"Rebels were thinking they are winning the battle of Ord Vaug. They sure felt proud of themselves - they dug up on a planet right at the Inner Rim's gates. Fortified it, too - surface-to orbit ion cannons, shields over every major city, tanks and guns from looted Imperial armories. Orbital bombardment would take years, and repulsorlift assault, likewise, was impossible. They were winning, alright... until we deployed AT-AT walkers. They went right through the shields, shrugging off blaster fire and stepping on armored cars and war droids. After 6 hours vaughian royalty and their rebel friends have capitulated. "The Force" and "hope" can only do so much against Kuati durasteel".
"We had the Battle of Gormen won, until the AT-ATs arrived. They came out of the fog and ripped apart the front lines. The locals ran in terror, but the experienced soldiers surrendered. We knew that you can't outrun an AT-AT." ―Major Bren Derlin, Rebel Alliance field commander
And take the armaments off the head. Let it be a utility walker with a sheild generator. If it had the armament still, it'd be negating the ATATs best atribute: its range, as it would end up shooting its own sheild. Plus, that generator would require a lot of power to be of any substantial size. Now that I think about it, having a formation of 5 or 6 regular ATATs paired with this sheild ATAT could be incredibly effective at deflecting incoming bomber attacks, especially if there's no air escort. When the Y-wings are detected, pop the sheild up and continue marching. Wait for them to expend their munitions or until friendly TIEs can come deal with them.
I always love how the AT-AT's have had a logical use that was set up from their first appearance. I hear people sometimes go "Why can't they just attack from the air, why do they need big walkers?" But like they literally explain it in the film with how the Rebellion has a shield generator. This whole concept is great because it explains why ground battles are necessary and why we have vehicles such as the AT-AT, AT-ST, AATE etc
That is why I like walkers. My problem with the AT-AT is it being a 'troop transport'. I feel a command post or, as it was shown in Empire, a long ranged heavy armored artillery/sniper.
Not to sure about the necessity of at-at in general. The walker is supposed be a troop transport, its height makes it inconvenient for troop to get on/off the thing. Would be more effective if it was specialized as a weapon platform. Also, the thing is top heavy, so if the ground under it is too soft, the at-at could sink into the ground or tip over. Rather than a walker, something like a helicopter would fulfill a better role for what the at-at does.
It explains ground battles but like a lot of Star Wars the AT-AT exists entirely because it looks cool on screen and drives the action. All the world explanations come later as authors try and turn it all into a coherent setting. It's a very silly vehicle when you break it down, especially given the established tech of the setting. A bunch of hover tanks and transports would be more effective and way faster, if you have to go big the Juggernaut is also faster and way more practical. Faster, less vulnerable, much easier and quicker to deploy troops.
@@ericjeon2727 It is quite literally explained in the video that the walker's sensors detect environmental hazards and sends such information to the drivers in the cockpit. Turning it into a helicopter would also ruin the entire point of it being used for ground invasions.
@@Paxton365 Point taken, but the radar doesn’t help the at-at with the limited terrain it can traverse through. Ground invasions can use air support, which the rebels use against the at-at.
It's nice to see someone finally give the AT-AT some actual respect instead of trying to nitpick it to death like every other armchair engineer on the internet.
I viewed the OT in theaters when they came out, and I can't forget that initial time I saw the AT-AT on Hoth, what an impact. It was awe-inspiring at the time. This vehicle is my all-time favorite. Thanks Meta for the details. Long time coming. But when the Prequels arrived along with the Clone Wars, the AT-TE became my favorite now. Best Tony
Fun fact: At the battle of Kuat Drive Yards, the empire deployed AT-ATs on the surface of the orbital shipyard, to act as replacement turbolasers that were destroyed in rebel attacks
@@Knightmare919 Its also super versitile and can be fitted to be have a mobile command centre, carry up to 2 AT-RTs, or potenetially other support roles.
Lando made use of them in Heir to the Empire where he used them as mechanized pack mules on a planet where the Sun literally scorched the earth so much any buildings required constant movement
Mon mothma understood these were weapons of terror while the rebellion symbolized hope. She forbade the use of AT-AT. But at the same time the rebellion utilized capture Star destroyers in their fleet.
@@bman3794 basically a hypocrite, if you're using Imperial Is and Imperial IIs and the Victory Is and Victory IIs, it wouldn't hurt alittle to utilize the AT-AT as it was supposed to be used in conjunction with the existing AT-TE.
Fr absolutely hilarious but I think the reason why it did that was probably because there was a boulder and the AT AT tried to not damage that leg by putting it behind it.
They certainly got the intimidation factor down, along with it's ability to cross most terrain and to rain fire thanks to its height. But the AT-TE is still my favorite of the larger walkers in Star Wars.
"along with it's ability to cross most terrain and to rain fire thanks to its height." But can the AT-AT walk up a vertical slope or perform in the vacuum of space? Actually, scratch that vacuum of space one. AT-ATs did participate in the Battle of KDY when the New Republic sought to take it. Same with AT-TEs. But unless an AT-AT can traverse sheer cliffs like the AT-TE, I would disagree.
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2 The AT-AT is like 60m tall, it's over twice the AT-TE. Just because the latter can hang upside doesn't mean the AT-AT can't shoot downwards, it has the height and neck to look down. The AT-TE will always still be better, but not for that reason alone. Also, I said most terrain, not all. The giant camel can't climb sheer cliffs, but the same goes for over 90% of all walkers in Star Wars, that's not an argument against it.
Kek, the AT-Te is better? How? Because you watched the animated cartoons? The AT-AT outclasses it in every way and choosing the AT-TE over it is down to pure nostalgia bias lol. If you're going to use the show made for 12 year olds (Rebels) as your argument see yourself out the door.@@inductivegrunt94
@@angelic_disappointment7889 How about the second battle of the Clone Wars right after the Battle of Geonosis? The one of the monastery? Try getting an AT-AT up there.
I haven't really seen this mentioned much after making the connection myself, but I'm 99% sure the main body of the AT-AT was largely inspired by a German WW1 tank, the A7V. If you compare the two, they're really close to the same basic design, the AT-AT just has modified proportions, no guns on the body itself, it's scaled up by a lot and of course it has a head and four giant legs. It even has the two windows at the top of the main body facing forward that were used on the A7V by the commander and driver to see out of the vehicle, they're just scaled differently. The placement of the legs and the design of the hub area they connect to (not sure what to call it tbh) is also remarkably similar in its basic shape to the treads on the A7V, with the legs connecting at almost exactly the same spots where the four main wheels are on the A7V. Considering how much the Empire was inspired by Nazi Germany as well as Imperial Germany, it makes perfect sense to me that this could be a large part of where the inspiration came from. Of course I don't mean to say this was the only source of inspiration, it's just that it hit me fairly recently how obvious the similarities are and I was surprised I couldn't find more people talking about this online.
I have always thought AT-AT sounds more tactical, like something you would hear in the military, rather than at, at. Also, would love a AT-AT variant breakdown!
@Jeikobu So the HMMWV, more commonly called the Humvee should be spelled out H-M-M-W-V instead as you say. Military shorten everything to make it faster to communicate (I did 21 years in the US military), so a military person would say at-at, not AT-AT. I varies from word to word, so an AT-ST would propose still be called an AT-ST instead of an at-ST. Often the vehiclesend up having nicknames, like the M113 was often called the battlebus. I know lots of vehicles do not have nicknames, but class names. Class names are kinda like ship classes and aircraft nicknames, like the F-15 Eagle. You rarely hear them called Eagle, unless accompanied by another word, like Eagle Driver (pilot) or Eagle Keeper (maintainer/crew chief)
First thanks for your service, I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but I said I think it sounds more military like. It's my opinion on a fantasy subject, I never said it as a fact and was talking in the sense of Star Wars based military vernacular, revolving around precedent in Canon. So, while I respect your opinion and experience in your field, I have been a fan of Star Wars most of my life, so I have more than a few parsecs under my belt, so in my opinion AT-AT sounds better! @@michaelchristensen5421
Always had an idea of a ship that was a salvaged and retrofitted at-at with parts from imperial ships namely the tie reaper to replace the missing cockpit.
I think it would be fun to drive a AT-ST. They seem so nimble. I always figured a walker had some type of repulsor system to mitigate it's weight. If not, you'd think it would tear up the streets like during a parade, etc.
A repulsive system is the only way the AT models, especially the AT, make sense. I get that the armor is strong, but you can look at footage of tanks being hit and even when the armor is barely scratched, the tank is still jolted considerably. It’s just the physics of a big thing being hit by a fast thing. The problem with the AT-AT is that it’s a very heavy box on 4 stilts. Any kind of anti-armor canon would, even if it didn’t penetrate, still very likely knock it over, even with shock absorbers.
A couple months ago, as it's second post ever on Threads, the official Star Wars account posted "Do you say AT-AT or AT-AT?" and, the Force help me, I heard both individual pronunciations in my head while I read it.
I think the AT-AT is underrated, During the Battle of Hoth it is often criticized because one got destroyed by a speeder with a tow cable but they overlook that the speeder was piloted by legendary pilot Wedge Antilles and was a very lucky shot that would not be easy to replicate, most of the speeders were shot down including luke. The only other one that got destroyed was by Luke from the inside, not something most people could pull off. The AT-ATs also completely ignored all the Rebel fire and absolutely decimated the Rebel Defenses. The intimidation factor of a giant near indestructible walker just plowing through everything you can throw at it without a care in the world would be terrifying and morale is a much more important factor than often thought. Also, most of the AT-AT weaknesses can be almost entirely removed with combined arms tactics.
Exquisite performance against lightly armed guerrillas, even elite elements of a guerrlla force is not indicative of superior capability. Consider the same amount of resources, poured into two tracked vehicles with a revolving turret for their main gun, plus 4 more tracked vehicles with much lighter weapons and infantry transport capacity. Not only will those platforms be more survivable (smaller target, armour will be thicker for same mass because smaller, faster, more agile), they'll be more redundant (six targets, rather than one, or, at higher echelons, 18 rather than three), and the two gun vehicles will be able to split to either side of the AT-AT, which guarantees that one of them will get a shot off. AT-ATs look cool. But as military weapons? Deeply, thoroughly silly.
@@jochentram9301 They weren't attacking lightly armed guerillas but a heavily fortified base with weapons that would have chewed up lighter vehicles. And they annihilated the defenses with only two losses both of which were incredibly circumstantial, which is phenomenally effective. In other terrain with more cover lighter vehicles might be more effective but on Hoth where they can see you coming from miles away heavy armor was the right call.
@@Peregrin3 I disagree. Yes, the Rebels at Hoth Base were dug in, but infantry in a position *always* digs in. That's so ingrained in even halfway decent infantry as to qualify as a reflex action. Rebel armament was limited to what were light AT guns, because they are an insurgent force, not a peer opponent. They had no access, and certainly didn't deploy, cannon capable of breaching heavy armour. As I keep saying, against a well-designed combined--arms tank+IFV force designed and built by people with access to a modern Defence Industrial Base, AT-AT walkers are big, slow targets. Against properly sited heavy AT systems, they're slow, big targets. They're a statement of pure arrogance, and that never works against a real military, which the Alliance isn't. The Alliance is an insurgent force using Clone Wars castoffs and whatever they can buy on the black market, scrounge or steal.
no, its not underrated, its a bad vehicle design. Performing well against underarmed gurella's is not a good indicator of capability. Put this thing up against an actual effective combined armed ground force primarily relying on tracked and wheeled vehicles instead of these silly oversized walkers, and AT-AT's are going to get decimated.
I love the animated concept art drawings. Did anyone else catch that "leaping" AT-AT at approximately 17:10? While they are much too heavy and slow to be truly effective cavalry, I could easily imagine something like that happening if the walkers were considerably faster. Could you imagine an AT-AT moving forwards at speeds rivalling a horse at full gallop? Also, it's always a highlight of any Empire at War Rebellion Campaign playthrough when Chewie hijacks an AT-AT on Corellia. I can pretty much clean out the entire garrison with that thing.
I prefer the AT-TE, but I do like the AT-AT, I just feel like I like every more specialized version so much more. Like if your gonna spend on all this armor and height, I think it suits things other than troop transport more.
That's exactly why you wouldn't be a good military logistician lol. It's a dedicated troop transport. That's where the priority should lie first and foremost. There are already other Imperial land vehicles that serve other roles.
@@helghast1149 Thing is, I personally prefer the platform to be other things. As far as troop transport goes, there are so many better options, especially when flight is so readily available. It serves as a better command platform, possibly filling its body with communication gear.
It has all of that already. Do you not remember General Veers conducting the assault and issuing orders from the cockpit? It already fulfills the role of a troop transport and command platform. Aerial vehicles are not ideal against heavily fortified and protected fortresses or cities. The AT-AT is ideal because it's capable of weathering the intense firepower that it would encounter. Short of enemy air support being able to openly bomb it the AT-AT is generally impervious to most means of attack. Space wizards are a rarity not the common denominator. In addition to being able to shuttle it's precious infantry and equipment to staging grounds *safely and effectively* the AT-AT is well armed enough to counter enemy aircraft, call in orbital strikes due to it's view of the battlefield, and outright annihilate enemy ground forces/installations. There's nothing wrong with supplementing your forces with more specialized and varied equipment to respond to the demands of a changing battlefield or threat but I think the AT--AT serves as a great anchor point for any armored battle group. Now, I do think the platforms should be more modular in configuration to allow for certain situational additions (tow-cable cutting spikes on the back of legs, AA blaster/cannon on the back of the platform like the prototype AT-AT had, etc..) Sorry for the rant lol @@Jeikobu
I actually agree. You have all that height, might as well use it for a dedicated long-range artillery platform (similar to the Sequel Trilogy gorilla walker). A faster, lower-profiled repulsor-sled or centipede-walker (or the OTAT(?)) would better fit the role of a troop transport. All that potential capacitor space in the main body is wasted by making it a troop transport.
@@UGNAvalon Thank you, I literally look at the AT-AT and go "For troops that looks like a nightmare to get in and out of. Sure it is usually safe...but like...if you spend that money on that armor make something shorter. Getting through shields making repulsorlifts not work? A tracked or shorter walker would to the trick just fine, and probably would be able to use the extra material to either make more, or make it store more people."
The ATAT is actually really good as an assualt vehicle. It's not supposed to be a tank, and it's not supposed to fight in urban areas. When when used as long range direct fire artillery, the ATAT is up there with the ATAP, even surpassing it in some areas. Like Meta said, a range of 17km is actually insane, and the ATATs height allows it to effectively stiff arm enemy defenses/vehicles. In most cases, as soon as those chin mounted cannons have a line of sight on you, you better hide. For comparison, the ATTEs mass driver only has a range of 2 km. The armor is considerably tough, requiring the enemy to get close (flank) and either target the bottom or the neck. But if properly supported by other Imp vehicles, not much can stop the ATAT's slow March towards you. The fact that the rebellion had to really on wonky and extremely dangerous tactics, like using a tow cable, shows just how hard it is to take out. And for the argument that it's unstable and easy to tip over, how is the enemy going to achieve that realistically? Again some other wonky tactic... most likely, this is a reference to "all terain" issues, where the terrain at hand might put the ATAT in pinch so-to-speak. Imo, while the ATTE is a classic, and is still one of my favorites, the ATAT is a better assualt vehicle. The ATTE has just as many, if not more design flaws, from a real world stand point. It realistically is a light assualt vehicle or an IFV. But I just imagine how devastating a group of these ATATs could be, given they were supported on the flanks by a few ATSTs, S1 firehawkes, HAVr A9s, and a few 74Z bikes. I'd take that line up against almost anything else the GAR or CIS in a ground assult.
The biggest flaw of Star Wars overall is that no one seems to use missiles. How would something that targets like a javelin missile that attacks from the top (something we have today) be stopped by the AT which, if we’re extremely generous, has 180° view in front of it. Not even to count that while armor will stop it from going boom, it won’t stop physics from making it still be moved. And considering it’s a giant metal box on stilts, they’re pretty easy to tip. Realistically these things would be a death trap for the troops
@damonedrington3453 I see your point, and yeah it is strange that there seems to be an underutilization of concussion missles. But missles in SW are generally less impressive than there are in real life. But then again, concussion missles varied deeply in both destructive capabilities, penetration, and range. They ranged from capitol ship grade, like on the Victory, to smaller anti-starfighter type missles. On the ground, most were used against lighter faster moving targets, like land speeders, light repulsor tanks, airspeeders, and the occasional starfighter. Even in space combat, anti-starfighter concussion missles, and really concussion missles in general, were considered short range weapons. There were a few exceptions, like those on the HAVw A6, but even then, those missles were almost always the concussion grenades, good against infantry and light armor (it did have anti armor missles, but these were rare). Proton torpedoes are really honestly better. Considerably more powerful than your contemporary concussion missle varients, the protont torpedoe had a much longer range, and, in most cases, was almost impossible to shoot down by starfighters or flak. That brings me to my next point, it seems that missles in SW are very slow. In space combat, skilled pilots and escort flak vessels could easily deal with incoming missles, not to mention varying electronic 'warfare seen in some cases. This is why a majority of starfighter combat devolved into dogfights. The rebels, surprisingly, seemed to focus on including munitions launchers on their ground vehicles. We see this with the TB series and ACC series of ground tanks. But again, when it came to direct fire engagements with imperial forces, the rebels used mainly heavy laser cannons, as seen on the capable freerunner, T-4B, or older Clone Wars refits. As for a blast tipping over the ATAT, that is very unlikely. While yes it is tall, and is certainty more unstable when compared to something like the ATTE, it is still a stable and reliable vehicle. The ATAT is a heavy beast too. And if you in a position to fire waves of concussion missles at the side of an ATAT to "tip it over", why not go for the neck or underbelly. These are more realistic objectives than wasting valuable munitions on fruitless trying to knock it off balance. These unstable issues are a reference to terrain issues, like steep terrain. Again, the rebels had to really on a dangerous tow cable tactic on Hoth, that ultimately only took down 2 or 3 walkers, and lost a lot of snowspeeders. It was common imperial doctorine to pair ATATs with smaller escort walkers and repulsercraft. These vehicles would include ATST varients, ATARs, ULAVs, sensor craft like the LAV Q7 and HAVr A9, and Repulsor tanks like the S1 Firehawke, 1H, and 2M. Even some juggernauts were used like the A9, A5, and B5. While the ATAT would bare the brunt of the frontal assualt, these support vehicles would sweep the flanks and make sure the ATATs go unchallenged from the side.
the unstable and easy to tip over part is more of a terrain hazard. The AT-AT having such a high center of gravity means it is in practice, going to be extremely limited in the terrain it can traverse. Being so huge means its ground pressure is going to be astronomical compared to any modern vehicle, meaning stepping in loose soil, sand or mud is a recipe for this thing to tip over. And as a bonus, because its a walker and does not have wheels, if it gets stuck or suffers an engine breakdown, you cant just put the transmission in neutral and tow the thing the way you can with tracked and wheeled vehicles. so that huge size, and super high ground pressure is going to heavily limit where it can go, which is a big limitation. The AT-At only works within the context of the star wars universe where the writers ignore things like basic physics. but if you actually applied real physics and constraints on them, most of these things would destroy themselves long before the enemy ever had to fight them, which is very bad vehicle design. And the fact that Star Wars writers just aren't good military writers at all. If anyone in the star wars universe actually used their technology properly, these things would be nothing but sitting targets to long range missiles and heavy artillery. and no the But Jamming is not going to just magic all missiles away. Jamming an ECM can be beaten, often through just competent operator training. and there is also a particularity fun missile type that is very good at killing jammer's, and its called Anti Radiation missiles, ie a missile designed specifically to home in on radio and radiation sources, which includes Jammers. And there is no reason Star wars couldn't have these, since even in the real world, these types of missiles have existed since the 70's. There are also plenty of other ways to defeat Jammers and ECM in the real world, that star wars should have, but I'm not going to list them right now to keep my response length in check. The other problem with these things is they are so large, they are going to be expensive, as in 10 to 20 times more expensive than a vehicle the size of a modern tank.
@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 the starwars universe is not ours with different technologies. It's not the future or parallel to the real world. It's an 80s looking sci-fi space drama. With that said, your points stand, obviously this thing wouldn't work in the real world lol. But in the SW universe, walkers have existed for thousands of years, meaning they, in universe, have a pretty good idea how to make one. The terrain sensors in the feat would theoretically detected any kind of hazardous land ahead, so, in universe, a safe course could be plot. Also, looking at the gyroscope capabilities of walkers like the ATRT and ATST varients, and from what we see in ESB, I would assume this thing can handle a decent amount of terrain. It's pretty nimble for a 20 meter tall metal box. It's literally walking on snow, and Hoth is one of the most inhospitable planets out there. Given a few were lost on the trek through the valleys through sheild. Also, in universe, the armor on the ATAT is near impenetrable to conventional artillery. Remember this thing is an artillery platform itself, outranging practically every other piece of ground artillery in SW, and certainly what the average rebel cell would have on hand. Missle technology In SW is nearly as ranged as our real world comparisons. Often, they are shorter in range even compared to conventional laser/blaster cannons. But, yes obviously, this thing is dumb when you are looking at it from a realistic standpoint smh
@@undraftedboomer5055 this is also a universe that continues to invest in gigantic capital ships with no effective fighter defenses whatsoever despite fighters constantly and consistently prove they have infinitely superior plot armor and are the undisputed gods of war in the setting. and despite these thousands of years of fighters constantly proving themselves to be some of the most effective fighting pieces of equipment in the galaxy, the galaxies militaries continue to stubbornly refuse to either develop effective anti fighter defenses or recenter their fleet doctrines purely around them. Bear in mind that the AT-AT was also a walker built by a faction whom though that building Executor Cass SSD's was a reasonable thing to build when their major opponent's biggest capital ship wasn't even really a match for the ISD and could barely afford to build a tiny fraction of them compared to the Empires ISD's. or their response to having their mega planet killing supership getting blown up by a handful of snub fighters was to build an even bigger and dumber planet killing supership, which oh, hey, it got killed by fighters and a light freighter again. So yeah forgive me if i question the empires ability to build a competent walker, or the star wars galaxies ability to build competent war machines at all.
Couple of corrections: first, in Legends a brace of proton torpedoes can take one down, which is explicitly stated in one of the X-Wing novels when Rogue Squadron encountered one when conducting an air strike against an Imperial warlord base, although IIRC they decide to take it out with guns rather than waste torpedoes on it. Second, depending on how you play the game, Chewbacca does hijack an AT-AT in Star Wars Empire at War
I would not consider a gameplay feature as "canon". In the enclosed space, a Wookie would fall within seconds to the blasters of the crew and/or the troops who wait for deployment.
@@Myuutsuu85 Yeah in the actual campaign which was canon in the EU, Chewie steals an empty ATAT from what I remember, so he didn't take on anyone, but even if the walker had a crew, Chewie could have taken them out unless they had a troop complement.
Yes, I tend to treat an AT-AT as equal to an in-game Stormtrooper Transport, from X-Wing: Alliance, TIE Fighter, and so on. Still, it may be better able to deflect torpedoes, sometimes? But yeah, ordinarily - one would do the job. Or ten starfighter grade laser blasts, maybe (as in X-Wing: Isard's Revenge) So, equal to about 50 Ru hull, or something.
I'm more happy to pilo these in the gamecube rogue squadron series during that rebel strike mission. Even so, I remember how the republic had these damn things during the prototype days during that dark horse comic too
I'm pretty sure there was a mission in Rogue Squadron where you needed to protect a handful of AT-PTs so the Rebel Alliance could gain some valuable intel and use them in a stealth mission against the Imps... I distinctly remember failing that mission so many times because the AT-PTs were sooooo weak, only took a few shots and they were down failing the mission. Ps. What a GREAT game! I really wish there were more like it.
6:17 Hoth was a morale victory for the Alliance? How? They took down some walkers at the cost of many members of Rogue Squadron, i.e. some of their best pilots. That would decrease morale, not raise it.
@@kaws8778 It was not a *complete* rebel defeat due to Ozzel being an idiot. Had he not brought the fleet so close to the system, the Empire would have been able to land their forces closer to Echo Base and not had to make the arduous journey to Echo Base which caused a lot of attrition for their forces. Had the Empire arrived at full strength, the Rebel defenders would have fallen more quickly and the Imps would have taken fewer casualties to Rogue Squadron because they would have had their Juggernauts with missiles that they could use to destroy the snow speeders more easily. The fact that only the ATATs and a few other support walkers were able to make the journeys shows just how poor some of the old Republic clone hardware was, but that would have been better than nothing.
I think both ways to pronounce "AT-AT" would have been used in the Star Wars galaxy, just like some people say "hummer" and other says "humvee" for the very same military vehicle. The official pronounciation would probably be "Ey Tee Ey Tee" while the average infantery soldier would have probably called them "add add".
Some guys in my platoon used to say that...in a formal briefing or operations, the AT-AT is what should be used...where you're just slumming out in the motor pool, riding in the back of one, or tripping something up to destroy it, at at is more appropriate...like using M1A1 instead of just saying Abrams
As for pronunciation, I always have been in the "A-T-A-T" camp. I compare it to other acronyms: for soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, IEDs were pronounced letter-by-letter, not "EEED" 😂 Same with any of the US government agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.).
@@leol.8658 Yes, it's an acronym, but everyone pronounces it as a whole word. That analogy fails because we've never heard AT-AT pronounced in-universe, and the creators and crew of the films have all pronounced it differently. That's why there's debate.
The AT-AT is my all time favorite Star Wars vehicle. I love the AT-TE and I see a bunch of comments in here that prefer that walker over the AT-AT. It's a bit wrong to compare them though because both machines were designed for 2 different roles. The AT-TE was designed for asymmetrical warfare and indirect combat missions while the AT-AT was designed for frontal assaults and deep troop insertion. I know the AT-TE took out the Mk.I AT-AT in Rebels (which, you can determine for yourself if that's realistic or plot armor for the heroes, remember that the Mk.I has light laser cannons and thinner armor, but Disney gonna do what Disney gonna do). But I would put money on a Mk.II AT-AT taking out multiple AT-TE's in a head-on battle with it's increased range and height overwatch along with it's dual heavy laser cannons and significantly stronger armor. On top of that, The AT-AT excels far more at it's #1 job that it was created for which is it's extreme intimidating prescence and demoralizing nature. The AT-AT was developed in conjunction with the Tarkin Doctrine which was essentially a policy of ruling by fear. I would compare the AT-TE to the extremely versatile Sherman Tank from WW-2 and the AT-AT to the Intimidating Tiger tank from the same war. Don't get me wrong I love the AT-TE and I would take it anytime I needed a walker for any mission outside of a direct assault or direct combat or a siege. The AT-TE having more fields of fire for it's cannons and not being tripped, (and it's probably cheaper). But it lacks armor, onboard troop support, Overwatch range, and overwhelming fire power compared to the AT-AT.
Add some side mounted weapons, rear mounted ones, and maybe a dorsal mount and this thing would be an amazing platform. Skipping a belly mount to cover the bottom arc does make sense since that may be the infantry deployment point. Even some firing ports in those areas would make it even better for little risk and much better rewards.
If only the Empire had paired this walker with the HAV/w A6 Juggernaut more often during the Galactic Civil War, they would’ve dominated on nearly every battle during the war.
The thing I always felt is that these machines were only beatable in the movies cause of the heroes plot armor. In reality, their thick armor and mechanical strength should have made them pretty unbeatable on Hoth. When Luke does the thing with flyingin circles with the cables..in real world, the cables would have just snapped and the walkers would keep going like nothing happened.
the AT-AT suffers from the same thing most Imperial designs do. It's REALLY good at a specific thing, but the empire forces all of their stuff to be generalist vehicles and ships, instead of the more specific uses they're meant for.
Oh man wait until you grow up and find out militaries do it all the time. It's more realistic to have a general platform and adapt it to different usages. You don't create vehicles and their doctrines like you would a lego set in real life.
@@BAKER_SWEETS That's fundamentally incorrect and any source that elaborates on an AT-AT's role on the battlefield will corroborate that it is not a niche vehicle. The AT-AT fulfills multiple roles and does them exceedingly well. The AT-AT can't be taken down short of heavy bombardment or a tactic that frankly could not work often or would be countered relatively quickly in real life (Army mechanics would just devise "teeth" to emerge on the legs in order to counter tow cables). The AT-AT is ideal for troop transport, siege tactics, a mobile command/communications platform and fire support/ limited anti-air capabilities. The base model does all of this. That means it is *not* a niche vehicle. Do you understand now? The variants of the AT-AT are considered niche due to their specifications (AT-ACT). Now go try and fail to be condescending with someone else.
@@BAKER_SWEETS I don't argue with children. See yourself out of the conversation or provide a counter argument. These websites need to start implementing age verification.
For what purpose? Who would even have an ATAT at this point? The Mandalorian is too fixated on fighting the Empire, I was hoping it would actually explore something new, but instead they just made the Empire look even worse. It feels like every Dave Filoni show just loves to shit on the Empire, I wish he'd actually do something new.
Yeah, the AT-AT feels like a command vehicle for a larger walker group more than a walker that you deploy en masse. Unfortunately General Veers wanted to marry the damn things, sooooooo . . .
I feel like the AT-AT would be perfectly utilized if partnered with AT-STs and AT-TEs. Burt yeah, the AT-TE was honestly genius and superior. Improving it by bulking up the underside with heavier armor or raising it a bit higher off the ground to negate that weakness to mines and it been perfect.
It was not and I will prove it objectively. Superior height, superior armor, superior firepower, superior troop capacity. Kek, AT-TE's were getting blown up by being shot by regular blasters and hand-held rockets. Stop this nonsense.
I wonder if one could walk backwards and keep up with the column. That way it could cover the rear arc of the formation. Obviously it would be dependent on sensors from the leading walkers to keep it from hitting anything but it could work.
👌😎👍Very cool and very nicely well done and very well informatively explained and executed in every detail way shape and form provided on this format and subject matter of the ATAT and all of its uses and functions and battle abilities and So forth and so on indeed Sir!.
Some imperial walkers could be dropped Bigger Lamshuttles And some walkers had gun cruise instead of 2 deck officers. In some atat also had communication with the Is bigger Lambtee shuttles
the AT-AT, aka the Metal Camel, is a thing of beauty to see. not so fun to be on the recieving end of its firepower. i remember playing Star Wars: Battlefront years back, being stuck in a trench on Hoth as an AT-AT advanced on the command post i was at. it was accurate with its shots, despite being far off. i spent a few minutes ducking in and out of that trench, firing rockets at it, using the anti-tank turrets on it, watching its shots hit the spot i was just standing, or hitting troops around me. nothing i used did much damage. it was like something out of the Terminator movies, where the H-K tanks are slowly advancing, firing and tracking anything that moves with their turrets. it was one of the few times i actually got scared while playing a Star Wars game.
Nice video on one of my favorite Star Wars vehicles. I've loved these things since seeing Empire in 1980. I've always said "at at" because it's just faster and easier than AY-TEE AY-TEE. It rolls off the tongue easier.
Awesome video. I loved how you broke down the entire vehicle and what transported the AT-AT into combat. It is my favorite vehicle used by the Empire or Rebels.
Always wanted to do one up in a jungle camo pattern with extra weapon mounts say on the back top and side and belly much like a B-17 . This would be helpful for ground suppression. it would be somthing to see a few crashing through a jungle lighting it up. Possibly with Fortunate son playing .
Yes, it was an earlier model. We know that because of Jedi Fallen Order and Survivor which both show the Rebels version, so it isn't just an animation style choice.
One of my pie-in-the-sky, I'll-get-to-it-when-I'm-done-with-all-the-other-projects projects is to build a LEGO minifig scale AT-HE. I wish there was more about them other than that one painting.
Lightsabers are neither consistent nor logical. Most space magic hand wavey nonsense. Which is a shame, because they are cool without needing to slice through anything.
An AT-AT should have been equipped with a defensive cannon on top of it to defend against air attacks, also guns on the back and sides like a B-17 bomber.
11:14 Those Theta-class dropships kinda remind me of those LEGO Bionicle Toa canisters (original Mata Nui 2001 line). So the AT-AT's the toy, and the dropships are the neat canisters in which it comes.
The design is iconic but absolutely impractical. Why not make a huge repulsor lift tank? Why not make a bipedal? Why not make a tripedal? Why is the cockpit on front and why is it attached to the turrets? Why it is so high? Use mortars, missiles and grenades if you need to shoot over cover, use sensors or something if you need info. This is mixture of FOUR vehicles - a tank, a transport, a command vehicle and anti-infrantry unit. The only way it is feasible is having such horrible logistic problem that it is easier to make this jack of all trades master of none rather than design new stuff and make normal military. Well, same thing as with the fleet really. They had EXACTLY same problem with massive capital ships everywhere and not the tools you need for the job. Sheeve could care less
A lot of those problems were the result of the Tarkin Doctrine, which insisted on presenting such overwhelming force that civilians would be too scared to fight back. In practice, it resulted in far too many ships, vehicles, and weapons whose size and crew/maintenance needs made them almost as unwieldy and inefficient as anything from the Warhammer 40K setting.
I've had extremely distressing & vivid nightmares of these walkers attacking my hometown. Psychological warfare? It certainly got into my subconscious!
If the AT-AT is pronounced @-@, how is the AT-TE pronounced? Or further, is our favorite rifle is the "Aarrh 15" while we drive around in our "mmmh one aaah one" Abrams tanks?
In my opinion, the pronunciation of this vehicle should be both forms, because if saying the letters individually is the proper way, that means you'll have to pronounce the Twin Ion Engine fighters as T I E fighters instead of the preferred TIE fighters. In the many forms of audio media (movies and audiobooks), I've never heard the fighters pronounced with individually letters, only as a whole. On a separate fun fact: in a Legends story, the Empire was warned about the tangling up the walker's legs tactic by one of the AT-AT drivers in an early in the prototype trials, but General Veers ignored the warning which lead that driver to join the rebels and he told them how to take a walker down.
Answer: Yes. It was perfect for what it was used for...but wasn't exactly necessary in the first place. It's role was filled by artillery, Starfighter strafing runs, and orbital bombardment.
Dont get me wrong, I love the AT-AT, but they easily could've made it so much more protected by just putting some (even if they are weak) guns on the side and back.
I could’ve swore I saw there being an aft gun on it (small but there) in Fallen Order, as well as them having an aft gun in rebels although there’s a few design changes in the rebels version that could make it a variant of its own. Thoughts?
The Rebels version was indeed a different model, the appearance of the walker in the realistic Jedi games confirmed that. The Rebels version of the ATAT is a huge improvement of the terrible Republic version but it most likely was somehow weaker than the OT era ATAT, potentially it had a weaker hull and less firepower.
@@tk-6967 It would make sense that it has significantly weaker armor since despite taking multiple shots from the Ghost, one of them was pretty badly damaged from just the phantom. I wonder where the distinction is made tho since MetaNerdz was using rebels as an example for the “modern” imperial AT AT so I wonder how much is really different and how much is just style choice e.g. the fat TIE fighters and extra tall command bridges on ISDs in Rebels
@@stephenglowacz4981 Well the actual shape of the walker would probably physically make a significant difference since the pre-OT version is more boxy, which would make it more susceptible to damage because of some physics shit. Also the cockpit is pretty significantly different, since the windscreen or whatever you'd call it is bigger on the pre-OT one, whereas the OT one has a shielded and smaller viewport, hence the red glow coming from the cockpit in ESB.
@@tk-6967 and rouge one's, AT-ACT, has a different style, the head armor being more angular than the standard at-at. Although lasers do not deflect inclined armor like bullets?
@@Max-rl9zn Well the ATACT is simply a completely different vehicle. It is a bog standard construction walker with 2 cannons for defence rather than a powerful troop transport.
I think the correct way to pronounce "AT-AT" is "Both." Spelling it out is the official designation. After all, that would be the most consistent across the entire lineage of Republic, Imperial, and First Order walkers. We don't call the small one-man ones "at rrrts", do we? But people actually in the SW universe would absolutely refer to it as an "At-at." Same way the A-10 is officially called the Thunderbolt II, but everyone calls it the Warthog, or the F-16 is officially the Fighting Falcon, but some people insist on calling it the "Viper."
Hoth was a perfect example of one enemy having superior tech and the other side developing a special weapon as a counter. Ther harpoon guns on the snow speeders were useless against anything BUT the AT-AT.
4:06 To be fair to the ATAT, Rebels was very stupid when it came to cutting the legs with a saber. In most other media I can think of it was the underbelly of the ATAT that was fairly weak, the legs being a weakness to tow cable is overstated by flying games but it is clear in the lore that that isn't generally a major thing.
I think it started out as an Empire plan to streamline troop movement operations, combining the functions of troop transport and heavy assault into one while the Empire was a in a position of effortlessly dominating in battle with nothing challenging their rule... it was a compromise to combat capability from the start, but one they thought they were in an unchallengeable luxury position to make. The same went to a a similar extent for a lot of what the Empire developed prior to the battle of Yavin, including the Imperial Star Destroyer. Not perfect battle machines, but perfect tools for streamlining the operations of Empire... Until they were properly challenged in battle.
The description of them makes them sound more powerful and more armored than Star Destoyers considering their size. I was always disappointed the rebels didn't have better anti-armor weapons.
It was flawed, but it also was a decent strategy. Unruly city/location. Send in star destroyer. Land 5-20 AT-AT's with a 40 stormtrooper platoon in each (one company of 200 stormtroopers in 5 walkers up to a whole battalion of 800 stormtroopers in all 20 walkers) Approach the city in these armored beast, using its heavy weapons to create a path. Flanked and screened by AT-ST's and speeder bikes. Once within a suitable range, deploy stormtroopers while continuing to blast the city from over the troopers heads as they move into the city. Half of the AT-ST's assist the stormtroopers in the tight urban environment (similar to what was done in Rogue One). Once the enemy anti-air weapons are mostly neutralized, landing craft can shuttle down reinforcements to the LZ behind the walkers and TIE fighters and bombers are now able to provide air support. If all else fails, pull the walkers back and conduct orbital bombardment from the star destroyer. Then repeat process. Who knew such an orthodox approach as tow cables would become a thing!? 🤷♂️
It's always fun to try to steel-man the idea of an AT-AT, and try to rationalise it. We know it's heavily armoured, able to absorb blaster bolts from speeders with no effect. That makes it perfect for advancing under fire. It has tremendous forward firepower, able to snipe aircraft and deploy heavy ground fire. Again, this serves the forward assault role. It's a walker, so the guns are high up, allowing an elevated firing platform, able to fire over low obstructions like hills and rain destruction on far off targets. It can carry troops safely into battle. The two main dowsides I can see is that as demonstrated in the film, while the legs are blaster resistant, they are vulnerable to some attacks. And secondly, there are no firing arcs to the sides, above, directly below, or behind. It's entirely focused on a forward enemy position. I suppose in that way it epitomises the Imperial ethic. Forward attack, heavy firepower, heavy armour, deploy troops at site. Not unlike a Star Destroyer come to think of it.
Shoutout to Star Wars Rouge Squadron 3 on Gamecube where you play as Wedge Antillies and help capture an AT-AT to destroy an Imperial anti orbital laser that has the alliance fleet pinned down.
I find the lack of guns on the AT-AT disturbing. The AT-TE could basically fire in all directions (mostly) while the AT-AT cant hit anything if something gets behind it. The Empire should have put two beam laser turrets from the LAAT, one on each side of the AT-AT with maybe some rocketpods attached to the turrets. And then putting some laser cannons on the rear of the AT-AT like the AT-TE and you'll have a much more well protected AT-AT. The battle of hoth would have gone a lot differently if the Empire had done that. The Rebels would have to disable the gun turrets before they can try to harpoon and trip the AT-AT. While the Empire would have replaced the glass balls with metal and give it the same viewport as the command cockpit to protect the gunners inside.
Basically, any walker is an idiocy in itself thanks to this basic physical law of cubed volume to square of ground pressure. Walkers always have the problem that their feet surface area only increases at the square, while the volume above it, this the weight, thus the surface pressure on those feet is cubed. Meaning walkers that just stand still will slowly sink into the ground until the friction on their legs stops them sinking. This is exacerbated as walkers take steps, meaning the surface pressure on the three feet remaining on the ground suddenly increases by 25% as one leg is lifted. Depending on the density and strength of the material "walkers' would become "standers" after a maximum of four steps. Even steel reinforced concrete would probably crumble under the feet of a single AT-AT. Meaning that the greatest defense against them would be to set up base somewhere with soft, uneven ground. Like, oh, for example, a damn f'ing ice world. With snow and ice on top.
It works... but it can't be said to be perfect. The walker is good on flat surfaces, but it would have problems with medium height differences on both sides. The size of the feet would also be impractical, depending on the nature of the surface. But what bothers me most is the relatively weak armament compared to what would have been possible. Facing the front it's a beast... yes. But as soon as you stand in close proximity, attack from behind or stand directly underneath... there's nothing he can do anymore. Air defense is also only possible to a very limited extent with this thing. If you're going to send a Giant like this into the field, then you should equip it as a weapon platform. At the very least there would be a 360 degree anti-aircraft gun on top of the walker, as well as a rear gun and a belly gun to take out targets in close proximity. Then the thing would make sense. But that's just my opinion.
Junkman gave the best reason. "If it forms a word, then it said like a word. I. If it's a bunch of letters, then its spelled out. PLUS Lorne Peterson of ILM Pronounces them as "at at"
My question is, why isn't their a variant or add-ons for an AT-AT to have hard points to mount light machine guns on the sides or firing ports for the troopers, or heck maybe even a ball turret
Unwritten military rules say that all acronyms should be pronounced as a word, such as SCUBA being read as "scuba" instead of "s-c-u-b-a" or HMMV beind pronounced as "humvee." George himself said that you pronounce it as @@, but George also wrote the dialogue for the Prequels, so its obvious he needs a moderating force with him at all times. Calling them A-T-A-Ts sounds far more intimidating and Imperial than @@.
"Rebels were thinking they are winning the battle of Ord Vaug. They sure felt proud of themselves - they dug up on a planet right at the Inner Rim's gates. Fortified it, too - surface-to orbit ion cannons, shields over every major city, tanks and guns from looted Imperial armories. Orbital bombardment would take years, and repulsorlift assault, likewise, was impossible. They were winning, alright... until we deployed AT-AT walkers. They went right through the shields, shrugging off blaster fire and stepping on armored cars and war droids. After 6 hours vaughian royalty and their rebel friends have capitulated. "The Force" and "hope" can only do so much against Kuati durasteel".
i aam not sure armoured cars and droids are all that was being stepped on, imagine seeing an atat stomping towards you that would be kind of scary.
Meh. Who won? Thought so. As the Kuati durasteel rusts in some off world junker’s haven now.
@@masamune2984the plot
"We had the Battle of Gormen won, until the AT-ATs arrived. They came out of the fog and ripped apart the front lines. The locals ran in terror, but the experienced soldiers surrendered. We knew that you can't outrun an AT-AT."
―Major Bren Derlin, Rebel Alliance field commander
Hmm
Siege of Vraks..
I like the idea of dropping the whole troop transport thing and installing a theater shield generator, turning it into a mobile command platform.
Like those big creatures the Gungans mounted shields on?
And take the armaments off the head. Let it be a utility walker with a sheild generator. If it had the armament still, it'd be negating the ATATs best atribute: its range, as it would end up shooting its own sheild. Plus, that generator would require a lot of power to be of any substantial size.
Now that I think about it, having a formation of 5 or 6 regular ATATs paired with this sheild ATAT could be incredibly effective at deflecting incoming bomber attacks, especially if there's no air escort.
When the Y-wings are detected, pop the sheild up and continue marching. Wait for them to expend their munitions or until friendly TIEs can come deal with them.
@@undraftedboomer5055good idea
@@undraftedboomer5055 the problem with that Is that AT-AT'S are slow.
I always love how the AT-AT's have had a logical use that was set up from their first appearance. I hear people sometimes go "Why can't they just attack from the air, why do they need big walkers?" But like they literally explain it in the film with how the Rebellion has a shield generator. This whole concept is great because it explains why ground battles are necessary and why we have vehicles such as the AT-AT, AT-ST, AATE etc
That is why I like walkers. My problem with the AT-AT is it being a 'troop transport'. I feel a command post or, as it was shown in Empire, a long ranged heavy armored artillery/sniper.
Not to sure about the necessity of at-at in general. The walker is supposed be a troop transport, its height makes it inconvenient for troop to get on/off the thing. Would be more effective if it was specialized as a weapon platform. Also, the thing is top heavy, so if the ground under it is too soft, the at-at could sink into the ground or tip over. Rather than a walker, something like a helicopter would fulfill a better role for what the at-at does.
It explains ground battles but like a lot of Star Wars the AT-AT exists entirely because it looks cool on screen and drives the action. All the world explanations come later as authors try and turn it all into a coherent setting.
It's a very silly vehicle when you break it down, especially given the established tech of the setting.
A bunch of hover tanks and transports would be more effective and way faster, if you have to go big the Juggernaut is also faster and way more practical. Faster, less vulnerable, much easier and quicker to deploy troops.
@@ericjeon2727 It is quite literally explained in the video that the walker's sensors detect environmental hazards and sends such information to the drivers in the cockpit. Turning it into a helicopter would also ruin the entire point of it being used for ground invasions.
@@Paxton365 Point taken, but the radar doesn’t help the at-at with the limited terrain it can traverse through. Ground invasions can use air support, which the rebels use against the at-at.
It's nice to see someone finally give the AT-AT some actual respect instead of trying to nitpick it to death like every other armchair engineer on the internet.
I viewed the OT in theaters when they came out, and I can't forget that initial time I saw the AT-AT on Hoth, what an impact. It was awe-inspiring at the time. This vehicle is my all-time favorite. Thanks Meta for the details. Long time coming.
But when the Prequels arrived along with the Clone Wars, the AT-TE became my favorite now.
Best
Tony
Fun fact: At the battle of Kuat Drive Yards, the empire deployed AT-ATs on the surface of the orbital shipyard, to act as replacement turbolasers that were destroyed in rebel attacks
Yep, the Blade Squadron short story is great
Holy shit that's badass
I always assumed their main batteries were turbolasers (even think I had read something similar).
@@JonatasAdoMlater on their laser cannons were replaced by turbolasers as a refit
If I’m not mistaken some remaining at-tes were also deployed as well during that battle
I do quite love the ATAT, but the ATTE will forever hold its spot as my favorite.
Yep, lower center-of-gravity and 6 legs for better stability, and looks badass with that giant turret cannon
Same
@@LastGoatKnightalso yes
The good thing about the AT-TE it can fire 360 degree a must have in any modern combat. 😅
@@Knightmare919 Its also super versitile and can be fitted to be have a mobile command centre, carry up to 2 AT-RTs, or potenetially other support roles.
I think Mon Mothma should understand that most rebels won't be picky and would make use of the AT-AT if necessary.
Lando made use of them in Heir to the Empire where he used them as mechanized pack mules on a planet where the Sun literally scorched the earth so much any buildings required constant movement
Mon mothma understood these were weapons of terror while the rebellion symbolized hope. She forbade the use of AT-AT. But at the same time the rebellion utilized capture Star destroyers in their fleet.
@@bman3794 basically a hypocrite, if you're using Imperial Is and Imperial IIs and the Victory Is and Victory IIs, it wouldn't hurt alittle to utilize the AT-AT as it was supposed to be used in conjunction with the existing AT-TE.
That ATAT stance @ 9:01 was always so badass.
Fr absolutely hilarious but I think the reason why it did that was probably because there was a boulder and the AT AT tried to not damage that leg by putting it behind it.
They certainly got the intimidation factor down, along with it's ability to cross most terrain and to rain fire thanks to its height. But the AT-TE is still my favorite of the larger walkers in Star Wars.
"along with it's ability to cross most terrain and to rain fire thanks to its height." But can the AT-AT walk up a vertical slope or perform in the vacuum of space? Actually, scratch that vacuum of space one. AT-ATs did participate in the Battle of KDY when the New Republic sought to take it. Same with AT-TEs. But unless an AT-AT can traverse sheer cliffs like the AT-TE, I would disagree.
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2 The AT-AT is like 60m tall, it's over twice the AT-TE. Just because the latter can hang upside doesn't mean the AT-AT can't shoot downwards, it has the height and neck to look down. The AT-TE will always still be better, but not for that reason alone. Also, I said most terrain, not all. The giant camel can't climb sheer cliffs, but the same goes for over 90% of all walkers in Star Wars, that's not an argument against it.
Kek, the AT-Te is better? How? Because you watched the animated cartoons? The AT-AT outclasses it in every way and choosing the AT-TE over it is down to pure nostalgia bias lol. If you're going to use the show made for 12 year olds (Rebels) as your argument see yourself out the door.@@inductivegrunt94
@@ZackarySchejbalCODBO2RGM2in what type of battles are you going to commonly be fighting on the vertical bank of a cliff, it’s simply unnecessary
@@angelic_disappointment7889 How about the second battle of the Clone Wars right after the Battle of Geonosis? The one of the monastery? Try getting an AT-AT up there.
I haven't really seen this mentioned much after making the connection myself, but I'm 99% sure the main body of the AT-AT was largely inspired by a German WW1 tank, the A7V. If you compare the two, they're really close to the same basic design, the AT-AT just has modified proportions, no guns on the body itself, it's scaled up by a lot and of course it has a head and four giant legs. It even has the two windows at the top of the main body facing forward that were used on the A7V by the commander and driver to see out of the vehicle, they're just scaled differently. The placement of the legs and the design of the hub area they connect to (not sure what to call it tbh) is also remarkably similar in its basic shape to the treads on the A7V, with the legs connecting at almost exactly the same spots where the four main wheels are on the A7V.
Considering how much the Empire was inspired by Nazi Germany as well as Imperial Germany, it makes perfect sense to me that this could be a large part of where the inspiration came from. Of course I don't mean to say this was the only source of inspiration, it's just that it hit me fairly recently how obvious the similarities are and I was surprised I couldn't find more people talking about this online.
It's quite possible the model makers responsible for the AT-AT may have used parts from A7v models to kitbash the design
And now I can't unsee that.
Takes the term “walking tank” to a whole new level…. xD
Did someone say wanzer? 😁
The AT-AT was inspired by a prehistoric rhino like mammal that was one of the largest mammals to walk on land.
I have always thought AT-AT sounds more tactical, like something you would hear in the military, rather than at, at. Also, would love a AT-AT variant breakdown!
Going along with it, every other walker is called by letter (AT-ST, AT-TE, AT-RT), so it always sounds weird to me when people call the AT-AT at at.
Totally agree, have always liked military style stuff, so definitely like it that way!@@Jeikobu
Jeep????
@Jeikobu So the HMMWV, more commonly called the Humvee should be spelled out H-M-M-W-V instead as you say. Military shorten everything to make it faster to communicate (I did 21 years in the US military), so a military person would say at-at, not AT-AT. I varies from word to word, so an AT-ST would propose still be called an AT-ST instead of an at-ST. Often the vehiclesend up having nicknames, like the M113 was often called the battlebus. I know lots of vehicles do not have nicknames, but class names. Class names are kinda like ship classes and aircraft nicknames, like the F-15 Eagle. You rarely hear them called Eagle, unless accompanied by another word, like Eagle Driver (pilot) or Eagle Keeper (maintainer/crew chief)
First thanks for your service, I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but I said I think it sounds more military like. It's my opinion on a fantasy subject, I never said it as a fact and was talking in the sense of Star Wars based military vernacular, revolving around precedent in Canon. So, while I respect your opinion and experience in your field, I have been a fan of Star Wars most of my life, so I have more than a few parsecs under my belt, so in my opinion AT-AT sounds better! @@michaelchristensen5421
Personally, I prefer the AT-AT that fires lightning and walks around in a desert.
Oh i understand that one
@@apocalypticsurvivor6111I don’t
@@WonkiWeaboo vah naboris
ha ha me too
Always had an idea of a ship that was a salvaged and retrofitted at-at with parts from imperial ships namely the tie reaper to replace the missing cockpit.
I think it would be fun to drive a AT-ST. They seem so nimble. I always figured a walker had some type of repulsor system to mitigate it's weight. If not, you'd think it would tear up the streets like during a parade, etc.
A repulsive system is the only way the AT models, especially the AT, make sense. I get that the armor is strong, but you can look at footage of tanks being hit and even when the armor is barely scratched, the tank is still jolted considerably. It’s just the physics of a big thing being hit by a fast thing. The problem with the AT-AT is that it’s a very heavy box on 4 stilts. Any kind of anti-armor canon would, even if it didn’t penetrate, still very likely knock it over, even with shock absorbers.
@@damonedrington3453 this is the same universe with FTL technology, they obviously have a work-around
A couple months ago, as it's second post ever on Threads, the official Star Wars account posted "Do you say AT-AT or AT-AT?" and, the Force help me, I heard both individual pronunciations in my head while I read it.
I think the AT-AT is underrated, During the Battle of Hoth it is often criticized because one got destroyed by a speeder with a tow cable but they overlook that the speeder was piloted by legendary pilot Wedge Antilles and was a very lucky shot that would not be easy to replicate, most of the speeders were shot down including luke. The only other one that got destroyed was by Luke from the inside, not something most people could pull off. The AT-ATs also completely ignored all the Rebel fire and absolutely decimated the Rebel Defenses. The intimidation factor of a giant near indestructible walker just plowing through everything you can throw at it without a care in the world would be terrifying and morale is a much more important factor than often thought. Also, most of the AT-AT weaknesses can be almost entirely removed with combined arms tactics.
Well said
Exquisite performance against lightly armed guerrillas, even elite elements of a guerrlla force is not indicative of superior capability.
Consider the same amount of resources, poured into two tracked vehicles with a revolving turret for their main gun, plus 4 more tracked vehicles with much lighter weapons and infantry transport capacity.
Not only will those platforms be more survivable (smaller target, armour will be thicker for same mass because smaller, faster, more agile), they'll be more redundant (six targets, rather than one, or, at higher echelons, 18 rather than three), and the two gun vehicles will be able to split to either side of the AT-AT, which guarantees that one of them will get a shot off.
AT-ATs look cool. But as military weapons? Deeply, thoroughly silly.
@@jochentram9301 They weren't attacking lightly armed guerillas but a heavily fortified base with weapons that would have chewed up lighter vehicles. And they annihilated the defenses with only two losses both of which were incredibly circumstantial, which is phenomenally effective. In other terrain with more cover lighter vehicles might be more effective but on Hoth where they can see you coming from miles away heavy armor was the right call.
@@Peregrin3 I disagree. Yes, the Rebels at Hoth Base were dug in, but infantry in a position *always* digs in. That's so ingrained in even halfway decent infantry as to qualify as a reflex action.
Rebel armament was limited to what were light AT guns, because they are an insurgent force, not a peer opponent. They had no access, and certainly didn't deploy, cannon capable of breaching heavy armour.
As I keep saying, against a well-designed combined--arms tank+IFV force designed and built by people with access to a modern Defence Industrial Base, AT-AT walkers are big, slow targets. Against properly sited heavy AT systems, they're slow, big targets.
They're a statement of pure arrogance, and that never works against a real military, which the Alliance isn't. The Alliance is an insurgent force using Clone Wars castoffs and whatever they can buy on the black market, scrounge or steal.
no, its not underrated, its a bad vehicle design. Performing well against underarmed gurella's is not a good indicator of capability. Put this thing up against an actual effective combined armed ground force primarily relying on tracked and wheeled vehicles instead of these silly oversized walkers, and AT-AT's are going to get decimated.
I love the animated concept art drawings. Did anyone else catch that "leaping" AT-AT at approximately 17:10?
While they are much too heavy and slow to be truly effective cavalry, I could easily imagine something like that happening if the walkers were considerably faster. Could you imagine an AT-AT moving forwards at speeds rivalling a horse at full gallop?
Also, it's always a highlight of any Empire at War Rebellion Campaign playthrough when Chewie hijacks an AT-AT on Corellia. I can pretty much clean out the entire garrison with that thing.
That would’ve been scary to see on the battlefield
@@angelic_disappointment7889 Indeed it would've been.
I prefer the AT-TE, but I do like the AT-AT, I just feel like I like every more specialized version so much more. Like if your gonna spend on all this armor and height, I think it suits things other than troop transport more.
That's exactly why you wouldn't be a good military logistician lol. It's a dedicated troop transport. That's where the priority should lie first and foremost. There are already other Imperial land vehicles that serve other roles.
@@helghast1149 Thing is, I personally prefer the platform to be other things. As far as troop transport goes, there are so many better options, especially when flight is so readily available.
It serves as a better command platform, possibly filling its body with communication gear.
It has all of that already. Do you not remember General Veers conducting the assault and issuing orders from the cockpit? It already fulfills the role of a troop transport and command platform. Aerial vehicles are not ideal against heavily fortified and protected fortresses or cities. The AT-AT is ideal because it's capable of weathering the intense firepower that it would encounter. Short of enemy air support being able to openly bomb it the AT-AT is generally impervious to most means of attack. Space wizards are a rarity not the common denominator. In addition to being able to shuttle it's precious infantry and equipment to staging grounds *safely and effectively* the AT-AT is well armed enough to counter enemy aircraft, call in orbital strikes due to it's view of the battlefield, and outright annihilate enemy ground forces/installations. There's nothing wrong with supplementing your forces with more specialized and varied equipment to respond to the demands of a changing battlefield or threat but I think the AT--AT serves as a great anchor point for any armored battle group. Now, I do think the platforms should be more modular in configuration to allow for certain situational additions (tow-cable cutting spikes on the back of legs, AA blaster/cannon on the back of the platform like the prototype AT-AT had, etc..) Sorry for the rant lol @@Jeikobu
I actually agree. You have all that height, might as well use it for a dedicated long-range artillery platform (similar to the Sequel Trilogy gorilla walker). A faster, lower-profiled repulsor-sled or centipede-walker (or the OTAT(?)) would better fit the role of a troop transport. All that potential capacitor space in the main body is wasted by making it a troop transport.
@@UGNAvalon Thank you, I literally look at the AT-AT and go "For troops that looks like a nightmare to get in and out of. Sure it is usually safe...but like...if you spend that money on that armor make something shorter. Getting through shields making repulsorlifts not work? A tracked or shorter walker would to the trick just fine, and probably would be able to use the extra material to either make more, or make it store more people."
A breakdown of at-st would be cool, Difference between endor and Hoth versions of at-st and history..
That would definitely be a cool breakdown to watch.
It seems like he used to have at-st breakdown, but took it down to do a refresh? 🤔
The ATAT is actually really good as an assualt vehicle. It's not supposed to be a tank, and it's not supposed to fight in urban areas. When when used as long range direct fire artillery, the ATAT is up there with the ATAP, even surpassing it in some areas.
Like Meta said, a range of 17km is actually insane, and the ATATs height allows it to effectively stiff arm enemy defenses/vehicles. In most cases, as soon as those chin mounted cannons have a line of sight on you, you better hide.
For comparison, the ATTEs mass driver only has a range of 2 km.
The armor is considerably tough, requiring the enemy to get close (flank) and either target the bottom or the neck. But if properly supported by other Imp vehicles, not much can stop the ATAT's slow March towards you.
The fact that the rebellion had to really on wonky and extremely dangerous tactics, like using a tow cable, shows just how hard it is to take out.
And for the argument that it's unstable and easy to tip over, how is the enemy going to achieve that realistically? Again some other wonky tactic... most likely, this is a reference to "all terain" issues, where the terrain at hand might put the ATAT in pinch so-to-speak.
Imo, while the ATTE is a classic, and is still one of my favorites, the ATAT is a better assualt vehicle. The ATTE has just as many, if not more design flaws, from a real world stand point. It realistically is a light assualt vehicle or an IFV.
But I just imagine how devastating a group of these ATATs could be, given they were supported on the flanks by a few ATSTs, S1 firehawkes, HAVr A9s, and a few 74Z bikes. I'd take that line up against almost anything else the GAR or CIS in a ground assult.
The biggest flaw of Star Wars overall is that no one seems to use missiles. How would something that targets like a javelin missile that attacks from the top (something we have today) be stopped by the AT which, if we’re extremely generous, has 180° view in front of it. Not even to count that while armor will stop it from going boom, it won’t stop physics from making it still be moved. And considering it’s a giant metal box on stilts, they’re pretty easy to tip. Realistically these things would be a death trap for the troops
@damonedrington3453 I see your point, and yeah it is strange that there seems to be an underutilization of concussion missles. But missles in SW are generally less impressive than there are in real life.
But then again, concussion missles varied deeply in both destructive capabilities, penetration, and range. They ranged from capitol ship grade, like on the Victory, to smaller anti-starfighter type missles. On the ground, most were used against lighter faster moving targets, like land speeders, light repulsor tanks, airspeeders, and the occasional starfighter. Even in space combat, anti-starfighter concussion missles, and really concussion missles in general, were considered short range weapons.
There were a few exceptions, like those on the HAVw A6, but even then, those missles were almost always the concussion grenades, good against infantry and light armor (it did have anti armor missles, but these were rare).
Proton torpedoes are really honestly better. Considerably more powerful than your contemporary concussion missle varients, the protont torpedoe had a much longer range, and, in most cases, was almost impossible to shoot down by starfighters or flak.
That brings me to my next point, it seems that missles in SW are very slow. In space combat, skilled pilots and escort flak vessels could easily deal with incoming missles, not to mention varying electronic 'warfare seen in some cases. This is why a majority of starfighter combat devolved into dogfights.
The rebels, surprisingly, seemed to focus on including munitions launchers on their ground vehicles. We see this with the TB series and ACC series of ground tanks. But again, when it came to direct fire engagements with imperial forces, the rebels used mainly heavy laser cannons, as seen on the capable freerunner, T-4B, or older Clone Wars refits.
As for a blast tipping over the ATAT, that is very unlikely. While yes it is tall, and is certainty more unstable when compared to something like the ATTE, it is still a stable and reliable vehicle. The ATAT is a heavy beast too. And if you in a position to fire waves of concussion missles at the side of an ATAT to "tip it over", why not go for the neck or underbelly. These are more realistic objectives than wasting valuable munitions on fruitless trying to knock it off balance.
These unstable issues are a reference to terrain issues, like steep terrain. Again, the rebels had to really on a dangerous tow cable tactic on Hoth, that ultimately only took down 2 or 3 walkers, and lost a lot of snowspeeders.
It was common imperial doctorine to pair ATATs with smaller escort walkers and repulsercraft. These vehicles would include ATST varients, ATARs, ULAVs, sensor craft like the LAV Q7 and HAVr A9, and Repulsor tanks like the S1 Firehawke, 1H, and 2M. Even some juggernauts were used like the A9, A5, and B5.
While the ATAT would bare the brunt of the frontal assualt, these support vehicles would sweep the flanks and make sure the ATATs go unchallenged from the side.
the unstable and easy to tip over part is more of a terrain hazard. The AT-AT having such a high center of gravity means it is in practice, going to be extremely limited in the terrain it can traverse. Being so huge means its ground pressure is going to be astronomical compared to any modern vehicle, meaning stepping in loose soil, sand or mud is a recipe for this thing to tip over. And as a bonus, because its a walker and does not have wheels, if it gets stuck or suffers an engine breakdown, you cant just put the transmission in neutral and tow the thing the way you can with tracked and wheeled vehicles. so that huge size, and super high ground pressure is going to heavily limit where it can go, which is a big limitation.
The AT-At only works within the context of the star wars universe where the writers ignore things like basic physics. but if you actually applied real physics and constraints on them, most of these things would destroy themselves long before the enemy ever had to fight them, which is very bad vehicle design. And the fact that Star Wars writers just aren't good military writers at all.
If anyone in the star wars universe actually used their technology properly, these things would be nothing but sitting targets to long range missiles and heavy artillery. and no the But Jamming is not going to just magic all missiles away. Jamming an ECM can be beaten, often through just competent operator training. and there is also a particularity fun missile type that is very good at killing jammer's, and its called Anti Radiation missiles, ie a missile designed specifically to home in on radio and radiation sources, which includes Jammers. And there is no reason Star wars couldn't have these, since even in the real world, these types of missiles have existed since the 70's. There are also plenty of other ways to defeat Jammers and ECM in the real world, that star wars should have, but I'm not going to list them right now to keep my response length in check.
The other problem with these things is they are so large, they are going to be expensive, as in 10 to 20 times more expensive than a vehicle the size of a modern tank.
@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 the starwars universe is not ours with different technologies. It's not the future or parallel to the real world. It's an 80s looking sci-fi space drama.
With that said, your points stand, obviously this thing wouldn't work in the real world lol.
But in the SW universe, walkers have existed for thousands of years, meaning they, in universe, have a pretty good idea how to make one.
The terrain sensors in the feat would theoretically detected any kind of hazardous land ahead, so, in universe, a safe course could be plot. Also, looking at the gyroscope capabilities of walkers like the ATRT and ATST varients, and from what we see in ESB, I would assume this thing can handle a decent amount of terrain. It's pretty nimble for a 20 meter tall metal box. It's literally walking on snow, and Hoth is one of the most inhospitable planets out there. Given a few were lost on the trek through the valleys through sheild.
Also, in universe, the armor on the ATAT is near impenetrable to conventional artillery. Remember this thing is an artillery platform itself, outranging practically every other piece of ground artillery in SW, and certainly what the average rebel cell would have on hand.
Missle technology In SW is nearly as ranged as our real world comparisons. Often, they are shorter in range even compared to conventional laser/blaster cannons.
But, yes obviously, this thing is dumb when you are looking at it from a realistic standpoint smh
@@undraftedboomer5055 this is also a universe that continues to invest in gigantic capital ships with no effective fighter defenses whatsoever despite fighters constantly and consistently prove they have infinitely superior plot armor and are the undisputed gods of war in the setting. and despite these thousands of years of fighters constantly proving themselves to be some of the most effective fighting pieces of equipment in the galaxy, the galaxies militaries continue to stubbornly refuse to either develop effective anti fighter defenses or recenter their fleet doctrines purely around them.
Bear in mind that the AT-AT was also a walker built by a faction whom though that building Executor Cass SSD's was a reasonable thing to build when their major opponent's biggest capital ship wasn't even really a match for the ISD and could barely afford to build a tiny fraction of them compared to the Empires ISD's. or their response to having their mega planet killing supership getting blown up by a handful of snub fighters was to build an even bigger and dumber planet killing supership, which oh, hey, it got killed by fighters and a light freighter again.
So yeah forgive me if i question the empires ability to build a competent walker, or the star wars galaxies ability to build competent war machines at all.
Imagine if AT-AT’s had been walking around on the surface of the second Death Star, shooting down rebel ships.
Couple of corrections: first, in Legends a brace of proton torpedoes can take one down, which is explicitly stated in one of the X-Wing novels when Rogue Squadron encountered one when conducting an air strike against an Imperial warlord base, although IIRC they decide to take it out with guns rather than waste torpedoes on it. Second, depending on how you play the game, Chewbacca does hijack an AT-AT in Star Wars Empire at War
I would not consider a gameplay feature as "canon". In the enclosed space, a Wookie would fall within seconds to the blasters of the crew and/or the troops who wait for deployment.
@@Myuutsuu85 Yeah in the actual campaign which was canon in the EU, Chewie steals an empty ATAT from what I remember, so he didn't take on anyone, but even if the walker had a crew, Chewie could have taken them out unless they had a troop complement.
Yes, I tend to treat an AT-AT as equal to an in-game Stormtrooper Transport, from X-Wing: Alliance, TIE Fighter, and so on.
Still, it may be better able to deflect torpedoes, sometimes? But yeah, ordinarily - one would do the job.
Or ten starfighter grade laser blasts, maybe (as in X-Wing: Isard's Revenge)
So, equal to about 50 Ru hull, or something.
In Star Wars Rebels we see an AT-AT survive multiple proton torpedoes to the main hull and that's a canon source
@@_kommandant_3055 again, canon not Legends
That augmented reality for the AT-AT's is sick as fuck, dude.
ATAT a favourite of mine, great summary😊
I'm more happy to pilo these in the gamecube rogue squadron series during that rebel strike mission. Even so, I remember how the republic had these damn things during the prototype days during that dark horse comic too
I'm pretty sure there was a mission in Rogue Squadron where you needed to protect a handful of AT-PTs so the Rebel Alliance could gain some valuable intel and use them in a stealth mission against the Imps... I distinctly remember failing that mission so many times because the AT-PTs were sooooo weak, only took a few shots and they were down failing the mission.
Ps. What a GREAT game! I really wish there were more like it.
6:17 Hoth was a morale victory for the Alliance? How? They took down some walkers at the cost of many members of Rogue Squadron, i.e. some of their best pilots. That would decrease morale, not raise it.
I think the point is that it was not a defeat, despite being faced with overwhelming odds.
@@kaws8778 It was not a *complete* rebel defeat due to Ozzel being an idiot. Had he not brought the fleet so close to the system, the Empire would have been able to land their forces closer to Echo Base and not had to make the arduous journey to Echo Base which caused a lot of attrition for their forces. Had the Empire arrived at full strength, the Rebel defenders would have fallen more quickly and the Imps would have taken fewer casualties to Rogue Squadron because they would have had their Juggernauts with missiles that they could use to destroy the snow speeders more easily.
The fact that only the ATATs and a few other support walkers were able to make the journeys shows just how poor some of the old Republic clone hardware was, but that would have been better than nothing.
I could imagine that when the head is turned fully to one side the other side would be very vulnerable
I think both ways to pronounce "AT-AT" would have been used in the Star Wars galaxy, just like some people say "hummer" and other says "humvee" for the very same military vehicle. The official pronounciation would probably be "Ey Tee Ey Tee" while the average infantery soldier would have probably called them "add add".
Some guys in my platoon used to say that...in a formal briefing or operations, the AT-AT is what should be used...where you're just slumming out in the motor pool, riding in the back of one, or tripping something up to destroy it, at at is more appropriate...like using M1A1 instead of just saying Abrams
As for pronunciation, I always have been in the "A-T-A-T" camp. I compare it to other acronyms: for soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, IEDs were pronounced letter-by-letter, not "EEED" 😂 Same with any of the US government agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.).
@@Shadoweclipse1386 uh, yeah, but do you call NASA N-A-S-A? or do you just pronounce it as a word?
@@leol.8658 Yes, it's an acronym, but everyone pronounces it as a whole word. That analogy fails because we've never heard AT-AT pronounced in-universe, and the creators and crew of the films have all pronounced it differently. That's why there's debate.
@@leol.8658 NASA is an acronym while AT-AT is an initialism. They aren't the same thing.
The AT-AT is my all time favorite Star Wars vehicle. I love the AT-TE and I see a bunch of comments in here that prefer that walker over the AT-AT. It's a bit wrong to compare them though because both machines were designed for 2 different roles. The AT-TE was designed for asymmetrical warfare and indirect combat missions while the AT-AT was designed for frontal assaults and deep troop insertion. I know the AT-TE took out the Mk.I AT-AT in Rebels (which, you can determine for yourself if that's realistic or plot armor for the heroes, remember that the Mk.I has light laser cannons and thinner armor, but Disney gonna do what Disney gonna do). But I would put money on a Mk.II AT-AT taking out multiple AT-TE's in a head-on battle with it's increased range and height overwatch along with it's dual heavy laser cannons and significantly stronger armor. On top of that, The AT-AT excels far more at it's #1 job that it was created for which is it's extreme intimidating prescence and demoralizing nature. The AT-AT was developed in conjunction with the Tarkin Doctrine which was essentially a policy of ruling by fear. I would compare the AT-TE to the extremely versatile Sherman Tank from WW-2 and the AT-AT to the Intimidating Tiger tank from the same war. Don't get me wrong I love the AT-TE and I would take it anytime I needed a walker for any mission outside of a direct assault or direct combat or a siege. The AT-TE having more fields of fire for it's cannons and not being tripped, (and it's probably cheaper). But it lacks armor, onboard troop support, Overwatch range, and overwhelming fire power compared to the AT-AT.
Those illustrations are so real and accurate. Seems they could built real full scale size working AT-AT
Add some side mounted weapons, rear mounted ones, and maybe a dorsal mount and this thing would be an amazing platform. Skipping a belly mount to cover the bottom arc does make sense since that may be the infantry deployment point. Even some firing ports in those areas would make it even better for little risk and much better rewards.
If only the Empire had paired this walker with the HAV/w A6 Juggernaut more often during the Galactic Civil War, they would’ve dominated on nearly every battle during the war.
They owuldn't really need the Juggernaut to bring that many troopers and hey a Juggernaut is worth like 2 At-At's
The thing I always felt is that these machines were only beatable in the movies cause of the heroes plot armor. In reality, their thick armor and mechanical strength should have made them pretty unbeatable on Hoth. When Luke does the thing with flyingin circles with the cables..in real world, the cables would have just snapped and the walkers would keep going like nothing happened.
Oh I'd doubt that... Here on Earth we have some insane fibres that makes them near unbreakable... Imagine in SW Universe
Forgot about Force Commander where you had to use infiltrator units to take them out!
the AT-AT suffers from the same thing most Imperial designs do. It's REALLY good at a specific thing, but the empire forces all of their stuff to be generalist vehicles and ships, instead of the more specific uses they're meant for.
Oh man wait until you grow up and find out militaries do it all the time. It's more realistic to have a general platform and adapt it to different usages. You don't create vehicles and their doctrines like you would a lego set in real life.
@helghast1149 wait till you grow up and realize what he actually meant. He meant the at at is a niche vehicle forced into generalist use
@@BAKER_SWEETS That's fundamentally incorrect and any source that elaborates on an AT-AT's role on the battlefield will corroborate that it is not a niche vehicle. The AT-AT fulfills multiple roles and does them exceedingly well. The AT-AT can't be taken down short of heavy bombardment or a tactic that frankly could not work often or would be countered relatively quickly in real life (Army mechanics would just devise "teeth" to emerge on the legs in order to counter tow cables). The AT-AT is ideal for troop transport, siege tactics, a mobile command/communications platform and fire support/ limited anti-air capabilities. The base model does all of this. That means it is *not* a niche vehicle. Do you understand now? The variants of the AT-AT are considered niche due to their specifications (AT-ACT). Now go try and fail to be condescending with someone else.
@helghast1149 it does not do those roles exceedingly well. Its a vehicle with very little practical use
@@BAKER_SWEETS I don't argue with children. See yourself out of the conversation or provide a counter argument. These websites need to start implementing age verification.
So a tow cable is the reason why a AT AT trips up soooo if the AT AT stops moving it wouldn’t trip up right?
yeah.
We need to see these in the Mandalorian
For what purpose? Who would even have an ATAT at this point? The Mandalorian is too fixated on fighting the Empire, I was hoping it would actually explore something new, but instead they just made the Empire look even worse. It feels like every Dave Filoni show just loves to shit on the Empire, I wish he'd actually do something new.
My favorite imperial walker. Thanks for this
This may not be the best war vehicle, but it was never meant to be. It's about as all terrain as you can hope for and quite well armored.
Honestly I’d stick with the AT-TE and just make improvements. The biggest advantage for the AT-AT was mainly height.
Yeah, the AT-AT feels like a command vehicle for a larger walker group more than a walker that you deploy en masse. Unfortunately General Veers wanted to marry the damn things, sooooooo . . .
Height, armor, and forepower my fried. AT-Te was pretty versatile though but a little too close to the cround
@@nicholasfarrell5981 En masse is an overestimation really. Most imperial batle groups delpoy like 2-3 if memory serves which isn't a lot
I feel like the AT-AT would be perfectly utilized if partnered with AT-STs and AT-TEs.
Burt yeah, the AT-TE was honestly genius and superior. Improving it by bulking up the underside with heavier armor or raising it a bit higher off the ground to negate that weakness to mines and it been perfect.
It was not and I will prove it objectively. Superior height, superior armor, superior firepower, superior troop capacity. Kek, AT-TE's were getting blown up by being shot by regular blasters and hand-held rockets. Stop this nonsense.
I wonder if one could walk backwards and keep up with the column. That way it could cover the rear arc of the formation. Obviously it would be dependent on sensors from the leading walkers to keep it from hitting anything but it could work.
If the enemy is your rear you have bigger problems then firing arcs.
👌😎👍Very cool and very nicely well done and very well informatively explained and executed in every detail way shape and form provided on this format and subject matter of the ATAT and all of its uses and functions and battle abilities and So forth and so on indeed Sir!.
Some imperial walkers could be dropped Bigger Lamshuttles And some walkers had gun cruise instead of 2 deck officers. In some atat also had communication with the Is bigger Lambtee shuttles
the AT-AT, aka the Metal Camel, is a thing of beauty to see. not so fun to be on the recieving end of its firepower.
i remember playing Star Wars: Battlefront years back, being stuck in a trench on Hoth as an AT-AT advanced on the command post i was at. it was accurate with its shots, despite being far off. i spent a few minutes ducking in and out of that trench, firing rockets at it, using the anti-tank turrets on it, watching its shots hit the spot i was just standing, or hitting troops around me. nothing i used did much damage.
it was like something out of the Terminator movies, where the H-K tanks are slowly advancing, firing and tracking anything that moves with their turrets. it was one of the few times i actually got scared while playing a Star Wars game.
Nice video on one of my favorite Star Wars vehicles. I've loved these things since seeing Empire in 1980.
I've always said "at at" because it's just faster and easier than AY-TEE AY-TEE. It rolls off the tongue easier.
Awesome video. I loved how you broke down the entire vehicle and what transported the AT-AT into combat. It is my favorite vehicle used by the Empire or Rebels.
Always wanted to do one up in a jungle camo pattern with extra weapon mounts say on the back top and side and belly much like a B-17 . This would be helpful for ground suppression. it would be somthing to see a few crashing through a jungle lighting it up. Possibly with Fortunate son playing .
Technically the Theta Transport is an All Terrain, All Terrain Assault Transport, Assault Transport.
The types used on Lothal did have a turret on the back.
Yes, it was an earlier model. We know that because of Jedi Fallen Order and Survivor which both show the Rebels version, so it isn't just an animation style choice.
Hey man! Love the video. I would love to see a complete breakdown of the First Orders flagship, The Supremacy.
Yes, very underrated ship
"Is that light bothering anyone else ?" - AFK
For the Empire
One of my pie-in-the-sky, I'll-get-to-it-when-I'm-done-with-all-the-other-projects projects is to build a LEGO minifig scale AT-HE. I wish there was more about them other than that one painting.
Come to think of it, what's it like if a more powerful cannon doesn't even scratch it, while a light saber easily cut the leg?
Lightsabers are neither consistent nor logical. Most space magic hand wavey nonsense. Which is a shame, because they are cool without needing to slice through anything.
@@tamlandipper29 I'm more interested in power differences.
An AT-AT should have been equipped with a defensive cannon on top of it to defend against air attacks, also guns on the back and sides like a B-17 bomber.
The animatic with the At-At hopping around like a happy puppy!!
11:14 Those Theta-class dropships kinda remind me of those LEGO Bionicle Toa canisters (original Mata Nui 2001 line). So the AT-AT's the toy, and the dropships are the neat canisters in which it comes.
Hi i am so happy you are doing the ATAT 😊
The design is iconic but absolutely impractical.
Why not make a huge repulsor lift tank? Why not make a bipedal? Why not make a tripedal? Why is the cockpit on front and why is it attached to the turrets? Why it is so high? Use mortars, missiles and grenades if you need to shoot over cover, use sensors or something if you need info.
This is mixture of FOUR vehicles - a tank, a transport, a command vehicle and anti-infrantry unit.
The only way it is feasible is having such horrible logistic problem that it is easier to make this jack of all trades master of none rather than design new stuff and make normal military.
Well, same thing as with the fleet really. They had EXACTLY same problem with massive capital ships everywhere and not the tools you need for the job. Sheeve could care less
A lot of those problems were the result of the Tarkin Doctrine, which insisted on presenting such overwhelming force that civilians would be too scared to fight back. In practice, it resulted in far too many ships, vehicles, and weapons whose size and crew/maintenance needs made them almost as unwieldy and inefficient as anything from the Warhammer 40K setting.
One of the coolest Star Wars vehicle designs!
I've had extremely distressing & vivid nightmares of these walkers attacking my hometown. Psychological warfare? It certainly got into my subconscious!
If the AT-AT is pronounced @-@, how is the AT-TE pronounced?
Or further, is our favorite rifle is the "Aarrh 15" while we drive around in our "mmmh one aaah one" Abrams tanks?
17:10 lol that little AT-AT hop
I love AT-AT’s because of how hard they would be to take down. I mean unless you got a lightsaber or a AT-ST ( AT-TE AT-AT ) you aren’t taken it down.
In my opinion, the pronunciation of this vehicle should be both forms, because if saying the letters individually is the proper way, that means you'll have to pronounce the Twin Ion Engine fighters as T I E fighters instead of the preferred TIE fighters. In the many forms of audio media (movies and audiobooks), I've never heard the fighters pronounced with individually letters, only as a whole. On a separate fun fact: in a Legends story, the Empire was warned about the tangling up the walker's legs tactic by one of the AT-AT drivers in an early in the prototype trials, but General Veers ignored the warning which lead that driver to join the rebels and he told them how to take a walker down.
Bro literally saved the rebellion because his boss said he was stupid
Answer: Yes.
It was perfect for what it was used for...but wasn't exactly necessary in the first place. It's role was filled by artillery, Starfighter strafing runs, and orbital bombardment.
@-@ Thats how they were referred to as in the original toy commercials.
Dont get me wrong, I love the AT-AT, but they easily could've made it so much more protected by just putting some (even if they are weak) guns on the side and back.
Even though the ATAT is bigger, Our ATTE’s will always be better
Except when the geonosians drive metal stakes in the ground 😂
@@seanloftus5950 we have general skywalker and commander tano for that
It's only better because Lucas came up with it later and probably put a bit more thought into it's capabilities.
Always be worse you mean
Can't believe this video didn't come out years ago.
They are great in a sci-fi setting! Just beutiful machines!
I could’ve swore I saw there being an aft gun on it (small but there) in Fallen Order, as well as them having an aft gun in rebels although there’s a few design changes in the rebels version that could make it a variant of its own. Thoughts?
The Rebels version was indeed a different model, the appearance of the walker in the realistic Jedi games confirmed that. The Rebels version of the ATAT is a huge improvement of the terrible Republic version but it most likely was somehow weaker than the OT era ATAT, potentially it had a weaker hull and less firepower.
@@tk-6967 It would make sense that it has significantly weaker armor since despite taking multiple shots from the Ghost, one of them was pretty badly damaged from just the phantom. I wonder where the distinction is made tho since MetaNerdz was using rebels as an example for the “modern” imperial AT AT so I wonder how much is really different and how much is just style choice e.g. the fat TIE fighters and extra tall command bridges on ISDs in Rebels
@@stephenglowacz4981 Well the actual shape of the walker would probably physically make a significant difference since the pre-OT version is more boxy, which would make it more susceptible to damage because of some physics shit. Also the cockpit is pretty significantly different, since the windscreen or whatever you'd call it is bigger on the pre-OT one, whereas the OT one has a shielded and smaller viewport, hence the red glow coming from the cockpit in ESB.
@@tk-6967 and rouge one's, AT-ACT, has a different style, the head armor being more angular than the standard at-at.
Although lasers do not deflect inclined armor like bullets?
@@Max-rl9zn Well the ATACT is simply a completely different vehicle. It is a bog standard construction walker with 2 cannons for defence rather than a powerful troop transport.
I think the correct way to pronounce "AT-AT" is "Both."
Spelling it out is the official designation. After all, that would be the most consistent across the entire lineage of Republic, Imperial, and First Order walkers. We don't call the small one-man ones "at rrrts", do we?
But people actually in the SW universe would absolutely refer to it as an "At-at." Same way the A-10 is officially called the Thunderbolt II, but everyone calls it the Warthog, or the F-16 is officially the Fighting Falcon, but some people insist on calling it the "Viper."
Great vid, my favorite imperial vehicle.
Hoth was a perfect example of one enemy having superior tech and the other side developing a special weapon as a counter. Ther harpoon guns on the snow speeders were useless against anything BUT the AT-AT.
4:06 To be fair to the ATAT, Rebels was very stupid when it came to cutting the legs with a saber. In most other media I can think of it was the underbelly of the ATAT that was fairly weak, the legs being a weakness to tow cable is overstated by flying games but it is clear in the lore that that isn't generally a major thing.
I think it started out as an Empire plan to streamline troop movement operations, combining the functions of troop transport and heavy assault into one while the Empire was a in a position of effortlessly dominating in battle with nothing challenging their rule... it was a compromise to combat capability from the start, but one they thought they were in an unchallengeable luxury position to make.
The same went to a a similar extent for a lot of what the Empire developed prior to the battle of Yavin, including the Imperial Star Destroyer. Not perfect battle machines, but perfect tools for streamlining the operations of Empire... Until they were properly challenged in battle.
The description of them makes them sound more powerful and more armored than Star Destoyers considering their size. I was always disappointed the rebels didn't have better anti-armor weapons.
It was flawed, but it also was a decent strategy.
Unruly city/location.
Send in star destroyer.
Land 5-20 AT-AT's with a 40 stormtrooper platoon in each (one company of 200 stormtroopers in 5 walkers up to a whole battalion of 800 stormtroopers in all 20 walkers)
Approach the city in these armored beast, using its heavy weapons to create a path. Flanked and screened by AT-ST's and speeder bikes.
Once within a suitable range, deploy stormtroopers while continuing to blast the city from over the troopers heads as they move into the city. Half of the AT-ST's assist the stormtroopers in the tight urban environment (similar to what was done in Rogue One).
Once the enemy anti-air weapons are mostly neutralized, landing craft can shuttle down reinforcements to the LZ behind the walkers and TIE fighters and bombers are now able to provide air support.
If all else fails, pull the walkers back and conduct orbital bombardment from the star destroyer.
Then repeat process.
Who knew such an orthodox approach as tow cables would become a thing!? 🤷♂️
I remember these books in middle school in the late ninetys
Here’s the thing though:
Big vehicle go “Pew Pew!”
It's always fun to try to steel-man the idea of an AT-AT, and try to rationalise it.
We know it's heavily armoured, able to absorb blaster bolts from speeders with no effect. That makes it perfect for advancing under fire.
It has tremendous forward firepower, able to snipe aircraft and deploy heavy ground fire. Again, this serves the forward assault role.
It's a walker, so the guns are high up, allowing an elevated firing platform, able to fire over low obstructions like hills and rain destruction on far off targets.
It can carry troops safely into battle.
The two main dowsides I can see is that as demonstrated in the film, while the legs are blaster resistant, they are vulnerable to some attacks. And secondly, there are no firing arcs to the sides, above, directly below, or behind. It's entirely focused on a forward enemy position.
I suppose in that way it epitomises the Imperial ethic. Forward attack, heavy firepower, heavy armour, deploy troops at site. Not unlike a Star Destroyer come to think of it.
Shoutout to Star Wars Rouge Squadron 3 on Gamecube where you play as Wedge Antillies and help capture an AT-AT to destroy an Imperial anti orbital laser that has the alliance fleet pinned down.
The best way to have fixed the top-heaviness would have been to make them a little wider.
I find the lack of guns on the AT-AT disturbing. The AT-TE could basically fire in all directions (mostly) while the AT-AT cant hit anything if something gets behind it.
The Empire should have put two beam laser turrets from the LAAT, one on each side of the AT-AT with maybe some rocketpods attached to the turrets. And then putting some laser cannons on the rear of the AT-AT like the AT-TE and you'll have a much more well protected AT-AT.
The battle of hoth would have gone a lot differently if the Empire had done that. The Rebels would have to disable the gun turrets before they can try to harpoon and trip the AT-AT. While the Empire would have replaced the glass balls with metal and give it the same viewport as the command cockpit to protect the gunners inside.
An AT-ACT is a built-up version of the AT-AT with thicker armor and reinforced legs. It was still taken down by a low-powered repeating blaster.
That Y-85 Dropship is dope.
You forgot that Wedge took control of an AT-AT in a level of Star Wars Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike.
Basically, any walker is an idiocy in itself thanks to this basic physical law of cubed volume to square of ground pressure. Walkers always have the problem that their feet surface area only increases at the square, while the volume above it, this the weight, thus the surface pressure on those feet is cubed.
Meaning walkers that just stand still will slowly sink into the ground until the friction on their legs stops them sinking. This is exacerbated as walkers take steps, meaning the surface pressure on the three feet remaining on the ground suddenly increases by 25% as one leg is lifted.
Depending on the density and strength of the material "walkers' would become "standers" after a maximum of four steps. Even steel reinforced concrete would probably crumble under the feet of a single AT-AT. Meaning that the greatest defense against them would be to set up base somewhere with soft, uneven ground. Like, oh, for example, a damn f'ing ice world. With snow and ice on top.
It works... but it can't be said to be perfect. The walker is good on flat surfaces, but it would have problems with medium height differences on both sides. The size of the feet would also be impractical, depending on the nature of the surface. But what bothers me most is the relatively weak armament compared to what would have been possible. Facing the front it's a beast... yes. But as soon as you stand in close proximity, attack from behind or stand directly underneath... there's nothing he can do anymore. Air defense is also only possible to a very limited extent with this thing. If you're going to send a Giant like this into the field, then you should equip it as a weapon platform. At the very least there would be a 360 degree anti-aircraft gun on top of the walker, as well as a rear gun and a belly gun to take out targets in close proximity. Then the thing would make sense. But that's just my opinion.
ATAT
The army loves acronyms
CAC-common access card card.
And also with you.
The pronounciation is 100% interchageable from a prior military standpoint. It's not a super strict system.
Cramming it with speeder bikes and two AT-STs just reinforces the 'designed by my 11 year old cousin' vibe.
Junkman gave the best reason.
"If it forms a word, then it said like a word. I.
If it's a bunch of letters, then its spelled out.
PLUS
Lorne Peterson of ILM
Pronounces them as "at at"
The old suspesion-of-desbelief walker, few times such a ridiculous, obviously flawed vehicle, hyped up to be some sort of unstoppable juggernaut.
8:38 he wearing that Space Balls helmet 😂
At-at is amazing long range anti vehicle platform
Like the av-7
My question is, why isn't their a variant or add-ons for an AT-AT to have hard points to mount light machine guns on the sides or firing ports for the troopers, or heck maybe even a ball turret
That rebel besalisk goes hard
Unwritten military rules say that all acronyms should be pronounced as a word, such as SCUBA being read as "scuba" instead of "s-c-u-b-a" or HMMV beind pronounced as "humvee." George himself said that you pronounce it as @@, but George also wrote the dialogue for the Prequels, so its obvious he needs a moderating force with him at all times. Calling them A-T-A-Ts sounds far more intimidating and Imperial than @@.