BaneBlade Vs AT-AT

BaneBlade (Warhammer 40K) Vs AT-AT (Star Wars)

While the fanboy in me wants to give the AT-AT a chance, I don’t think it would last more than a few rounds against the Warhammer 40K Tank. Being soo tall has some advantages, but on the combat grounds, methinks it won’t help much.

Any hope for the walker?

Related Posts:



Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion.

Comments being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion can lead to the banhammer getting used. You can read more about our comments policy here.



51 Comments on "BaneBlade Vs AT-AT"

  1. Space marine February 5, 2009 at 4:17 am -      #1

    Thanks for putting this up, Now Which Variation of BaneBlade will this one be?
    I shall retrive my info.

  2. GEOM February 5, 2009 at 10:18 am -      #2

    I am of the mind that it doesn’t really matter which variation. The standard baneblade mega battle cannon is a stupidly powerful weapon and, for that matter, so is the demolisher cannon. In addition to that, it also has a smattering of 9 other weapons ranging from heavy lascannons to heavy bolters and and autocannons. Its armor is thicker than a land raider which, in a previous post, I argued would defeat the AT-AT. Yes, the walker is a powerful machine, but baneblades are ancient, awesome super tanks that have seen centuries of constant war. Death to the enemies of the Imperium.

    -Imperator Victrix

    Postscript – The AT-AT’s height may seem like an advantage, but in my experience, anything that would have such a slow movement speed and incredibly high profile would be much more a liability than a bonus, despite the fact that tank armor is, as a rule, weaker on top. It is vastly simpler to shoot a six story building than it is to hit a two story building. I promise; I know.

  3. Matapiojo February 5, 2009 at 10:57 am -      #3

    Yes, I agree that the AT-AT will fall in this match. As opposed to the Land Raider, the Baneblade has the right tools to not only deal with the towering Titan-like war machine, but to soak up the damage inflicted onto it as well.

  4. =[BF]=JimmieRox February 6, 2009 at 6:16 pm -      #4

    Baneblade, sorry, fanboy moment here:

    ROFLMFAOCURBROFLSTOMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHH WOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANEBLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDEEEE!!!!!

    Sorry, had to be done! Right to business, the optimal variant for this confrontation would be the Shadowsword however pretty much any variant would have very little trouble with the AT-AT. Not even with those turbolasers.

  5. L-W February 7, 2009 at 4:58 am -      #5

    Although I wouldn’t discount the AT-AT turbolaser from performing terrific levels of damage unto the hull of the Baneblade (Especially at the lightspeed ranges it can fire from); the thirteen mounted weapons of the Imerium Tank, including the Primarch sized shells equipped by the Hell-gun, would make short work of the AT-AT refractor shields.

  6. =[BF]=JimmieRox February 8, 2009 at 9:28 am -      #6

    Yes, but the Volcano Cannon, one shot and you’ve got yourself a dead AT-AT!

  7. Space marine February 16, 2009 at 1:19 am -      #7

    “Yes, but the Volcano Cannon, one shot and you’ve got yourself a dead AT-AT!”
    Yes you do.

  8. Eldernesh March 4, 2009 at 11:02 pm -      #8

    any baneblade even correct me ifim wrong some forge worlds dont have proper baneblade schmatics and make cheap copies and usaly have a blattle kanon instead of baneblade kannon or twin plasma kannons would just need to blow of a skinny little at at leg and down it goes it got killed by a cable talk about weak

  9. lololol March 5, 2009 at 1:45 am -      #9

    lol its basicly two gun vs like ten, and who cares how many stormtroopers come out, and boom one leg down the at at is like dead

  10. Aegis030 March 5, 2009 at 5:45 pm -      #10

    All Terrain Armored Transport vs. Tank.. something designed to transport men and material versus something designed to destroy.

    Tank wins.

  11. Albert Wikowonkavitz March 13, 2009 at 6:06 pm -      #11

    Is it that hard for the AT-AT to step on a tank? :P

  12. Space marine March 13, 2009 at 7:04 pm -      #12

    If it gets Blown to a million pieces, Then yes.

  13. guns_talk_louder April 30, 2009 at 7:58 pm -      #13

    there should be maurader bomber fights here

    FIRE FIRE FIRE TILL NOTHINGS LEFT STANDING

  14. Belisaurius June 1, 2009 at 2:39 am -      #14

    y’see, when making an unstoppable engine of destruction, it’s often wiser to give it treads rather than legs.

    That, and the AT-AT was only effective because it outclassed virtually everything else it went up against.

    I’m pretty sure that rogue squadron took a few down easily with proton torpedos once.

    On the other hand, baneblades can win entire battles single handedly.

  15. Gus July 13, 2009 at 12:28 am -      #15

    I believe the tank would win that duel. I don’t know much about the tank, however it would definatly beat the AT-AT. The tank is lower, and it’s probably much faster. It would probably play out a lot like WWII Sherman vs. Tiger. Shermans could flank the Tigers before the Tiger could turn its cannon. Like the AT-AT, the Tigers could engage the the Shermans at range. So if it where a ranged battle, the AT-AT would have a better chance. Still, I think the tank would come out on top again due to it’s high mobility.

  16. Kenny C. July 13, 2009 at 5:47 pm -      #16

    Come on Admin…. give us a fair fight… what’s next?!

    Leman Russ Tank vs China Cabinet?

  17. CJ4short July 22, 2009 at 9:40 pm -      #17

    I agree. I have a feeling the only way the Baneblade would be destroyed would be the immense weight of an AT-AT foot coming down on top. And even then the AT-AT would likely topple and blow up.

  18. i dunno September 19, 2009 at 10:20 pm -      #18

    if a few speeders can take down an at-at by tripping it up
    a baneblade can rape it with a huge gun

  19. Syncourt October 13, 2009 at 3:43 pm -      #19

    Wait…why haven’t the BaneBlade been given a BankGambling Award yet?

  20. Kenny C. October 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm -      #20

    Because Warhammer can’t be given the honor every time it wins or else it would rape every other genre in that category.

  21. Kata November 29, 2009 at 8:01 pm -      #21

    As both a warhammer and star wars fan I would say the winner would be determined by how the AT-AT weapons were classified as. Lascannons then Baneblade no contest, TurboLaser Destructor then AT-AT if at range hands down. Considering Baneblades have problems hitting the broad side of a barn, let alone one several stories up.

  22. evolvedreader March 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm -      #22

    no way some walking tank that can get put down by being TRIPED will be able to destroy a highly advanced tank that can destroy entire armies and has 11 barrells of hell.

  23. Phantasy April 15, 2010 at 4:48 pm -      #23

    At long reange AT AT would decimate baneblade in 1-3 hits

  24. Belisaurius April 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm -      #24

    At long range, the bane blade would cripple the AT-AT in one hit.

  25. IvanTih May 31, 2010 at 2:36 am -      #25

    I assume that Baneblade will win if it destroys one AT-AT ‘s leg which will cause it to fall.

  26. Sergey May 31, 2010 at 3:33 am -      #26

    AT-AT fires faster. Kenny, don’t give me your “Outdated L-W statements say WH40k beat SW” defense.

  27. PSO July 17, 2010 at 8:19 pm -      #27

    a AT AT can move at speeds of up to 60kph has armour 300’000 times sronger than steel weapons that can penertrate this level of armour and a range of several thousand kilometers
    AT AT for the win at range

  28. Inarto July 17, 2010 at 8:35 pm -      #28

    Ok here is what a light warhammer tank can do with a simple autocannon.
    “The KL5 fired and he felt rather than heard the cataclysm as sixt kilotonnes of kinetic energy split open thirty-centimetre rockrete
    Emperor’s Mercy pg 122.
    The bane blade uses an autocannon as a coaxial weapon while its main gun is the much more powerful mega battle cannon and a demolisher cannon attached to its hull. It also has tww las canno sponsors which are used for destroying armoured vehicles while an auto cannon is used mainly against light vehicles and heavy infantry. Does AT-AT firepower come anywhere near 60 kilotonnes?

  29. Inarto July 17, 2010 at 8:37 pm -      #29

    Edit the quite is supposed to say sixty
    “The KL5 fired and he felt rather than heard the cataclysm as sixty kilotonnes of kinetic energy split open thirty-centimetre rockrete”
    Emperor’s Mercy pg 122.

  30. pso August 11, 2010 at 8:52 am -      #30

    yes allmost definatly more considering slave one fires 2 kiloton shots at a rate of 480 per minute, also its enough to destroye the rather large shield generator likely made of durasteel at hoth,
    It states in imperial armou vol2 that 98mm of composite armour used on a land raider (the bet the imperium has, the same is used on titans) gives equivelent proyection of 300mm of steel meaning not as good as durasteel, by a long shot, so for IoM destroying that complex would prove in theory alot more difficult.

  31. pso August 11, 2010 at 8:55 am -      #31

    i would confindently rangently say an AT AT is capable of killing a baneblade in one hit,
    bigggest advantags RANGE ARMOUR POWER

    dissavantegs FLANKING

  32. Inarto August 11, 2010 at 10:01 am -      #32

    That excerpt from Imperial armour is pretty much proven wrong in just about every other piece of 40k fluff. If land raider armour was that weak then why would they need anti tank weapons in the kiloton range?

  33. pso August 11, 2010 at 10:31 am -      #33

    perhaps one is more “cannon” than the other dunno dosnt add up
    dpends
    dont think modern anti tanks go any where near kilotons\?

  34. pso August 11, 2010 at 12:04 pm -      #34

    Also at ats can have turbolasere putting them at epic levels og power, also can be outfitted with shields giving them even more staying power

  35. ZeroXSEED September 24, 2010 at 12:01 pm -      #35

    BANEBLADE wins, but I HAVE to argue with the sixty kiloton impact part.
    Dude, lets pick the demolisher cannon diameter as several inch (probably around 30 cm or…where the hell you’ll store 18 shell of larger size?) that makes them 12 inch, a medium naval guns. such as these:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_12_inch_/40_naval_gun
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_12_inch_Railway_Gun
    BL 12 firing 385 kilos of projectile, and they’re not a simple slug. They pack 90 kg explosives, Amatol, which is just slightly weaker than pure TNT. If we consider that the impact energy itself is 122.145.324,4 joule or roughly 122 megajoules or 29 kg TNT. 94 kg Amatol would be equivalent to 60-70 kg TNT. 1 kg TNT = 4.2 Megajoules.
    However, I believe Baneblade actually launch something comparable to a nuclear warhead (But smaller and more efficient despite having Hiroshima scale of power) instead of impact alone (I KNOW how impossible W40K scale is but still…).
    Moreover, no matter HOW large baneblade is (and they AREN’T that large compared to AT-AT), a tank is a tank. They can be buried or keep hidden temporarily until AT-AT enters their firing range and BOOM, AT-AT loss their legs due to 60 Kiloton shell.
    AT-AT be damned

  36. Cheeky October 6, 2010 at 11:38 pm -      #36

    A single Baneblade with a couple of chimera’s filled with Kasrkin in support would have taken out the hoth base in no time at all, and not one of the rebel scum would have escaped alive.. Not that they would bother. Orbital bombardment from the imperial navy = no more rebels.

  37. pso October 25, 2010 at 6:43 pm -      #37

    Mac cannons abard starships fire one kiloton shots (rouge trader)
    This si the level of firepower needed to destroy an AT AT

  38. Jargonmultiplier December 4, 2010 at 5:55 am -      #38

    pso, mac cannons do not file one kiloton shots. and that is also MORE than enough to wipe out maybe 3 or 5 AT-AT’s. dude.

    the at-at sadly loses this. obviously. I think the baneblade would just have to ram the at-at.

  39. farfromit April 2, 2011 at 4:23 pm -      #39

    Imperium
    Weapons
    Las gun typically show kilojoule to low megajoule feats
    19 megajoule power pack, 310 Kilojoules per shot
    Plasma gun: Melts a humanoid; 200-400 megajoules yield spreads on impact

    Anti-tank weapons
    Laser cannon: triple digit megajoule weapon, focused yield 6*6- 8*8 centre meters penetration
    Melta: Melts or vaporizes 12 tons of ice= over seven gigajoules
    Being a beam/flamer like weapon its likely 7 Gw or gigajoules per second.
    34 Gw if it vaporized the ice.

    Based on the above its clear imperial tank mounted armour can resist triple digit kilojoules to single digit megajoules per centre meter.

    Star wars weapons
    • When set to maximum power the DC-15A blaster rifle 0.5 meter hole in any ferroconcrete wall.
    Depending on interpretation this feat would take between 300 megajoules- 1.5 gigajoules.
    On maximum power the capacity of the weapon is reduced however is still not a one shot weapon; when on the standard “low” setting the capacity of the weapon is 500 shots. Just ten maximum power would deplete the power pack.
    The entire energy potential of the clip is therefore around 3-15 gigajoules.
    So the lowest setting (ignoring any inefficiency that may be introduced when firing on the maximum setting) would therefore be between 6 and 30 megajoules.
    img159.echo.cx/img159/3034/gratetwo9gf.jpg
    An E-11 fired at a grate.
    The blaster destroyed approximately more than ten bars to a rough height of 1 foot; which the characters then jump through. Assuming the bars were composed of iron this would take over 100 megajoules. It’s safe to assume the E-11 was on a higher power setting when doing this.
    img82.echo.cx/img82/686/e11wall5de.jpg
    Wholes left in a wall from E-11 shots; the wholes are large over 10 cm wide.
    Assuming silicon composition: 15 megajoules
    Assuming Iron composition: 30 megajoules
    10-30 megajoules would seem to represent a lower “antipersonnel” shot from an E-11; as the weapon was firing upon an unarmored target. This is consistent with the level of firepower that the earlier DC-15A displayed.
    The clip capacity of an E-11 is also 500 shots.
    Such weapons however are not effective against even light armor in the Empire; and there for suggests weapons of a greater magnitude would be required. If a double digit megajoule weapon leaves nothing but a tiny black mark on armor it’s clear that anti vehicular weapons have to be in the gigajoule range.
    This is supported by the ICS stats on vehicular weapons: 5 gigajoule turret, and the 300 gigajoule beam weapon. However such weaponry is ineffective against AT AT armour.
    Therefor when on maximum power; light tanks and walkers would have weapons on par with meltas, and would die to such firepower.
    However AT AT’s are a magnitude more powerful than these counterparts in both firepower and endurance.

  40. smiler666 April 2, 2011 at 6:04 pm -      #40

    2 boyscouts with a rope and tentpegs would stomp am ATAT :) , a baneblade on the other hand would be relying on speed seeing as how a turbolaser is used in batterys on SW ships, so is comparable to WH40K lance. However i presume ATATs are subject to the tradition empire gunblindness?

  41. WaffleTosser April 2, 2011 at 7:19 pm -      #41

    Hey, i guess that material 300,000x stronger than steel can be dented by failing, and snow…

    Yeah, just set up a big explosive and the force will knock it down…

  42. farfromit April 3, 2011 at 11:16 am -      #42

    lol.. well a baneblade through unconventional warfare i.e ramming may be able to topple an AT AT, do note no denting or bending of metal occurs when the AT AT falls though? Toppling an AT AT may not be an easy task for a Baneblade, a baneblade weighs 120-200 tons at a guess, this may not even outmass the leg of an AT AT. (A lemun Russ wieghs over 60 tons)

    In a stand up fight… shooting each other, the AT AT will win. Poor turning does give the Baneblade the chance to flank and ram however.

  43. smiler666 April 3, 2011 at 1:43 pm -      #43

    hang on, the AT-AT is made of 300,00x stronger than steel? it explodes when it falls over for godssake! the walker does have shields though, which could tank a couple of baneblade shots mebey. if the baneblade has a recovery cable hook thing (damn words escaping me) and a (extremely) brave crewman it could have a go at tripping the AT-AT, otherwise the only chance the baneblade has is getting in close enough that it can outmaneuver the AT-AT

  44. farfromit April 3, 2011 at 7:16 pm -      #44

    It does not explode when it falls over… it explodes when the speeder unloads into its unprotected neck

  45. Paladino April 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm -      #45

    star wars steel seems to be crap (i’m talking about atst)

  46. farfromit May 2, 2011 at 10:10 am -      #46

    ATST walkers serve as scouts; and make use of very light materials to improve terrain navigation and their ability to cross land that cannot support large amounts of weight; such as a marshland. AT ST “steel” however is extremely effective against energy weapons as explained above. However note that AT AT’s are made of specifically “heavy” metal, which would give a weight estimate of 1000-2500 tons for it. The legs are strong enough to support this weight; it takes no noticeable damage when collapsing, with all its weight and is coated in “durasteel” a material that varies from 100 to 300,000 times the strength of steel.

  47. tau43 November 23, 2011 at 4:12 am -      #47

    Same as the Monolith full broadsides/unending hail of fire to the neck until decapitation, AT-AT down. 11 heavy weapons> 2 heavy weapons.
    Baneblade- 2 lascannons, 3 twin-linked heavy bolters= 6 heavy bolters, main battle cannon, demolisher cannon, and an autocannon.
    AT-AT- 2 turbo lasers.
    I’m leaning towards the Baneblade.

  48. uhnioin January 2, 2013 at 10:57 am -      #48

    @Farfromit – Did you just claim that the At-At was 1000-2500 tonnes? Also, you claim that dura steel is 300,000x stronger than steel?

    I want proof/evidence. That is insane weight. If anything, I’d say it’s 300 tonnes max.

  49. Sauroposeidon July 14, 2013 at 4:18 pm -      #49

    While I’m on an anti-baneblade roll.. Do we actually have any evidence of the Baneblade having capable top armor? Part of the reason why real life tanks can be killed so easily by attack air craft is because the armor on top isn’t sufficient. Unless we have proof that the Baneblade’s top armor is really any good at all then the AT-AT’s cannons might be able to open it up like a sardine tin can.What’s stopping the AT-AT from landing a top down blow on the commander’s cupola and just filling the whole inside of the tank with fiery death?

  50. IGCI-5996 February 28, 2014 at 1:07 pm -      #50

    Okay…
    Simple enough.
    The tank is the size of a small house, has armour thicker than than a wall, and weapons out the whazoo.
    The AT-AT is taller than… well its freakin tall, carries alot of troops, and has two ultra heavy cannons.
    The legs are a big issue for the AT-AT, True.
    The Tank is a massive target of the ground.
    But the answer is so simple.
    The Tank wins due to a factor of support.
    AT-ATs take about 15 man hours to keep running every month.
    The Baneblade has 1 support crewman. And that is his whole life.

  51. Sauroposeidon February 28, 2014 at 1:24 pm -      #51

    I don’t think the AT-AT was really meant to be on the field for very long. Not that it matters.

    Either the Baneblade lacks sufficient anti-air armor, and gets murdified before it even gets a chance to get its gun raised high enough to shoot the AT-AT..

    Or it does and regardless of how powerful AT-AT armor is, it’s got those big open windows on the front that one well placed round will make excellent use of.

    Unless we can find documentation of it being able to shrug off blows from the top, though, it could have sixteen meters of depleted uranium plated on the front and it wouldn’t matter. The AT-AT is going to have easy pickings. I believe that part of its incredible height may be to take advantage of the fact that most vehicles are designed with more “belt armor” than “deck armor” in reference to ship armoring.

Leave A Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Web Design MymensinghPremium WordPress ThemesWeb Development

Nope

No way I go here alone

17 Rare Star Wars Pictures

To see them, click here

Comic Con 2013 Cosplay Gallery

Just a ton of pictures of cosplayers from the 2013 Comic Con event

Ancient Aliens Map

If you ever watched the show "Ancient Aliens" and wanted a quick reference to where all the locations they mention are at, this is the site for you!

Fictional Universes Database

Soon to be shut down by Google, but here is a great starting point for Fictional Universes

99 Star Wars Pics

Some are cool, some are a bit absurd, but they are all based on Star Wars

Alternate Movie Posters

Something a bit distinct - Check them out

Epic Swiss Army Knife

Not Really...

Future Me

Write yourself an email letter to the future - Future Me

Neil Degrasse Tyson

Star Talk Radio - As always, keep looking up!