You fucking freaks.

  • DumpsterDive [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think the AT-ATs are slightly justified in the context they are first used in, that being: deep snow, heavy snowfall, facing artillery fire. It doesn't fully make sense, but the long legs to carry a hard shell over deep snow and have a decent vantage point for firing at relatively distant targets isn't awful. They did more or less overrun their target with nothing more than some tie fighter support, iirc

    • pumpchilienthusiast [comrade/them, any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is a world where repulsorlifts exist, "realistically" why would you bother with legs?

      (The correct answer is: Who the hell the cares? AT-ATs ARE SICK AS HELL BRO)

      • DumpsterDive [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Because they are approaching a target that has pretty heavy firepower and they lack consistent cover, smaller vehicles like the bikes on Endor are not a good option. For something really big -- and therefore somewhat slower, though still faster than AT-ATs, there is the question of repulsors kicking up snow in its own face, which would make return fire difficult. It also might just crush the snow into water (it's fake science, so we don't know how it would react) which would make it very bad at dealing with deep snow.

        "So why not just bomb the base from the sky?" Well a) I think they did but b) the armor issue and c) they had to reach the ground at some point. AT-ATs are dumb and tacky but, if you have access to all the general types of vehicles we've seen in the series, I think they are the best choice.