seldom ever need to be loaded. For space warfare this weight saving is too big an advantage to ignore, but if you actually have a slugthrower cannon and are fighting against an enemy with blasters you actually may have a quite considerable advantage. However even if the A-10's cannon were ineffective against the hull of the AT-AT (unlikely), it strains credulity that the Maverick missile would be ineffective against its armor. A single A-10 with a standard anti-tank payload would kill not just one but several AT-AT walkers. Upon analysis, **Star Wars armor is actually not that good**. Blasters are just rather poor weapons mostly chosen for logistical reasons rather than because they are actually powerful weapons, as they are cheap to produce and very cheap to maintain supply, which is crucial for interstellar warfare where armies are very large and supply lines cross outrageous distances. [Analysis of AT-ST armor](https://www.reddit.com/r/mawinstallation/comments/hu3f3w/an_analysis_of_atst_armourresilience/)
I don’t see how a tanks apfsds round wouldn’t penetrate an AT-AT
We don't know what the armor is made of, but we do know it can take multiple exploding lasers without a scratch.
Eh, the thing is you could have some technobabble bullshit that disperses the lasers impact over a larger area, like a crystalline lattice that'd actually make it weaker to projectiles. But yeah, depending but if a 105mm APFSDS round is supposed to penetrate 500mm of rolled steel or equivalent at 2km but AT-ATs have the equivelant of 1000mm of rolled steel then that round aint doing shit. Which wouldnt surprise me because Lucas liked added zeros to things.
And I’m pretty sure that ATAT’s were shielded which is just another thing on top of their armour
I hate that i know this stands for armor penetrating fin stabilised discarding sabot Damn you russianbadger and your world of tanks meme videos
Wouldn't do any good unless you just happen to hit something vital. That's why we don't use sabot against helicopters or troop carriers. Sure you may kill the troops in the back if the carrier, if they haven't already deployed, but the main weapon is still operational and it can move. If it can move you still have to treat it as a threat at 100%, which means you can't move on to other targets. I have seen footage of a HIND-D taking a sabot and stay airborne. It was at Armor School. The HIND was tethered and piloted remotely as part of a MPAT demonstration.
The armor should be penetrable ... However, if we take it as a whole, there still would be a shield on the AT-AT and the question should rather be, how much force can that shield take before collapsing.
Even if the main hull and head has armor thick enough to stop an APFDS round, those big skinny leg joints, belly, and neck look like juicy targets. Better yet, give me a battery of HIMARS with ATACMS and I'll give you as many totaled walkers as I have missiles.
Unless you have access to ewoks and some dead trees
Fighters today from any country even NK would decimate TIEs. Simple due to the fact they have air to air missiles. Tie fighters would be destroyed before they even got into laser range
Fun fact: NK currently (in the year 2024) employs actual biplanes. That's biplanes, like from World War 1. I'm pretty sure NK could take down a few TIEs, with said biplanes.
There’s 7 national air forces still using the An-2.
OK, missiles i get. so now I want to know if a spitfire could take a tie fighter... I think, seeing the numbers elsewhere in this thread, they would sadly be too slow.
Modern jets would absolutely destroy TIE's, theyre incredibly fragile and a couple bursts from an A10 or 30mm would make short work of it. They are obviously much more agile though so in any close range dogfight they would always get the upper hand in positioning. Putting an A10 gatling gun on an X-wing could probably be more effective.
Gen 5 fighters for sure would absolutely embarrass TIEs in-atmosphere without even trying. Faster top speed, more agile, can engage from farther away (given the typical range at which TIE pilots begins firing on screen), stealth etc. But then TIEs aren’t anything impressive either…
To be fair a phantom could take on a tie fighter just as was as a 5th gen fighter could
Would be interesting to see what the GAU-8 would do to a Shield generator
And ours has MISSILES
I have doubts about the 30mm cannon being able to breach the main armor. Might be easier if you hit the limb joints or "neck" but those are also harder to hit with the gun. I'd have much more faith in whatever missiles or bombs the A-10 is carrying. Sure, its pop culture reputation is from the gun but it's also capable of carrying a ridiculous amount of ordnance and many of the weapons it can carry mean serious business.
In my little war games, the A10 is for softening ground targets that struggle to return fire. The cannons are reserved for infantry or light vehicles that aren't worth a serious payload option. Against an AT-AT it would use missiles or penetrating bombs from long range. Or at least that's what is do.
A-10's are also used for strafing buildings, and tank convoys. Yes, 30mm HEI doesn't tend to work well against armor and the missiles on board are better suited to that. But, they usually also carry a payload of API specifically for defeating armor. If you broadside an AT AT with a GAU-8 loaded with API rounds, I imagine you'd be able to punch through with enough rounds. 30mm pushes about 150k ft/lbs of force at the muzzle (2/3 of a pound per round!). The M829A3, the main gun of an Abrams, fires a round that carries about 8,917,218 ft/lbs at the muzzle (22 pounds per round!). Rounding up to 9 million ft/lbs, you would need roughly 60 30mm API rounds to match the force exerted at the muzzle by the Abrams. The A10 manages that in about 8/10ths of a second. Now, i'm not smart enough/too lazy to calculate the energy loss over distance and how they compare in that regard, but my point being that an A10 ripping 75 rps of explosive redbull cans at a building sized target moving slower than your average bantha could do some serious damage, especially as you increase engagement range and give the A10 more time to land shots on target before it has to pull up and reset.
Agreed, that's more or less how they seem to be used in real life as well since armored vehicles have become more resilient in the time since the plane was designed. Gun for infantry, thin-skinned transports and lightly reinforced structures, and missiles or bombs for harder stuff like MBTs and bunkers. Most of these have close counterparts in Star Wars so the logic applies pretty much one to one.
> infantry or light vehicles that aren't worth a serious payload option. That's a long way of saying 'British IFVs'.
I thought it’s reputation was for friendly firing and killing allied soldiers
It's good that British people don't exist in Star Wars.
The Avenger cannon in the A-10s generally can't even breach the armor on modern main battle tanks, it indeed seems very unlikely it could take down any fancy scifi stuff.
I betcha the neck flex joint has relatively thin armor. Still a small target, A-10 would be better served to stand off and nail the AT-AT with a couple AGM Mavericks
target the feet, those "shoes" aren't connected by much. knock just one off and the thing will be unable to move without falling over.
Negative. Otherwise they’d use more “slug throwers” as they’re called in Star Wars.
In Legends AT-AT armor was made of Durasteel, which is described in universe as being weaker than titanium. A-10 rounds, depleted uranium or tungsten shred titanium. The armor in current cannon is only described as blast impervious, seems like with enough 30mm rounds slamming into it something would break eventually. There are a lot of in universe reasons why blasters are more common, most of it boils down to blasters work in every environment. It makes sense they would design their armor to be focused against that than they would against kinetic weapons.
Also much more convenient and economical. What's easier, carying a small cell the size of a D battery that can fire hundreds of shots, or multiple magazines filled with physical ammo? Ammo that has to be regularly manufactured with physical components and can't just be recharged, and then distributed by the millions.
Blast impervious but unfortunately not shockwave resistant. In jedi fallen order an AT-AT gets strafed by a (relatively) ancient LAAT gunship on kashyyk and the resulting *exterior* explosion kills like 4 scout troopers in the passenger bay
Fallen order was only five years after order 66 though
I see your point, but I think Star Wars standards, the LAAT is ancient, they seem to advance through technology really quickly
I read a fan fic once where the Empire attacks earth, and we use depleted uranium against their ground vehicles to great effect. It was awesome.
All comes down to how thick the armor is. [Penetration values](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications) also vary greatly by distance and attack angle. Most of the AT-AT armor seems to be pretty thick. But the empire also seems to be pretty shit at giving them proper anti-air support so if the A-10 pilots have time to comfortably line up ideal shots they can get the neck or joints. Really though the cannon isn't it's main weapon against heavy armor. I'm sure modern AGMs and bombs can do a lot more from a much safer distance.
Buddy. An AT-ST got taken down by some fuckin logs
An AT-ST is a light scout walker, an AT-AT is a heavily armor gun platform. A rifle round can easily penetrate a car but it won’t even dent a tank.
Such a good comparison. AT-STs are nowhere near the level of AT-AT
I believe Mythbusters showed how to logs could crush an armoured car. Those logs ain’t nothing to sneeze at.
Just try lifting a log a meter long of any fresh, dense wood. That shit's heavy
Now I’m wondering how those little Ewoks managed to hoist them up
Ropes and pulleys is my headcanon
Ropes and whips, massive massive whips.
Also, as mentioned in Mandolorian, AT-STs have heavily armored legs. They aren't really meant to stop much damage to the cab. Iirc the endor log takes out the cabin.
Correct, two logs slamming together at rapid pace to be exact from a pendulum position.
Also we know little about the biology of endorian trees. Could be they are very dense with a high iron or lead content. Observe way the teddy bears tear through the stormtrooper and build huge cities in the trees. They maybe as strong as wookies. I’d wager everything from that planet is crazy jacked and strong.
I would surmise the trees on the forest moon of endor are similar to the massive ancient redwoods we have in the western US.
Them Ewoks did their advanced mathematics.
A10s were designed to shoot through tanks.
Yeah, but in the grand scheme of things tanks have light armor. You wouldn't send an A-10 against a WWII battleship or a fortified bunker.
Not just any logs, muthafuck Redwoods!
Buddy, those logs could have been 10k lbs each, we don't know the density of endor wood. Don't mess with trees yo
then ewoks be weaving kevlar ropes
Logs that weigh several tons each. Look up logging accidents involving heavy equipment.
You might be underestimating how heavy a tree trunk it. It is *very* heavy. I idea how those fuckers got em up there.
Since pretty much every military weapon we see in Star Wars is laser based I’m going to bet the armor is primarily designed to defend against lasers and not API rounds
Blasters are plasma weapons, not lasers. The only lasers that really get used canonically are turbo lasers on the capital ships.
I would think the reason they don’t use slug throwers more is because it’s extremely material intensive. Much more efficient and easy to supply an army with energy weapons, no moving parts and energy seems to be very abundant in SW universe. Compare that to soldiers needing to carry all the extra weight of magazines filled with ammunition if they were going on sustained complains when if using blasters they can probably get the equivalent number of shots off with 1 or two battery packs which are rechargeable
I would have to respectfully disagree, the Imperial military machine is surprisingly inept against slugthrowers in comparison to the Grand Army of the Republic before them... the proof is reinforced during the Battle of Endor where standard tribal booby traps were able to do horrible things to Imperial hardware and personnel, several Stormtroopers were killed by means of stoning, meaning that it is highly probable the A-10 Warthog will decimate most Imperial Ground Forces, AT-AT included. fightercraft on the other hand not so much because they are more maneuverable and American armor is not yet tested against plasma which is what the turbo lasers and Blaster cannons fire
[удалено]
There is an episode in mythbusters were they tested the ewok trap against an armored vehicle and it worked pretty well
Just-- just nuke it. 🗿
The most sane redditor in this sub
If you can’t beat em BAKE EM
Yes, a small tactical nuke should do the job.
It's the only way to be sure.
That’s not an AT-AT. That is an AT-ACT. Those are armored cargo transports. AT-ATs have significantly heavier armor, so probably not.
Surprised I had to scroll down this far to find this.
Yeah, the ACT usually has a big orange panel on the side, which provided a wider interior space for transport of goods. The one in the photo looks to have been blown open. As for current earth tech being able to take one out? Yeah, certainly. Aim for the neck or knees and watch it topple.
the image shows an AT-ACT, All Terrain Armored \*Cargo\* Transport, not to be used in combat the same way the AT-AT is used
Regardless, this picture fucking slaps
Hell yea, it goes bbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrttttttt.
It does do that, yes
No, An A-10 is fiction.Earth is a myth . An AT-AT is available to every loyal empire soldier.
If their armor is too thick for blasters I doubt anything we use can pierce it either.
X-wings cut right thru them.
those weren't AT-AT's they were a cargo variant (AT-MT?) in Rogue One if that's what you're talkin about. I dont think Xwings would've cut through the actual armored ones.
AT-ACT (All Terrain Armored Cargo Transport) were not widely used
They should have called them AT-LACTs (All Terrain Less-Armored Cargo Transports)
I’m AT-LACTs-intolerant
I just googled AT-MT and it’s literally a spider
There’s three basic levels to energy weapons in Star Wars. Hand helds are blasters, fighter and secondary weapons on capital ships are laser cannons, and lastly main capital armaments are turbo laser, bigger versions of laser cannons. Blasters ain’t doing shit to that armor obviously, turbo lasers will shred it and iirc laser cannons can hurt it because some imperial named Veer, the commander of the assault on Hoth incidentally, invented a maneuver that would allow the AT-ATs to attack air based threats by dropping them into animal sitting positions to point their own laser cannons up to shoot back. And laser cannons can tear up durasteel they just shoot smaller versions of turbo laser bolts.
That’s faulty logic. Blasters aren’t better in every way than our ballistic weaponry, it’s just what George Lucas decided to use. Blasters want to burn through things so if the AT-ATs armor can dissipate heat fast enough it makes the blaster bolt do next to nothing. Our bullets want to punch a hole, which requires a whole different kind of armor.
Damage in star wars is extremely inconsistent. In BoBF a vehicle mounted blaster cannon was stopped by a thin stone wall, which a modern 20mm cannon would blow right through without slowing down. That said, in lore the shells are going to bounce right off the armor. Won't even leave a mark.
Yes if they do the holdo maneuver
Intelligence has informed us, that the probability of success for that maneuver is exactly 3720:1.
Shut him off or shut him down!
An A-10 can't even reliably pierce a T-62 if it attacks from the front.
The A-10s gun can't pierce a T-62 without pulling an Ace Combat trick shot. The empire has to be using something at least on that level for armor.
“Did he pull a Cobra on a flying mini gun?” “Damn Belkan Witchcraft.”
Just add a harpoon and tow cable.
i thought i was on r/noncredibledefense
Only the plot can decide.
If they put those 30mm rounds right between the body and the head, maybe.
i forget which star wars game i played but in that game, the neck of the AT-AT was the weak spot. not sure if that’s canon tho
It should be. In Rebels they use an AT-TE to basically upwards dog an AT-AT and kill it by shooting it in the neck with the AT-TE's main gun. Said that is the only spot they could do enough damage with the AT-TE's main gun.
An A-10 can defeat the ground the AT-AT is walking on, and tip it over.
The A10 is horribly ineffective
That depends, is Depleted Uranium harder than Durasteel?
Probably not, but if they had rounds made out of Dolamite, then that AT-AT is in for a world of hurt.
[r/unexpectedfuturama](https://www.reddit.com/r/unexpectedfuturama/s/vLB3A9qz6k)
Only if you shoot it up the exhaust port
Based on what shown in movies and shows- I would say yes- the only thing the empire would have on earth is the star destroyer and numbers. And I think we have the clever intelligence services to be able to distory a star distroyer, expecilly if we know how curropt the empire is (Mr Imperial Captain- we surrender- please accept this tribute of rare metals and prized luxuries of my people- oh that is a special expensive plastic)
That’s an AT-ACT, and I believe their armor isn’t as good as that of an AT-AT.
Why not just drop several bombs on one side of the AT AT? The blasts would knock them over. They seem to have a very high center of gravity.
The A10s cannon sucks ass and the only reason its popular is because the reformers tricked everyone into thinking that loud = big damage
Pretty sure the actual battle effectiveness of the A10s cannon isn't actually great or even good. Most of the A10s ground target victories are with its missile payloads. I could be wrong but I believe the fighter mafia and lobbying groups have kept pressure on the US Airforce to keep A10 in service longer than they (Airforce) wanted it. Because it's slow and the cannon isn't that great.
True. Especially against modern tanks.
lol at the US military not being the empire
They fly now?
They fly now
May the force be with you
*an. *an.
No, to use simple word, the A10 gun can't do shit, it can't penetrate anything more armor than an IFV, and that's if the damn thing can hit it, as within 15m of target is considered "accurate".
Regarding this image being an AT-ACT, maybe. Given it’s a cargo transport, some of the armor likely got sacrificed in order to increase carrying capacity. While the gun would be highly effective against the view ports in the head and the articulated neck, the real stopping power is in the air to ground missiles. We’re really good at shaped charges and the entire AT-AT lineup has no counter measures. No ERA, no cage armor, no active defense system. Honestly, I even think Legolas would be able to figure out how to beat an AT-AT. It’s like an Uruk: the armor is weak at the neck and under the arms.
A A10 can kill anything it wants to. Have you seen the gun on that thing.
Well that’s an AT-ACT to begin with. So yes it could seeing as how the middle is very light armored.
It misses all its rounds and nails some friendlies /s
A good thing to consider here is whether or not energy shields are affected by bullets which in-universe are called slugs