Scarab Vs AT-AT

Scarab (Halo) Vs AT-AT (Star Wars)

Imagine you are given the choice to pilot one vehicle to go against the other. If the battle starts with the two mechas near each other, I’d take the scarab. If they are long distances apart and have to walk to each other to fight, I’d take the AT-AT.

What about you?

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.



1 2 3

300 Comments on "Scarab Vs AT-AT"

  1. L-W March 28, 2009 at 8:52 am -      #1

    Alpha and myself have graciously proven the AT-AT combat platform to be the victor of this match during previous bouts of “Halo Vs. Star Wars” based discussion.

    factpile.com/star-wars-vs-halo

    See comments #280 to #293 for further proof.

  2. hellatus March 28, 2009 at 8:56 am -      #2

    i believe scarab would win due to better manueverability plus it would always face the AT-AT so it would be more difficult to hit the weakpoint, but its not impossible. I am very sure that The AT-AT will find out that they should hit the joints

  3. marche March 28, 2009 at 9:55 am -      #3

    AT-AT,easilty at that.

  4. Matapiojo March 28, 2009 at 10:04 am -      #4

    “i believe scarab would win”

    Allow me to refer you to post #1 and its subsequent references. Good day to you, sir.

  5. the_man_with The_Answers March 28, 2009 at 10:42 am -      #5

    honestly, the scrab would win. way beter speed and manuverability. plus scarabs are manned by a brute chieften,2 normal brutes, and up to 3 jackals. plus the fact of even the little plasma turrets on the side. the scarabs main beam wuld at least take out 2 legs in one shot.

  6. A Man with Clothes On March 28, 2009 at 12:27 pm -      #6

    If it’s the scarab from H2, no contest. It would easily destroy the AT-AT.

  7. Spellca March 28, 2009 at 2:01 pm -      #7

    Thanks admin for posting mine.

    I honstly have to say AT-AT because one wouldn’t be alone. Plus unlike the Scarab the All Terrain Armored Transport is also an improvised troop transport holding more arms then a Scarab. So even if the fire fight isn’t in the Imperial Walker’s favor it can deploy maybe twenty or so Stormtroopers and Shock Troopers to bring the Covenant walker down.

    I also think that the AT-AT can stand more overral punishment and be less likely to be boarded.

    “…main beam wuld at least take out 2 legs in one shot.”

    I don’t believe you would even have that chance. The AT-AT’s front guns are pretty damn fast and powerful and the “Scarab Gun” has a slow shot, long recharge and not that big of a range. A few long range shots by an AT-AT and that gun wouldn’t even be operational. And how can those brutes, grunts and jackals be of any help? They would be shot down just as easily if not easier and the plasma turrets are useless and wouldn’t have a clear shot at the walker.

  8. marche March 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm -      #8

    “honestly, the scrab would win. way beter speed and manuverability.”
    Stopped reading their.
    Please research the AT-AT thoroughly.

  9. L-W March 28, 2009 at 5:59 pm -      #9

    A hull made of Durasteel, (A resilient alloy that can withstand Turbolaser blasts) coated in a layer of Doonium, a heat dissipative ore that deflects plasma based weaponry on contact. Couple this with dual layers of refractive energy shielding and a and vehicle and troop compliment vastly superior to that of the Scarab.

    Did I mention the dual Turbolasers on the front capable of turning the Scarab to molten slag within seconds?

  10. hellatus March 28, 2009 at 6:25 pm -      #10

    The AT-AT has a weak point too, the neck column wich lacks the great armour the there is on the rest of the body of the AT-AT is a weak point and if shot with enough force the entire AT-AT will be destroyed. The firepower of the AT-AT is designed at the front of the AT-AT on the head it has two blasters and two lazer cannons so it has great firepower however if the scarab manages to get behind the AT-AT it can shoot it from behind destroy if not all at least one leg it will also fall. the AT AT can move its neck to try to shoot the scarab but as i have said the AT-AT does not have very good manueverability it will have to turn its whole body around to shoot the scarab.

    The scarab has good manueverability but not as good firepower of the AT-AT it has a big plasma gun on top. a scarab gun and up to 3 turrets on it and sometimes a grunt with a fuel rod cannon it has a weak point at the back that is covered by a destroyable portion of the scarab the ways the AT-AT can destroy the scarab are: hit the legs on the joints so it can move and its weakpoint is free to destroy or some how just get to the weak point and destroy it. however the AT-AT’s weakness is at its neck so it is also easy to hit same with the legs or joints

  11. L-W March 28, 2009 at 9:16 pm -      #11

    “The AT-AT has a weak point too, the neck column wich lacks the great armour the there is on the rest of the body of the AT-AT is a weak point and if shot with enough force the entire AT-AT will be destroyed.”

    Not really a weak point when it seems unlikely that even Covenant Capital Class weaponry could compare to Imperial era refractor energy shielding. Meanwhile, from such a compromising position the Scarab would be caught in the 180 degree firing radius of the Turbolaser arc.

    “The firepower of the AT-AT is designed at the front of the AT-AT on the head it has two blasters and two lazer cannons so it has great firepower however if the scarab manages to get behind the AT-AT it can shoot it from behind destroy if not all at least one leg it will also fall.”

    Do I have to repeat the fact that the AT-AT is composed of a Durasteel hull coated in Doonium with dual refractor shields to supplant further protection? How are they going to destroy it from the rear?

    “if not all at least one leg it will also fall”

    Rebel Bombers would often use their respective surplus of proton torpedoes to attack and weaken the legs. So far this has always failed. Nothing but a full blown kamikaze charge with all Torpedo’s primed for detonation upon impact seems to even weaken the legs, as was shown in the Liberation of Coruscant.

    “AT-AT does not have very good manueverability it will have to turn its whole body around to shoot the scarab.”

    As I’ve mentioned, AT-AT Turbolasers have a 180 degree firing arc, meaning the entire vessel does not have to face the opponent before firing.

    – – –

    Of course we have yet to take into account the respective crew compliment of the Imperial craft, no doubt the forty odd assault Troopers on board the AT-AT could perform a fast rope descent, deploy their respective heavy Anti-Tank weapons (The MiniMag PTL PLX-1 missile launcher comes to mind) and go to town on the Scarab with proton torpedoes. Ordinance of this caliber is designed to take out AT-AT platforms and low-flying Cruisers, against the Scarab they would be devastating.

  12. esdlax69 March 28, 2009 at 9:48 pm -      #12

    Dear L-W,
    Nobody likes you, go away.

    8=>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ^
    you and your boyfriend
    (respectively)

  13. L-W March 28, 2009 at 11:14 pm -      #13

    Bwahahaha!

    Ok guys, seriously, which one of you created or used an alternate account to attempt and lambaste me without the risk of compromising their main avatar. In a way I’m slight flattered that a person would go out of their way to “attempt” such a low-brow ad hominem.

    Either it’s someone who I’ve repeatedly owned in the past and will most likely continue to own, or this is a lurker of unprecedented patience.

  14. AlphaCommando March 28, 2009 at 11:20 pm -      #14

    This esdlax69 person is the exemplification of maturity and intelligence on the internet.

    [/computer’s sarcasm processor catches fire]

    Serious, I’m sure this is a hit-and-run poster but come on…how did that even get past the Admin’s filter?

  15. Space marine March 29, 2009 at 12:32 am -      #15

    @ esdlax, Now you gonna get fucked up pal. I mean fanboy.

  16. x on March 29, 2009 at 1:15 am -      #16

    @esdlax69

    WOW your a idiot… that is all.

  17. hellatus March 29, 2009 at 5:52 am -      #17

    @L-W THE AT-AT cant move its guns 180 degrees to the sides its heavy guns are stationary and the lighter ones move up-and-down ,who told u that it moves 180 degrees? thats what its head can do. What made u think that the guns can move 180 degrees, look at a picture

    here is a picture of the underside for ur reference:

    www.starshipmodeler.com/starwars/jb_atat/jb_atat_hd5_chin_guns_underside.jpg

    yes the neck is a weak point thats because it is the part of its body that it needs to move the most to be able to shoot things before they get behind it has to be weaker if they wanted it to be able to move well. I dont know about what kind of metal or armour the AT-AT has or where u got that from whatever it is the neck doesnt have it.

  18. L-W March 29, 2009 at 9:26 am -      #18

    “Throughout most of the Galactic Civil War, the AT-AT was equipped with two chin-mounted heavy laser cannons and two medium blaster cannons on a swivel mount.”

    – Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels

    Sorry Hellatus, but canon sources dictate that the chin-mounted Turboblaster have a firing arc of 180 degrees horizontal to the mount itself. Now here’s a question, did I make a distinction between the thirty gigaton medium Turbolaser and the Super-Heavy variant (Both Capital class weapons)? Or did you make an assumption based on a failure to recognise semantics alone?

    I have to assume the latter.

    “yes the neck is a weak point thats because it is the part of its body that it needs to move the most to be able to shoot things before they get behind it has to be weaker if they wanted it to be able to move well. I dont know about what kind of metal or armour the AT-AT has or where u got that from whatever it is the neck doesnt have it.”

    The neck joint is actually constructed from interlinked segments of Durasteel overlapping one another within a semi-plastoid (Unknown pliable material) sheath, which whilst weaker than the hull itself, would still require firepower NOT present in the arsenal of the Scarab and her crew to sever. We’re discussing proton class weaponry, not the comparatively clumsy globule of plasma ejected from the main cannon.

    Also I’m just going to assume that you’ve just ignored the comment regarding refractor shields all together, the same shields that can quite easily deflect 200 gigaton yield blasts without recycling.

  19. the_man_with The_Answers March 29, 2009 at 12:28 pm -      #19

    The forty or so imperial troops wont do much. Imperial troops have to be deployed onto the ground were as the scarab troops easily snp them frm above. Also resarched the AT-AT. It has no “plasma refractor shield”. Star Wars doesn’t even use plasma. Proton weaponry is completly difernt from plasma. Therefore plasma will acually be much more effective ecause T-ATs Arn’t designed to defend against plsma. Making that is a useless expendature of cash. Oh and by the way, a 200 gigiton nuclear bomb would completly disinigrate a solar system if detonated in atmsphere, so

    *the same shields that can quite easily deflect 200 gigaton yield blasts without recycling.* is a lie. Remember how easily an AT-AT was blown up in the movies?Even with a 180 degree firing range, the scarab can easily just stay behind it, were it will have as many shots as it needs. And with the hight of the at-at, the AA gun could hit it to.

  20. the_man_with The_Answers March 29, 2009 at 12:31 pm -      #20

    Oh and if all else fails, the scarab can put out a leg and trip the at-at. making it vary vulnerabe.

  21. Spellca March 29, 2009 at 1:39 pm -      #21

    “Oh and if all else fails, the scarab can put out a leg and trip the at-at. making it vary vulnerabe.”

    You are aware a team of 40 troopers would obliterate any fighting force defending the walker and then take it out. A Scarab isn’t that manuverable and AT-AT pilots aren’t that stupid. They are the most elite of the pilot corps and would keep their distance to turn, as L-W said, “the Scarab to molten slag” within a short while.

  22. marche March 29, 2009 at 2:26 pm -      #22

    “It has no “plasma refractor shield”. Star Wars doesn’t even use plasma. Proton weaponry is completly difernt from plasma.Therefore plasma will acually be much more effective ecause T-ATs Arn’t designed to defend against plsma.”

    i just thought i would reply to this portion.

    1) plasma is obselete in star wars,they have no use for it since they have lasers,which are much more effective.

    2) saying that plasma works on something because it wasnt designed for it is like saying a iron spear could penetrate a modern tanks because the engineers didnt think of protecting against spears.

  23. marche March 29, 2009 at 2:27 pm -      #23

    “Oh and if all else fails, the scarab can put out a leg and trip the at-at. making it vary vulnerabe.”

    this only requires one response.
    /Facepalm.

  24. Zach V. March 29, 2009 at 2:47 pm -      #24

    “You are aware a team of 40 troopers would obliterate any fighting force defending the walker and then take it out.” Scarab would take out all of the troops first but this didn’t stop Luke Skywalker who just jumped up into the ATAT and destroyed it from the inside out.

    I think that the scarab could potentially find this weak spot and take the ATAT out but besides that, it would be a hard battle.

    I personally don’t think either would win because the scarab could just run away.

  25. The One Sin March 29, 2009 at 3:07 pm -      #25

    “how did that even get past the Admin’s filter?”

    The filter probably looks for words, not drive by genitals. He beat the system.

  26. Cpt Olimar March 29, 2009 at 4:29 pm -      #26

    “I personally don’t think either would win because the scarab could just run away.”
    except for tactical reasons, wouldn’t running away count as a loss?

  27. Baron Somebody March 29, 2009 at 4:33 pm -      #27

    ROFL DRIVE BY GENITALS AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  28. Space marine March 29, 2009 at 5:28 pm -      #28

    “The filter probably looks for words, not drive by genitals. He beat the system.”

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa Oh god. That was funny.

  29. admin March 29, 2009 at 5:36 pm -      #29

    “The filter probably looks for words, not drive by genitals. He beat the system.”

    I left that as I wanted to see L-W completely job that post…

  30. Space marine March 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm -      #30

    “I left that as I wanted to see L-W completely job that post…”

    This is why you are the best admin in the world.

  31. marche March 29, 2009 at 7:09 pm -      #31

    “he filter probably looks for words, not drive by genitals.”
    a lol’d hard.

  32. hellatus March 29, 2009 at 9:11 pm -      #32

    @L-W in the “star was episode 5″ it shows the rebels fighting AT-AT’s at hoth. so if what u say IS true then why is it made possible that the rebels destroyed the AT ATs? what u seggest is that the ATATs have incredibly strong armour. even when when one of the At ATs was down two shots at the neck completely destroyed an AT AT.

    I have nothing to say about what u said about the AT-ATs guns moving 180 degrees because some of it i did not understand.

  33. L-W March 29, 2009 at 9:26 pm -      #33

    “I left that as I wanted to see L-W completely job that post…”

    ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!

    – – –

    the_man_with The_Answers, why does your name act as precursor to the exact opposite?

    1) I already explained thrice that Plasma ordinance was obsolete in the Star Wars universe, with alloys and materials such as Durasteel, Duracrete, Doonium and Plastoid being almost entirely resistant to even the superior (Yet inferior) Plasma technology available to the denizens of the Galactic Republic and Empire.

    2) “Imperial troops have to be deployed onto the ground were as the scarab troops easily snp them frm above.”

    Too bad most Shock Troopers carry and deploy their own polarized shield in lieu of heavy cover.

    3) “It has no “plasma refractor shield””

    Did I call it a PLASMA refractor shield? Idiot. Proton missiles are designed to penetrate refractor shields, which is why they are so effective against most armoured and shielded units in the Imperial and Republic Armies. Whilst Proton missiles can slip through and detonate, Plasma would just collide in a burst of ionized gas and cease to exist.

    4) “Oh and by the way, a 200 gigiton nuclear bomb would completly disinigrate a solar system if detonated in atmsphere, so”

    /facepalm

    That were true if it were a fissile bomb that used conventional nuclear fusion and fission to produce high energy yields. But these are concentrated proton beams designed to release magnanimous proportions of energy in molecular scale concentrated areas.

    Either way I can show you the calculations if you need further proof that Heavy Turbolasers can produce 200 Gigaton yield detonations, but I somehow believe it would go over your head.

  34. L-W March 29, 2009 at 10:16 pm -      #34

    “so if what u say IS true then why is it made possible that the rebels destroyed the AT ATs? what u seggest is that the ATATs have incredibly strong armour. even when when one of the At ATs was down two shots at the neck completely destroyed an AT AT.”

    I’ve already explained this.

    Let’s say 2/3 of the height is the legs. 2/3*22.5m*3ft/m=45ft. So after it was tripped, it fell 45 feet. That’s a lot of force for an object of that weight, especially when you consider the lack of supportive armor on its underbelly.

    When the exposed neck was then subsequently shot in the next scene, the penetrative power of the AP/11 dual laser cannon was sufficient as to destroy the fallen and crippled vehicle. As I’ve proven on other boards, Star Wars era blasters and lasers and several million degrees more efficient than their Covenant counterparts. Whilst a dual laser blaster could penetrate a loosely connected sheath of Plastoid and Durasteel, I doubt the armament of a Scarab could even compare.

  35. Danman March 30, 2009 at 3:12 am -      #35

    OMG even if the AT-AT is as powerful as L-W says it is id still pic the scarab coz if a snow speeder can kill an AT-AT with a piece of string, then the scarap can mount the AT-AT and hump it till i falls over and if any troops come out then all the weapons on the scarap can fire away

  36. Space marine March 30, 2009 at 6:46 am -      #36

    “ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!”

    *looks around*

    No, Not really….

    Please, Make a jewish joke or something.

  37. L-W March 30, 2009 at 9:26 am -      #37

    “OMG even if the AT-AT is as powerful as L-W says it is id still pic the scarab coz if a snow speeder can kill an AT-AT with a piece of string, then the scarap can mount the AT-AT and hump it till i falls over and if any troops come out then all the weapons on the scarap can fire away”

    Were you dropped on your head as a child?

  38. Spellca March 30, 2009 at 11:02 am -      #38

    “OMG even if the AT-AT is as powerful as L-W says it is id still pic the scarab coz if a snow speeder can kill an AT-AT with a piece of string, then the scarap can mount the AT-AT and hump it till i falls over and if any troops come out then all the weapons on the scarap can fire away”

    Stop asking the same questions to L-W! The walker was tripped and thus innable to get back up…therefore it can’t fight. Plus, Danman, make some sort of intellegent contribution instead of spewing stupid pus all over this thread. AT-AT is victorious.

  39. Just A Gamer March 30, 2009 at 4:24 pm -      #39

    I’ve read almost all of this and I still think the Scarab could puncture straight through an AT-AT from cockpit to ass with one cannon blast.

  40. the_man_with The_Answers March 30, 2009 at 7:06 pm -      #40

    Any reasponses to mine?

  41. Zach V. March 30, 2009 at 7:49 pm -      #41

    L-W, what if the scarab tripped the ATAT and left it there; it couldn’t do anything. With superior manouverability.

    Please give some plasma weapons credit. They are much more powerful they you put them out to be. I’m sure they could still damage the ATAT in unprotected areas like the neck or underside.

    Now I know what you’re thinking, (What unprotected areas? They have Plastoid, durasteel, and all this super powerfull shields.) And thats why the scarabs victory would be slim to zero. ATAT wins.

    Could just run away, not that it would. If the ATAT proved to be the better of the two vehicles(and it is), it would run so it wouldn’t be destroyed.

  42. The One Sin March 30, 2009 at 7:59 pm -      #42

    “I’ve read almost all of this and I still think the Scarab could puncture straight through an AT-AT from cockpit to ass with one cannon blast.”

    Dude, seriously, pop another game into your 360 and go buy another novel.

  43. hellatus March 30, 2009 at 9:22 pm -      #43

    L-W pls translate ur response to how an AT-AT can move its gun 180 degrees to modern english

  44. L-W March 30, 2009 at 9:23 pm -      #44

    “I’ve read almost all of this and I still think the Scarab could puncture straight through an AT-AT from cockpit to ass with one cannon blast.”

    With what proof? Do you have anything to verify or even back this statement.

    “Any reasponses to mine?”

    Are you blind and stupid? There are several responses to your “Statements”.

  45. L-W March 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm -      #45

    “L-W, what if the scarab tripped the ATAT and left it there; it couldn’t do anything.”

    This isn’t a three legged race, if the Pilot of an AT-AT even thinks that an obstruction may cause his craft to collapse (Durasteel plates say otherwise), he’ll go stationary, deploy Turbolasers to cover the front and sides and may even order his crew to repel and rain down a veritable hell of Proton missiles.

    “Please give some plasma weapons credit. They are much more powerful they you put them out to be. I’m sure they could still damage the ATAT in unprotected areas like the neck or underside.”

    Whilst powerful within their respective universe, those Plasma weapons are fairly redundant agaianst a civilization where light plastics and fabrics can be constructed to be plasma resistant, where even alloys lighter than aluminum can wade through inordinate amounts of heat without sustaining any noticeable damage. Durasteel can survive point blank shots from Turbolaser fire before any noticeable duress is witnessed, how do you propose that the Main Cannon would compare?

    I’ve explained this far too many times now, why is it still not getting through?

    “Could just run away, not that it would. If the ATAT proved to be the better of the two vehicles(and it is), it would run so it wouldn’t be destroyed.”

    Winner of the most “facepalm” inducing comment I’ve read in some time. This was actually the first time that I’ve ever literally cupped my face in the palm of my right hand and chuckled.

  46. toxic_J-man March 31, 2009 at 3:48 am -      #46

    “I’ve explained this far too many times now, why is it still not getting through”

    i think i know why its not getting through because ppl dont understand most things u say or they dont wat to read it because it is very long. The same problem happens to me and i think alot of ppl too

  47. EnigmaJ March 31, 2009 at 2:59 pm -      #47

    Capital Class Weaponry and shielding??? AT-AT takes this one easy then…

    But one things for sure. The Scarab looks a heck of a lot cooler…

  48. EnigmaJ March 31, 2009 at 3:01 pm -      #48

    We need to see how this thing stacks up against WarHammer Battle Titans…

  49. L-W March 31, 2009 at 7:38 pm -      #49

    Not too well, most likely.

  50. Tarbel March 31, 2009 at 11:00 pm -      #50

    the AT-AT is so big, it looks like it could just step on the scarab . . . . and a couple of shots look as if it could blow the scarab into shrapnel. I think scarab is dead.

  51. esdlax69 April 1, 2009 at 8:47 pm -      #51

    @L-W
    go kill yourself you little pussy, you couldn’t stand up to me in a fight, because I play lax, so I’m better than you

  52. hellatus April 1, 2009 at 10:41 pm -      #52

    @tarbel I find it amazing how u could throw stupid crap like that do u rly think that the scarab will rly go to the Big AT-AT lrgs and not expect to be stepped on. think about it if u were driving the scarab would u go to legs of the AT-AT to get crushed, well i think YOU might. but a normal person would not

  53. L-W April 1, 2009 at 11:11 pm -      #53

    “go kill yourself you little pussy, you couldn’t stand up to me in a fight, because I play lax, so I’m better than you”

    Says the person who no doubt uses an alternate account to stalk me.

    When you have something intelligible or in the least bit valuable to say, I’ll be right here.

  54. Matapiojo April 2, 2009 at 7:02 am -      #54

    “go kill yourself you little pussy, you couldn’t stand up to me in a fight, because I play lax, so I’m better than you”

    Obvious troll is obvious.

  55. Megafire April 2, 2009 at 7:53 am -      #55

    Looks like someone’s butthurt.

    Hint to the less intelligent people, it’s not L-W.

  56. Terror April 2, 2009 at 12:27 pm -      #56

    “Do I have to repeat the fact that the AT-AT is composed of a Durasteel hull coated in Doonium with dual refractor shields to supplant further protection? How are they going to destroy it from the rear?”

    How the heck is that even an argument? So? Your point? I’m assuming that you mean it is heavily armored right? ANNNND? Does this mean it is invulnerable? No it does not. Using your logic:

    Let’s argue which is faster… A Viper SRT or a Corvette Z06

    Here’s your argument: “The Vette has a 427 CID V8 engine!”

    Me: So?

    You: Do I have to repeat that teh Vette has a 427 CID engine with 505 hp and 475 ft lbs of torque?

    LOL – What a weird way to argue. Quoting stats without knowing the implications of said stats means NOTHING! Can you tell me the power output of teh Scarab main gain? What? You can’t? Then what the heck is your point? For all you know, the Scarab main guns could melt right through within 3 seconds!!!

    From a military and strategic point of view, the Scarab is so far superior in design to the Walker it’s not even funny. What military mind says: “Hey I know! Let’s make a weapon that is slow, clumsy, has HUGE blind spots, and easily exploited weaknesses!” lol

    Well armored weapons with small ranges of fire never make it in real world battles my friend. Look at real world military history and you will see that I am right. Well the Walker you are so religously defending has ALL of the biggest flaws just described. Sorry, teh Scarab is superior here:

    Better visibility

    Quicker

    Better mobility

    No firing blind spots

    Far more guns

    It can operate with no one manning it

    Yep – Scarab for the win!!!

  57. Terror April 2, 2009 at 12:45 pm -      #57

    “the AT-AT is so big, it looks like it could just step on the scarab . . . . and a couple of shots look as if it could blow the scarab into shrapnel. I think scarab is dead.”

    i CANNOT BELIEVE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARGUE WITHOUT FIRST GETTING THE FACTS.

    FYI, the Scarab is BIGGER than the AT-AT — The height of the Scarab (Depending on where you get your numbers) ranges from 95 – 145 feet. The height of the walker ranges (I’ve seen numbers all over the place) from 45 – 120 feet.

    I wish I could be more exact, but again, the numbers are all over the place. BUT GENERALLY, You’ll find the range for the Scarab is larger, and most CERTAINLY more massive than the Walker.

    You claimed the Walker looks bigger. That’s probably due to the fact that it’s a slim, girly design. With dangly skinny and awkward legs like that, it looks TALL. Not powerful, just tall. It’s like looking at a basketball player that’s 7 feet tall, but only 190 pounds. lol You can have another guy who is the same height, but 290 pounds, without a fram of reference, you’ll think the skinny guy is taller.

    The Scarab is most certainly more massive than the Walker though. It’s wider, more fleshed out, bristling with weapons.

  58. Who? April 2, 2009 at 5:53 pm -      #58

    “i CANNOT BELIEVE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARGUE WITHOUT FIRST GETTING THE FACTS.”

    The hypocrisy this dude is spewing is overwhelming, I just puked all over my keyboard.

  59. Zach V April 2, 2009 at 8:45 pm -      #59

    He’s actually right, the ATAT is 22.5 meters tall and the Scarab is 55 meters tall(or something like that.

    If the ATAT’s shields are taken out by just falling, the plasma cannon on the Scarab would roast through its shields like a blow torch through some rice paper. Have you ever read the Halo novels? The plasma weaponry is extraordinarily powerfull in any universe.

    After talking with a few people(one who has read most of the star wars books), the main blaster weapons do not shoot a particle beam. they are actually laser type weapons. The “disentegrator” weapons however, are the particle beam ones.

    So back to my point, if the ATAT’s shields were taken out by falling, the plasma could easily penetrate it’s shields. And even if they couldn’t penetrate through the armor of the walker, the plasma would cook its inhabitants.

    And you don’t know the power of the Scarab’s plasma weapons nor do you know the power of any of the covenants ships plasma weapons LW as I do not know the power of an ATAT’s main lasers.

    Anyway, with superior mobility and size, the Scarab could trip the ATAT and take out its shields while it cooked everyone on the inside with its extremely hot plasma weapons.

  60. L-W April 2, 2009 at 10:17 pm -      #60

    How on Earth are you so blind Terror, does your pathetic rage immolate your vision or are you just stupid?

    1) I had previously mentioned that Durasteel is capable of withstanding repeated 200 gigaton blasts from Heavy Turbolasers before fracturing, thus making it far more durable than any alloy in Covenant possession; whilst Doonium (Being the Adamantium of Star Wars) dissipates even the most extreme of heat sources upon contact.

    Not only have I stated that they are heavily armoured, but resistant to Plasma fire as well, making them nigh invulnerable to even the Main Cannon possessed by the Scarab Assault Platform.

    2) “LOL – What a weird way to argue. Quoting stats without knowing the implications of said stats means NOTHING!”

    The hypocrisy is overwhelming considering I *have* directed you to those sources.

    3) “Can you tell me the power output of teh Scarab main gain? What? You can’t?”

    you know what they say about assumptions, right?

    From what we know the Scarab main cannon is sufficiently powerful in it’s energy output as to destroy a Scorpion Main Battle Tank, or a Pelican in mid-flight, but even on Legendary mode we know that Master Chief can survive the blast of the Scarab gun with only a minimum of his health remaining.

    Output required to disable a Tank: 50MJ (Taking into account five centuries of advances in metallurgy) or 0.00001195Kton.

    Output required to kill a fully shielded Spartan in Mark VI MJOLNIR battle armour: 100MJ (Includes shield depletion) 0.000023901Kton.

    Whilst superior to UNSC vehicles, the main cannon is unbelievably inefficient.

    Now I’m going to discuss the power output necessary to destroy the Scarab:

    As we are aware, it takes two ship mounted MAC rounds to disable the Scarab, requiring a total of nine rounds to utterly incapacitate it according to Halo Wars.

    The standard ship-mounted MAC fires a 600-ton ferric-tungsten projectile with a depleted uranium core at 600,000 mph (this is circa 2552). The large amount of energy needed to fire the weapon (the muzzle energy is 19.8 terajoules (E=.5mv^2), to be precise) is particularly onerous on a warship, and the extended recharge time is a significant factor in combat against Covenant warships as multiple MAC rounds are required to penetrate Covenant shields. The standard MAC is sufficient to destroy any human vessel or severely damage an unshielded Covenant vessel.

    With each shot producing 19,800,000 megajoules of energy at 4.73Kton each (Just under the scale of a small nuclear warhead), it requires a total of 178.2 terajoules to destroy a Scarab, coming to a yield of 42.59Kton.

    The following figures are based on the Star Destroyers ability to destroy a Planets surface.

    The crust of a typical planet is composed mostly of silicates, so the thermodynamic properties of silicon dioxide can be used as a reasonable basis for estimating the characteristics of planetary crust material. The melting point of silicon dioxide (quartz microstructure) is 1883K, its density is 2220 kg/m^3, and its specific heat is roughly 1050 J/kgK at high temperatures (ref. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 3rd Edition by Incropera and Dewitt). The energy required to heat 5.1E14 m³ of rock from 300K to melting point is therefore 1.9E24 J. The latent heat of fusion for SiO2 is at least 250 kJ/kg (ref. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 50th Edition), which adds 3E23 J to the energy estimate. This leads to a grand total of 2.2E24 J. This operation must not take longer than 1 hour or so, otherwise significant numbers of planetary citizens would be able to evacuate. The power requirement is therefore at least 600 million TW.

    There are 12 heavy turbolasers and roughly 120 light turbolasers on an ISD1 (ref. SWICS). The heavy turbolasers are roughly 125 times bigger than the light turbolasers (which were seen vaporizing asteroids in TESB). If firepower is proportional to size (an unsubstantiated but not unreasonable postulate) then the sustainable power outputs of the heavy and light guns work out to 47 million TW and 375,000 TW respectively. Refire rates seem to be roughly 1 shot per 2 seconds, so the energy level of each individual blast would have to be 94 million TJ (22 gigatons of TNT) for heavy turbolasers and 750,000 TJ ( 179 megatons) for light turbolasers.

    Considering even the light Turbolaser can generate over three to four thousand times the energy required to destroy a Scarab with a single shot and that the 179 megaton estimate is the *most* conservative (They range from 1 Gigaton to 200), even the weakest (Theroretical) Turbolaser blast is sufficient to destroy a Scarab in one shot.

    Naturally protecting an AT-AT against such offensive weaponry present within it’s fictional realm would require equally insane energy barriers (Deflector, Ray, Particle etc.). In this case, the shielding of the average AT-AT can absorb or deflect impacts Heavy Turbolaser impacts of up to 22,000 megatons (22 Gigatons) before the shielding fails.

    4) The AT-AT is designed as a combined arms support vehicle, utilizing the aid from infantry, air support and even Starships to maintain overall combat effectiveness.

    “What military mind says: “Hey I know! Let’s make a weapon that is slow, clumsy, has HUGE blind spots, and easily exploited weaknesses!” lol”

    Bombers, self-propelled Artillery, Rail guns, heavy MG’s, Heavy Helicopters, Aircraft Carriers, Tank Destroyers, Heavy Tanks, almost every Artillery weapon in history and even Marine Transports. Almost every Military in history tends to work as a team to prevent the inescapable weaknesses of individual units from compromising the overall system.

    5) “Well armored weapons with small ranges of fire never make it in real world battles my friend.”

    In conventional warfare that certainly is true, unfortunately for the Scarab the superior shielding and alloy allows it to soak up Plasma fire with impunity, giving it the time to sight the Scarab within the 180 degree firing arc of her light and medium Turbolasers. These Turbolasers were after all capable of sighting, tracking and destroying Airspeeders in flight, maintaining a lock on the Scarab would be of no consequence.

    As for the discussion of ranges, the Scarab main cannon is limited to 0.8 mile before dissipating entirely, whereas Turbolasers have a fire on sight capacity recorded in light minutes, meaning they can strike a target the moment it becomes visible on the horizon.

    – – –

    Boy, you must be enjoying the taste of Humble Pie right now. Go on, say it. Say “I like eating this Humble Pie that you’ve so righteously served”. Ha!
    Yes, your arrogant

  61. L-W April 2, 2009 at 10:21 pm -      #61

    Ugh, damn drag and drop. Ignore that last line.

  62. AlphaCommando April 2, 2009 at 10:55 pm -      #62

    1. Plasma weapons outdated in Star Wars due to being archaic and weak. Hell Covie plasma is actually one of the weakest depictions of plasma I have seen (40K is the king of proper plasma weapons).

    2. Turbolasers would punch holes straight through the Scarab on the first volley.

    3. Plasma weapons outdated

    4. Most weapons in SW are particle beams, obviously you don’t communicate with people of our education who also read the novels (haven’t missed a single one)

    5. Plasma weapons outdated

    6. We can guess the Scarab’s main gun to be fairly weak for its size as even on Heroic (considered the canon difficulty) MC can survive the beam for a tiny bit.

    Other than that, I have places to be and will leave the actually killing to L-W….

  63. AlphaCommando April 2, 2009 at 11:10 pm -      #63

    Well, seems he beat me to it….

  64. Cpt Olimar April 2, 2009 at 11:59 pm -      #64

    How many shots of the AT-AT’s own could its shielding take before its done for…. just a random question while your in the mathematical mood O_o

  65. L-W April 3, 2009 at 12:14 am -      #65

    Just to add Alpha’s statement:

    Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the yield of the Scarab Main Cannon is one megaton (4,184,000,000 megajoules – 4184 terajoules), you would still require twenty two thousand consecutive bursts to sufficiently lower the energy shield. Considering the cannon can only fire at forty seconds in four second bursts at (for the sake of argument) one megaton each, it would require a grand total of 880,000 seconds worth of repeated salvos to just lower the energy shielding.

    Coming to a grand total of ten days and sixteen hours, meaning the Scarab would have to be totally unhindered by the AT-AT for a total of ten days just so that it may drop the energy shields of the opposing force. Wow.

    If I decided to use the far more accurate yield of one kiloton for each main cannon shot (4,184,000 megajoules), it would take a stunning ten thousand and two hundred days (28 Years!) for the Scarab just to deplete the shields. Just to add insult to injury, these calculations don’t take into account that Star Wars shields continuously recycle and return to full strength within moments (Making masses of Turbolasers necessary for ship-to-ship combat). That variable alone is enough to make me quit right now, since determining that value alone would skyrocket the total into the centuries.

    Are we to assume that this match would take centuries?

    Either way, the Scarab has a limited vector of approach ranging to around 30 degrees of the AT-AT rear hull. In this case (Despite the fact that the AT-AT has a turning speed of 60km/h), she could easily deploy her contingent of forty Troopers to perform a rear guard action as she safely maneuvers to get the 180 degree firing arc of her Turbolasers within range.

    Armed with a variety of Proton missiles and dumb rockets, Shock Troopers and Crew members stationed on board the AT-AT are capable of adjusting the output of their weapons to 100 kiloton (418.4 terajoule) yield warheads. A single guided Proton Missile could blow a Tank sized hold clean through the Scarab, or just leave it as nothing more than a husk of glowing molten slag.

  66. Terror April 3, 2009 at 5:28 am -      #66

    LW, I haven;t even had time to read the replies yet, but after all the comments about “uneducated” and “terrible school systems” and only “Star Wars fans are capable of intelligent replies” etc, one thing I did catch while briefly browsing, and this reply is from you:

    “”””Yes, your arrogant”””””” LOL — You’re right about the education system my friend. I think “you’re” is the word you are searching for? LOL – I’ll be back to review the comments when I have some time.

  67. Terror April 3, 2009 at 6:03 am -      #67

    How on Earth are you so blind Terror, does your pathetic rage immolate your vision or are you just stupid?

    Yep – Guess I touched a nerve here. Good.

    1) I had previously mentioned that Durasteel is capable of withstanding repeated 200 gigaton blasts from Heavy Turbolasers before fracturing, thus making it far more durable than any alloy in Covenant possession; whilst Doonium (Being the Adamantium of Star Wars) dissipates even the most extreme of heat sources upon contact.

    So? Your point?

    Not only have I stated that they are heavily armoured, but resistant to Plasma fire as well, making them nigh invulnerable to even the Main Cannon possessed by the Scarab Assault Platform.

    Again I ask the question that you have blatantly ignored.. Can you give me the specs of the Scarabs guns?

    2) “LOL – What a weird way to argue. Quoting stats without knowing the implications of said stats means NOTHING!”

    The hypocrisy is overwhelming considering I *have* directed you to those sources.

    Really? You gave me the specs on a Scarab?

    3) “Can you tell me the power output of teh Scarab main gain? What? You can’t?”

    you know what they say about assumptions, right?

    From what we know the Scarab main cannon is sufficiently powerful in it’s energy output as to destroy a Scorpion Main Battle Tank, or a Pelican in mid-flight, but even on Legendary mode we know that Master Chief can survive the blast of the Scarab gun with only a minimum of his health remaining.

    Output required to disable a Tank: 50MJ (Taking into account five centuries of advances in metallurgy) or 0.00001195Kton.

    Output required to kill a fully shielded Spartan in Mark VI MJOLNIR battle armour: 100MJ (Includes shield depletion) 0.000023901Kton.

    Whilst superior to UNSC vehicles, the main cannon is unbelievably inefficient.

    Ah… So you don’t know. You’re making an assumption based off of what it is able to destroy. You provide only one source, which is a video game. The complete lack of common sense to use a video game as a point of reference for the power output is mind boggling. See, IT’S A GAME… I’ve played several Star Wars games where I can get hit by 15 blaster bolts and not die. Should I now use that as a point of reference to estimate teh power output of a SW blaster?

    You did nothing but prove my point for me here L-W… Sweeping generalizations with no FACTS…

    Now I’m going to discuss the power output necessary to destroy the Scarab:

    As we are aware, it takes two ship mounted MAC rounds to disable the Scarab, requiring a total of nine rounds to utterly incapacitate it according to Halo Wars.

    The standard ship-mounted MAC fires a 600-ton ferric-tungsten projectile with a depleted uranium core at 600,000 mph (this is circa 2552). The large amount of energy needed to fire the weapon (the muzzle energy is 19.8 terajoules (E=.5mv^2), to be precise) is particularly onerous on a warship, and the extended recharge time is a significant factor in combat against Covenant warships as multiple MAC rounds are required to penetrate Covenant shields. The standard MAC is sufficient to destroy any human vessel or severely damage an unshielded Covenant vessel.

    With each shot producing 19,800,000 megajoules of energy at 4.73Kton each (Just under the scale of a small nuclear warhead), it requires a total of 178.2 terajoules to destroy a Scarab, coming to a yield of 42.59Kton.

    The following figures are based on the Star Destroyers ability to destroy a Planets surface.

    The crust of a typical planet is composed mostly of silicates, so the thermodynamic properties of silicon dioxide can be used as a reasonable basis for estimating the characteristics of planetary crust material. The melting point of silicon dioxide (quartz microstructure) is 1883K, its density is 2220 kg/m^3, and its specific heat is roughly 1050 J/kgK at high temperatures (ref. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 3rd Edition by Incropera and Dewitt). The energy required to heat 5.1E14 m³ of rock from 300K to melting point is therefore 1.9E24 J. The latent heat of fusion for SiO2 is at least 250 kJ/kg (ref. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 50th Edition), which adds 3E23 J to the energy estimate. This leads to a grand total of 2.2E24 J. This operation must not take longer than 1 hour or so, otherwise significant numbers of planetary citizens would be able to evacuate. The power requirement is therefore at least 600 million TW.

    There are 12 heavy turbolasers and roughly 120 light turbolasers on an ISD1 (ref. SWICS). The heavy turbolasers are roughly 125 times bigger than the light turbolasers (which were seen vaporizing asteroids in TESB). If firepower is proportional to size (an unsubstantiated but not unreasonable postulate) then the sustainable power outputs of the heavy and light guns work out to 47 million TW and 375,000 TW respectively. Refire rates seem to be roughly 1 shot per 2 seconds, so the energy level of each individual blast would have to be 94 million TJ (22 gigatons of TNT) for heavy turbolasers and 750,000 TJ ( 179 megatons) for light turbolasers.

    Considering even the light Turbolaser can generate over three to four thousand times the energy required to destroy a Scarab with a single shot and that the 179 megaton estimate is the *most* conservative (They range from 1 Gigaton to 200), even the weakest (Theroretical) Turbolaser blast is sufficient to destroy a Scarab in one shot.

    Naturally protecting an AT-AT against such offensive weaponry present within it’s fictional realm would require equally insane energy barriers (Deflector, Ray, Particle etc.). In this case, the shielding of the average AT-AT can absorb or deflect impacts Heavy Turbolaser impacts of up to 22,000 megatons (22 Gigatons) before the shielding fails.

    One problem here my friend… You just used a video game as your point of reference for the Scarab again… Sorry –

    4) The AT-AT is designed as a combined arms support vehicle, utilizing the aid from infantry, air support and even Starships to maintain overall combat effectiveness.

    “What military mind says: “Hey I know! Let’s make a weapon that is slow, clumsy, has HUGE blind spots, and easily exploited weaknesses!” lol”

    Bombers, self-propelled Artillery, Rail guns, heavy MG’s, Heavy Helicopters, Aircraft Carriers, Tank Destroyers, Heavy Tanks, almost every Artillery weapon in history and even Marine Transports. Almost every Military in history tends to work as a team to prevent the inescapable weaknesses of individual units from compromising the overall system.

    Great job sidestepping my point. Each of those weapons does NOT have the crippling weakness I described in the walker now does it? You glossed over the fact that while weapons systems tend to work in teams, it should also be able to support itself. What moron designs a weapon that has such easily exploitable weaknesses? If a weapons system becomes a vulnerable sitting duck once its support disappears, it should not be approved for production.

    Basic strategy my friend, and it’s sad that you’re sitting here making excuses.

    5) “Well armored weapons with small ranges of fire never make it in real world battles my friend.”

    In conventional warfare that certainly is true, unfortunately for the Scarab the superior shielding and alloy allows it to soak up Plasma fire with impunity, giving it the time to sight the Scarab within the 180 degree firing arc of her light and medium Turbolasers. These Turbolasers were after all capable of sighting, tracking and destroying Airspeeders in flight, maintaining a lock on the Scarab would be of no consequence.

    I’d agree to an extent. The Walkers seem to be inaccurate to a painful level according to the movies. But I’d imagine it would score some hits.

    As for the discussion of ranges, the Scarab main cannon is limited to 0.8 mile before dissipating entirely, whereas Turbolasers have a fire on sight capacity recorded in light minutes, meaning they can strike a target the moment it becomes visible on the horizon.

    Official source please? I’d like to know where this .8 mile range limitation comes from. Please don’t tell me you’re talking about a video game again…

    NOTE: For those of you using video games as your point of reference, please stop! A game has built in limitations that are artificial, they are there for the sake of the GAMER. Example… The Halo game guide states the Ghosts and Banshees travel at 56 mph – 70 mph… The books have the same vehicles travelling at hundreds of mph…. The limitations are tehre for the GAMERS.

    Balance, fun factor, ease of use, playability… All of those things have to be taken into consideration for a GAME. The game is not teh official resource, teh books are. Just as the movies are the true official resource for Star Wars.

    Or do you want me to start using a few SW games as references to show that SWars blasters take 15+ hits to kill even unarmored bipedal beings? lol

    – – –

    Boy, you must be enjoying the taste of Humble Pie right now. Go on, say it. Say “I like eating this Humble Pie that you’ve so righteously served”. Ha!
    Yes, your arrogant

    Well, I suppose you have much lower standards than I then. I see you failed to do the one thing I asked. PROVIDE OFFICIAL STATS for the power output of teh Scarab. All you did was take your best guess based off assumptions.

    However, I can show you an example from the movie of a AT-ST walker getting crushed like a thin eggshell by two logs!!!! lol

    Also have another one exploding on impact after tripping and FALLING! lol

    So much for that highly vaunted Imperial armor! Sure, the AT-ST is not quite as heavily armored as the AT AT, but it’s still using the same or similar (though not as robust I am sure – I’ll have to look up some sources) tech, and has proven to be no where near waht the fact sheets suggest.

    I also stumpled on this from a few different sources: Depiction

    Dialog in National Public Radio’s adaptation of The Empire Strikes Back states that AT-ATs “look like animals”; the character goes on to describe the vehicles as carrying “extremely heavy armor and armaments”. The AT-AT, designed to favor “fear over function”, can carry five speeder bikes and 40 Imperial stormtroopers.[5] The walkers themselves carry two blasters and two laser cannons.[6] Manufactured by Kuat Drive Yards, Expanded Universe sources describe the AT-AT as being either 15 or 22.5 meters tall.[5][6][7] Their armor is resistant to standard blaster weapons; however, the “neck” column of the walker holds no such invulnerability and, if shot, can cause the entire walker to be destroyed.

    — Huh – fear over function? Guess it shows teh mindset here. Even the Empire views it as not quite as functional as it should be? The entire Walker can be destroyed from a neck shot? Hmmm… With superior firing mobility, I doubt teh Scarab would have any problem whatsever exploiting that weakness!

    One other important fact you’re not addressing. The Scarab main gun fires for extended periods of time, not a single blast like the Walker. This must be taken into consideration when considering any scenario such as this imaginary battle…

    Anyhow, I do appreciate the effort, I really do. But I’m afraid you only solidified my point further. Whenever you’re quite done patting yourself on the back for that mediocre performance, please find the time to get me official sources for the Scarab as requested. Really, why did you go through all that effort to reply without the one thing I asked for? It really was quite foolish and just demonstrated that I’m right… You’re speaking OPINIONS, and berating everyone else as if your opinion carries more weight. In fact, it does not, and you are willing to overlook glaring weaknesses in the Walker because that’s what you like. Sounds kind of fanboyish to me…

  68. Terror April 3, 2009 at 6:12 am -      #68

    Just to add Alpha’s statement:

    Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the yield of the Scarab Main Cannon is one megaton (4,184,000,000 megajoules – 4184 terajoules), you would still require twenty two thousand consecutive bursts to sufficiently lower the energy shield. Considering the cannon can only fire at forty seconds in four second bursts at (for the sake of argument) one megaton each, it would require a grand total of 880,000 seconds worth of repeated salvos to just lower the energy shielding.

    This is really all the evidence I need right here. The mere fact that you have to ASSUME, demonstrates to me that you quite simply don’t know! This is the point I’ve been making all along that you seem incapable of precessing. Without the FACTS, how can such claims be made?

    You also must consider that the Scarab has multiple guns. The swivel gun, the main nose mounted gun, etc. With the unprotected neck of the AT AT presenting itself as a massive target, I doubt the Scarab would have much difficulty blowing it away.

    However, since I’m not so heavily biased, I can see more than one outcome here, unlike all the rabid Star Wars fanboys. I can admit that this battle could go either way.

    IF the Walker is realy as powerful as you claim (Movie evidence tends to say otherwise with most SWars machinery – Seem to be brittle and easily damaged – especially from FALLING DOWN)

    – Then in that case, I can see scenarios where the Walker will win, and I can see scenarios where the Scarab will win.

    The Scarab is superior in tactical design. It was better thought out, more mobile, quicker, better range of motion. I find it funny you couldn’t even admit this. Instead, you had to make excuses for the walker, and claim that “support” vehicles make up for the fault.

    But really, teh Scarab is going to get in more hits, be able to traverse rougher terrain (I can see teh Scarab reaching areas the Walker cannot), and will be able to hit the Walker from darn near any angle. The same cannot be said of the Walker.

    Coming to a grand total of ten days and sixteen hours, meaning the Scarab would have to be totally unhindered by the AT-AT for a total of ten days just so that it may drop the energy shields of the opposing force. Wow.

    If I decided to use the far more accurate yield of one kiloton for each main cannon shot (4,184,000 megajoules), it would take a stunning ten thousand and two hundred days (28 Years!) for the Scarab just to deplete the shields. Just to add insult to injury, these calculations don’t take into account that Star Wars shields continuously recycle and return to full strength within moments (Making masses of Turbolasers necessary for ship-to-ship combat). That variable alone is enough to make me quit right now, since determining that value alone would skyrocket the total into the centuries.

    Are we to assume that this match would take centuries?

    Either way, the Scarab has a limited vector of approach ranging to around 30 degrees of the AT-AT rear hull. In this case (Despite the fact that the AT-AT has a turning speed of 60km/h), she could easily deploy her contingent of forty Troopers to perform a rear guard action as she safely maneuvers to get the 180 degree firing arc of her Turbolasers within range.

    Armed with a variety of Proton missiles and dumb rockets, Shock Troopers and Crew members stationed on board the AT-AT are capable of adjusting the output of their weapons to 100 kiloton (418.4 terajoule) yield warheads. A single guided Proton Missile could blow a Tank sized hold clean through the Scarab, or just leave it as nothing more than a husk of glowing molten slag.

  69. L-W April 3, 2009 at 6:34 am -      #69

    “And you don’t know the power of the Scarab’s plasma weapons nor do you know the power of any of the covenants ships plasma weapons LW as I do not know the power of an ATAT’s main lasers.”

    Once again with the baseless assumptions, do you have any idea how ridiculous you come across?

    1) As you can tell from the above, I’ve already given a fairly accurate representation of the output of the Scarab Main Cannon. Even if you were to multiply this by a thousandfold, it would still prove to be insufficient.

    2) Just for the sake of providing some clarity in lieu of total conjecture (Here’s looking at you Zach), I’ll provide a solid estimates to the output of the covenant Energy Projector against a Halycon Class Cruiser:

    We’re all aware that a single blast from a Covenant Capital Class Energy Projector can gut the Titanium hull of a Halycon Class Cruiser in a single blast. By utilizing the fact that 10 megajoules (At most) is required to boil a single gram of Titanium, we can estimate that at least 15,422,140.6 terajoules are required to boil the mass of a 1,700,000 ton Halycon Class Cruiser.

    Thus the yield of a single Energy Projector blast in ship-to-ship combat stands at around three gigatons at a maximum range of 50,000 kilometers. Impressive by any standard.

    But it falls far too short of the Capital Class Heavy Turbolaser, with a minimum yield of twenty-two gigatons and a maximum range of 17,987,547 kilometers per light minute, it simply flies further, faster and hits a lot harder than the Covenant equivalent. If one Energy Projector can bring down an opposing Covenant energy shield on a Destroyer class vessel, what do you propose the twelve mounted Heavy Turbolaser turrets of a Star Destroyer will accomplish?

    Which is why the Imperial Navy was so clearly the winner in a Naval engagement between the Empire and the Covenant. Not only did they outnumber their opponent, but their vessels were thousands of times faster and could strike their opponents with impunity using extremely powerful mounted weapons that the Covenant have barely any defense against.

  70. Terror April 3, 2009 at 7:29 am -      #70

    One more point I’d like to make. For those of you who want to argue what hapens in a game as a point of reference for calculating durability:

    A friend and I used Covenant tanks to fire the heavy hitting plasma explosive rounds at the Scarab. Just for fun, we both hijaked tanks, and took shot after shot after shot. After an estimated 100 hits between the two of us, there was the Sacarab trotting around without so much as a scratch.

    According to other players who apparently have more time on their hands, you can land 2 or even 300 direct hits without destroying the Scarab. In fact, if you had yet more time, you could land 10,000 direct hits without even scartching the Scarab….

    So, using your logic, I suppose the Scarab has some amazing armor! Since the Tank will never destroy the Scarab, you could hit it 1,000,000 times, and prove the Scarab is far more durable than the Walker…

    That is, if we’re going to use in game action as a point of reference… So which is it? Yay or nay? Are we going to use video games as a point of reference? If so, then here’s my proof, along with some telling in game action from various Star Wars games that prove blaster bolts hit with about as much force as a b.b. gun! LOL

    See my point?

  71. Terror April 3, 2009 at 8:23 am -      #71

    One more little fact here I recall. A snowspeeder destroyed a AT AT by flying into it. Looking at the distance travelled, it’d be a good guess that the SS was travelling maybe 70 – 75 mph, and yet managed to obliterate the AT AT…. Huh, maybe on paper fact sheets aren’t as reliable as once thought? LOL

    Real world performance trumps fact sheets any day of the week. With this evidence in hand, it’s a pretty simple matter to say that these WAlkers are not quite as impervious as initially claimed.

    (Good old neck soft spot helps too)

  72. L-W April 3, 2009 at 9:04 am -      #72

    Seriously Terror, you need to go back and place relevant points in quotations or at least segregate them via some means.

    Even when I can recognize my own work, three separate posts where my information mingles with yours is purely incoherent in the strictest sense. I have no problem reading through it, but I can’t devote time stripping it apart for a rebuttal I’m having to decipher what is mine.

    As for post 67, I immediately rectified the point in the follow up segment, stating that it was a result of a drag and drop error I did not anticipate when moving to post.

  73. AlphaCommando April 3, 2009 at 10:31 am -      #73

    Gameplay mechanics loose to logic. The Scarab is technically invincible because it IS invincible in the game, forcing you to board it and destroy the reactor core. Its a flipping gameplay mechanic, I thought that was painfully obvious….

  74. Terror April 3, 2009 at 11:05 am -      #74

    I was a bit in a rush, but was thinking the same.

    “”””Seriously Terror, you need to go back and place relevant points in quotations or at least segregate them via some means.

    Even when I can recognize my own work, three separate posts where my information mingles with yours is purely incoherent in the strictest sense. I have no problem reading through it, but I can’t devote time stripping it apart for a rebuttal I’m having to decipher what is mine.

    As for post 67, I immediately rectified the point in the follow up segment, stating that it was a result of a drag and drop error I did not anticipate when moving to post.”””

  75. Terror April 3, 2009 at 11:09 am -      #75

    Thus you’ve made my point for me Alpha. Do you think that this logic applies to one and only circumstance? All games are like this, thus making them a terrible point of reference!

    In a Marvels game, with enough patience, you can beat Galactus with Captain America. Now, is this realistic? Nope. But all of that is thrown out the window in favor of a balanced, and winnable game. Or are you going to make the claim that you know what is meant to be realistic, and what has been modified for ease of gameplay? You can’t make that claim can you? Thus making the prospect of using a game as a point of reference all but impossible and downright silly in other cases…

    So please stop using video games as a point of reference, and stick with the facts.

    “”””Gameplay mechanics loose to logic. The Scarab is technically invincible because it IS invincible in the game, forcing you to board it and destroy the reactor core. Its a flipping gameplay mechanic, I thought that was painfully obvious….””””

  76. Matapiojo April 3, 2009 at 11:53 am -      #76

    “Real world performance trumps fact sheets any day of the week. With this evidence in hand, it’s a pretty simple matter to say that these WAlkers are not quite as impervious as initially claimed.”

    No, you bumbling idiot.

    The people that were in charge of making the story palpable through a visual media at the time were severely limited by the technologies available to the industry. Not only that, but they were trying to portray the story of an creator that had little to no real knowledge of physics. He was only (and to this date) interested in telling a story.

    In addition to that, the story must be portrayed in a way that the public (at the time) would be able to absorb, process, and follow. How else are they supposed to identify with the rebellion, if the equipment available to the Empire is vastly superior.

    Those are all decisions made by the writer and the production team.

    Just try to think of the situation as it is, and not how it benefits you. Do we not see a PRONOUNCED difference in equipment, feats, battles between the original trilogy and the prequels?

    All I want to see is an effort from your part of pulling your head out of your ass before getting yourself involved in these matches as arduously as you try.

  77. Matapiojo April 3, 2009 at 11:59 am -      #77

    “So please stop using video games as a point of reference, and stick with the facts.”

    That is both ironic an hypocritical. This is exactly the same argument you are trying to make regarding SW movies and EU facts.

    You just lost any semblance of credibility you may have mustered (if any) on your previous posts.

  78. Terror April 3, 2009 at 12:41 pm -      #78

    “Real world performance trumps fact sheets any day of the week. With this evidence in hand, it’s a pretty simple matter to say that these WAlkers are not quite as impervious as initially claimed.”

    “”””No, you bumbling idiot.””””

    LOL – Do you realize just how funny it is to see you get so worked up over this? You should really clam yourself buddy. Just snatch a paper sack, breathe into it and count to 10 while repeating “it’s only make believe… It’s only make believe…”

    Let me know how that works out for you ok?

    “”””The people that were in charge of making the story palpable through a visual media at the time were severely limited by the technologies available to the industry. Not only that, but they were trying to portray the story of an creator that had little to no real knowledge of physics. He was only (and to this date) interested in telling a story.””””

    You could have saved yourself some typing there and just said: “I like to pick and chose which facts I believe.” Because that’s exactly what you’re trying to do here. Make excuses, and chose to believe the EU over the original content. It is what is my friend.

    “”””In addition to that, the story must be portrayed in a way that the public (at the time) would be able to absorb, process, and follow. How else are they supposed to identify with the rebellion, if the equipment available to the Empire is vastly superior.””””

    Interesting question. Seems he answered it just fine with the CANON story. Or do you scribble certain items out and chalk them up to “story telling troubles” whenever it doesn’t fit nice and neatly into your preconcieved notions?

    “”””Those are all decisions made by the writer and the production team.””””

    No kidding? Thanks for that little tidbit there pal. Much appreciated.

    “”””Just try to think of the situation as it is, and not how it benefits you. Do we not see a PRONOUNCED difference in equipment, feats, battles between the original trilogy and the prequels?””””

    Certainly. The overall designs looked more futuristic, but other than that, par for the course to the casual viewer. The battle droids were shoddy, and brittle, and downright moronic of course. (Except the rollers. Loved the rollers and found them to be smartly designed for the most part) –

    “”””All I want to see is an effort from your part of pulling your head out of your ass before getting yourself involved in these matches as arduously as you try.””””

    Likewise my friend! Except here’s a FACT:

    You and several other posters point at specific events within movies, and the EU as proof of power power level. LW has shared some estimated figures based off of this extrapolated data.

    Lots of hooting and hollering about this evidence…

    Then I point out examples from the ORIGINAL and most TRUSTED source showing Walkers getting destroyed with much less force being applied.

    How come when you point to evidence, it’s accepted, but when I point to evidence it is not?

    For example:

    Claim:

    Storm Troopers have energy shields that will strip energy, including physically applied energy thus protecting Trooper from bullets..

    Refuted: The movie shows examples of Troppers getting PHYSICALLY knocked out and/or harmed left and right, INCLUDING by EWOKS!!! LOL

    If you want to take it a step further, there are sevferal examples inside your prescious EU of Troopers being knocked cold by being punched… Hmmm… Last I checked, a punch is an application of physical energy. Compared to a rifle round travelling at 45,000 FPS, it’s pretty darn wimpy too, yet was MORE than enough to knock out the Troopers…

    Ok, so tell me why your sources are more reliable ok? I can point to multiple instances within 3 movies if need be. That’s a lot of evidence my friend. You’re just going to write it off?

    Claim: The Walker can withstand godlike forces without being damaged. (I put it in a nutshell ok?)

    Refuted: The movie shows a Walker being blown to kingdom come iwth a relatively slow moving SS crashing into it. THis is nowhere near the levels of force you all have claimed would be needed to destroy a walker. Yet it happened ON SCREEN…

    (You know what? I can use your same argument to claim that the DS having the power to blow up a planet was nothing more than a PLOT DEVICE to vilify the Empire and make a point to the audience… Does that mean it doesn’t have the power? I’m using your same logic there bud)

    Claim: SW blasters have immense firepower far in excess of Halo weaponry

    Refuted: Uhhh… We have examples of UNARMORED people being shot, and showing not much more than burn marks??? If these blasters were so darn powerful, how come they accomplished little more than putting ah ole in the shirt and leaving a sunburn? The target should have had their shoulder skewered and vaporized with that much power boring through it.

    Remember what they say Bucko… Actions speak louder right?

  79. Terror April 3, 2009 at 12:46 pm -      #79

    Here, let me help you grasp the subtlety that is fine logic here ok? It seems it flew right over your head at mach 20… See, the video games are NOT the original storyline of Halo.

    If you’re arguing with someone over something that happened in a Pirates of the C movie, what’s the trump card? The MOVIE, not the game right? Because the movie is the woriginal context, and video game makers take creative liberties.

    With Halo, we have no movie. The books are the storyline, and the official HALO universe if you will. You on the other hand, you’re trying to take the original context for Star Wars, which was the MOVIES, and then pick and choose. Not acceptable. You’re taking the ORIGINAL work, and trying to claim that you know better than the writer what was meant in each scene.

    Again, then why can’t I claim that certain raw displays of power weren’t just placed there to make the audience more frightened? See? Your argument works both ways. Stop picking and choosing. It’s kind of embarrassing watching this spectacle.

    “So please stop using video games as a point of reference, and stick with the facts.”

    That is both ironic an hypocritical. This is exactly the same argument you are trying to make regarding SW movies and EU facts.

    You just lost any semblance of credibility you may have mustered (if any) on your previous posts.

  80. Sharagran April 3, 2009 at 3:32 pm -      #80

    So a movie does count as the original work, but a videogame does not according to you? I don’t see the logic.

    The Halo books expanded on the storyline that already existed, that’s why it’s called the ‘expanded universe’. Games and movies have limitations to either balance things out or to keep the main characters alive in impossible situations. The expanded universe is always superior canon-wise, because it does not suffer from these limitations. Why you have to whine so much about it is beyond me.

  81. Terror April 3, 2009 at 4:38 pm -      #81

    Hmmm… Interesting. Whining? Please show me an example of whining? I see no whining on this end. If you’re going to make the claim, back it up bud.

    You don’t understand the logic that if a MOVIE is the original work, it qualifies as the original story? What’s so hard to understand about that? A game on the otherhand, with all of 3 pages of storyline is not indicative of a story my friend.

    Would you have claimed that the video game Super Mario Brothers was a literary work ready for a book and movie? Nope. It was a video game, with a goal to reach and players to entertain.

    See, what all these guys are ignoring in order to make their weak arguments is this… SETTINGS.

    One already brought it up, that in LEGENDARY mode, it takes X amount of hits to kill the chief…. haha. How can ssomeone not see this? The fact that there aredifferent power levels, and potency of weapons dependant on what setting you select shows you cannot reliably use a video game as a point of reference. It’s not static, it’s dynamic.

    So do we use Beginner, Intermediate, Legendary etc? It’s a game designed to be balanced out for fun. The story is secondary as already has been established. The books are what were designed to flesh out characters and details within the Halo universe. The movies for Star Wars…

    “””So a movie does count as the original work, but a videogame does not according to you? I don’t see the logic.

    The Halo books expanded on the storyline that already existed, that’s why it’s called the ‘expanded universe’. Games and movies have limitations to either balance things out or to keep the main characters alive in impossible situations. The expanded universe is always superior canon-wise, because it does not suffer from these limitations. Why you have to whine so much about it is beyond me.”””

  82. Matapiojo April 3, 2009 at 5:12 pm -      #82

    “Remember what they say Bucko… Actions speak louder right?”

    …and yours seem to be screaming stupidity.

    “LOL – Do you realize just how funny it is to see you get so worked up over this? You should really clam yourself buddy”

    Me calling you an idiot reflects as much emotional distress as me calling blood, red. Simple fact with no conceived outburst.

    Sufice to say that my skin is much thicker than that, son.

    Well, onto your “contributions”
    —————————————-
    Due to time constraints, I will only go after one point at a time. Lets debunk this little gem first, shall we.

    “Claim: SW blasters have immense firepower far in excess of Halo weaponry

    Refuted: Uhhh… We have examples of UNARMORED people being shot, and showing not much more than burn marks??? If these blasters were so darn powerful, how come they accomplished little more than putting ah ole in the shirt and leaving a sunburn? The target should have had their shoulder skewered and vaporized with that much power boring through it.”

    Lets talk about Watts (W).

    This SI unit is used to measure energy. This is the little number you typically see on incandescent light bulbs (25 – 100 W).

    This is the part where a challenge issues. How about you grab a 100 W bulb that has been lit for several minutes and stick it to your skin. Wait and see how long it takes for your skin to be burned just like the wounds you describe. Seconds.

    The united states armed forces recognize laser technology to be weaponized when they are able to output 100 kilowatts (kW). Just in case you are hard of reading, that is one hundred-thousand watts. Boeing recently reached this 100kW marc with a Solid-State laser system.

    Here is a little quote that is particularly important:
    “A high-power solid-state laser will damage, disable or destroy targets at the speed of light, with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations.”

    Yes, you read it right. This technology works at the speed of light.

    Not done, cupcake.

    The Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser is a weapons system designed for the US Air Force with the sole purpose of neutralizing incoming missile threats. This weapons system uses a COIL laser with megawatt capabilities. That is, several times more powerful than the weapons-grade laser already mentioned.

    Are you getting this? We are just reaching the point where our laser technology reaches that of the megawatt, and this is publicly considered to be used to neutralize incoming WMD attacks.

    Now, lets look at how this translates to SW technology.

    The first example to use will be the E-11 Blaster. It is commonly known that the average output of a blaster is about 8 megajoules. Just in case you didn’t follow, 1J = 1W. Meaning 8 megajoules is the same as 8 megawatts for intents and purposes in this argument.

    This in turn means that the average Stormtrooper walks around with a weapon that surpasses a modern anti-missile defense system laser.

    The MS-1 fire-linked heavy laser cannon is considered to be far stronger than the handheld E-11 discussed. The Airspeeder’s own CEC AP/11 dual laser cannons are stronger than the plasma technology that a Scarab can bring to the table. This is hardly a good point of argument. Just because the AT-AT is certainly weakest at the neck, it does not mean the Scarab has the stuff to deal with it.

    What is the point of all this you ask? Simple. The movies cannot possibly reflect the reality of the technology they mean to portray. These are simple scientific facts. Lucas simply had no idea what sort of piece he would create, and under what sort of scrutiny it would be put under. He cut a lot of numbers just to get his film(s) done. End of story.

    I’ve already demonstrated what sort of energy output is needed to create those minor burns you so candidly point us to. I’ve also demonstrated how much more powerful the weapons that “cause” those burns truly are. Where there would be a patch of red skin left by a blaster shot, there should be a neat little cauterized crater.

    I can certainly provide similar examples for everything else you enumerated, but there is simply no point. This argument alone debunks your entire dribble.

  83. the_man_with The_Answers April 4, 2009 at 12:04 pm -      #83

    Considering the scarab is twice as big and 3 times as fast, I don’t think it will be much of a challange to nock the AT-AT down, rendering it useless. That gives the scarab all the time in the world to destroy it. I don’t think the ground troops will come into play very well. While the Scarab’s main gun doesn’t do much to the AT-AT, it would probably vaporize or at least singe any ground troop. The only threat the ground troops would pose is the shocktroopers which would die easily to. Even if they got aboard, the brutes would litterally rip them into pieces. One brute out of power armour is as strong as a SPARTAN-II in Mark 6 armour. These brutes are in power armour making them even stronger. The stom trooper’s armour won’t help, if ewoks can knock them out then a brute could crush their skulls.

  84. the_man_with The_Answers April 4, 2009 at 12:07 pm -      #84

    Oh, and the size of the scarabs beam is like a third of the AT-AT’s total size. Evn with those advanced shields thats a crap load of plasma and heat that is in a beam that lasts multple seconds.

  85. the_man_with The_Answers April 4, 2009 at 12:11 pm -      #85

    I thought I would just state a fact here. AT-AT’s arn’t even an orignal idea. Lucas got them from H.G. Wells’ “War Of The Worlds.”

  86. Cpt Olimar April 4, 2009 at 12:47 pm -      #86

    that was, indeed, one of the many inspirations of the Star Wars franchise. There are actually a ton i believe, but you are correct in identifying that connection.

  87. Matapiojo April 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm -      #87

    “AT-AT’s arn’t even an orignal idea. Lucas got them from H.G. Wells’ “War Of The Worlds.”

    Shoot. The Scarab would totally win an originality concept!

    /SarcMash

  88. AlphaCommando April 5, 2009 at 3:41 am -      #88

    You guys give me headaches (not the Triumvirate of course), it actually hurts my brain to read some of these posts, my mind is incapable of processing the level of self-righteous, half-assed, scientifically unsubstantiated information spewed by some of you, course Terror takes the cake; obviously being a mental “terror” to anyone with a braincell count over the bare minimum needed to continue ongoing respiratory and cardiovascular functions…

    Now the main problem is that you want a series of movies made by a man with no scientific backing (as many Hollywood types don’t, and several actually burst into flame when approached with an encyclopedia and physics textbook), and take what is stated there as scientific fact when through extensive retooling, as done in the EU (which still falls prey to this occasional tho on a far smaller level in modern times) it becomes much more scientific. You claim to be the one with facts, yet you constantly ignore all the realistic scientific data provided by my associates.

    Movies, books, games, etc they all need the main character(s) to take on impossible odds for dramatic effect, doing things that we realize (in the back of our heads) is impossible, which is what causes the awe from watching/playing/reading in the first place. But real life; the perfect example of logic beating plot (because life has no end destination or plot beyond “you die at the end”), which we model our analysis on means that the untrained farmboy will not outshoot the numerous men with extensive military training, heavy equipment, and an advanced body armor that offers protection and combat performance enhancement. Realistic interpretation free of any plot devices, poor writing, comedic relief (the episode 1-3 droids) or romantic intrigue is what needs to be done here, and the SW movies are a lethal example of a media falling prey to these traps.

    As much as saying this causes a small part of me to die every time I say this; the SW movies are canon in overarching plot concepts only, with few parts being totally logical based on the information given to us over the years.

    “Oh, and the size of the scarabs beam is like a third of the AT-AT’s total size. Evn with those advanced shields thats a crap load of plasma and heat that is in a beam that lasts multple seconds.”

    I would say the beam is a few feet/meters across at best. And yet again the plasma weapons of halo are practical pop guns regardless of the size relative to a respective equivalent in Star Wars (infantry level, vehicle level, capital level, etc…). It would be like trying to burn through an M1 Abrams armor with a soldering tool… Now I will admit the Scarab gun might lightly scorch the Doonium coating at best but Doonium is what allows Star Destroyers to sit comfortably close to a star that at a similar range a Covenant warship would be a inoperable ball of floating slag.

  89. L-W April 5, 2009 at 6:11 am -      #89

    I’ve read through this thread several times, yet the only conceivable method anyone has claimed capable of downing the AT-AT is using its superior mass to knock over its opponent. This I concede to, after all the AT-AT is hardly the most ambulant of designs available, but this victory is dependent on:

    A) The Scarab starting from the very rear of the AT-AT, and maintaining this position as to not enter the 180 degree firing arc of the repeating medium Turbolaser.

    B) Neutralizing the entire Troop capacity immediately to eliminate the threat of even ONE Proton missile turning the Scarab to scrap. Despite the fact that the Troopers in question can use a variety of roof, side and firing hatches to launch their extremely accurate ordinance from the safety of.

    (In the Battle of New Alderaan the imperial forces stationed on board the AT-AT walkers used the roof and side hatches to fire from safety, whilst weaker Blaster rounds deflected harmlessly, allowing the Troops to fire with impunity.)

    C) The Scarab maintaining sufficient cover in the opening engagement as to avoid extremely accurate Turbolaser blasts.

    Of course if the Scarab closed ranks for a ramming manoeuvre she could place the AT-AT in serious jeopardy, but likewise, a close range Proton missile fired from the safety of a side or rear hatch is going to end the Scarab with impunity. So victory conditions?

    For the AT-AT, a single ranged (And highly accurate) blast from one of the four mounted cannons, or a single Proton missile or medium ranged rocket delivered by just one of the forty Shock Troopers onboard.

    In the case of the Scarab? Using ranged weapons is out of the question as “Star Wars: Unifying Force” and “Dark Empire II” have proven that a shielded AT-AT could sustain two Heavy Blaster rounds (The Liberation of Coruscant demonstrated their ability to take three if they focused energy from their weapons) before failing, firepower that not even the Scarab main cannon can ever hope to present on a sufficient scale.

    The Scarab is consigned to ramming her target at speed, which whilst sufficient at impact, still requires the Scarab to close the gap. Logically it just seems more likely that an extremely accurate Turbolaser round traveling at speeds measured in light minutes, or one of the forty other on board weapons capable of destroying the Scarab in a single blast will have a higher chance of success than that of a admirably sized Covenant Walker goose stepping her way out of weapons range directly to the rear of her target (Which covers a full 360 degree arc if you throw in the crew compliment) to close the distance gap and ram.

    Even those not inclined to think logically or analytically would have to agree with the above outcome.

  90. the_man_with The_Answers April 5, 2009 at 10:40 am -      #90

    This all depends on the eviroment. Given a realitivlly flat area, AT-AT wins easy. On the other hand, in a mountianous area the scarab has a win.

  91. L-W April 5, 2009 at 5:51 pm -      #91

    But any attempt to covertly approach the position of an AT-AT would no doubt fail. The crew is hardly stupid enough to wander into a likely ambush, electing to remain in a position that either her guns or compliment of Troopers would still remain devastating at range.

    There are far too many variables to determine the outcome of this match beyond that of terrain and geography. The AT-AT DRADIS is certainly an example in which the Scarab will find it near impossible to advance upon her opponent without sufficiently warning the occupants of the AT-AT.

  92. Terror April 5, 2009 at 10:50 pm -      #92

    “”””…and yours seem to be screaming stupidity.”””

    How unoriginal of you. Please try a bit harder next time ok?

    “”””Me calling you an idiot reflects as much emotional distress as me calling blood, red. Simple fact with no conceived outburst.”””

    Ah, that explains it then. Sour grapes? So sour that the grumpy tone just comes naturally? That explains it. Try removing the carrot before typing. I hear it helps…

    “””Sufice to say that my skin is much thicker than that, son.”””

    Good to hear. Thanks for that info.

    “”””Well, onto your “contributions”
    —————————————-
    Due to time constraints, I will only go after one point at a time. Lets debunk this little gem first, shall we.”””

    “Claim: SW blasters have immense firepower far in excess of Halo weaponry

    Refuted: Uhhh… We have examples of UNARMORED people being shot, and showing not much more than burn marks??? If these blasters were so darn powerful, how come they accomplished little more than putting ah ole in the shirt and leaving a sunburn? The target should have had their shoulder skewered and vaporized with that much power boring through it.”

    Lets talk about Watts (W).

    This SI unit is used to measure energy. This is the little number you typically see on incandescent light bulbs (25 – 100 W).

    This is the part where a challenge issues. How about you grab a 100 W bulb that has been lit for several minutes and stick it to your skin. Wait and see how long it takes for your skin to be burned just like the wounds you describe. Seconds.

    The united states armed forces recognize laser technology to be weaponized when they are able to output 100 kilowatts (kW). Just in case you are hard of reading, that is one hundred-thousand watts. Boeing recently reached this 100kW marc with a Solid-State laser system.

    Here is a little quote that is particularly important:
    “A high-power solid-state laser will damage, disable or destroy targets at the speed of light, with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations.”

    Yes, you read it right. This technology works at the speed of light.

    Not done, cupcake.

    The Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser is a weapons system designed for the US Air Force with the sole purpose of neutralizing incoming missile threats. This weapons system uses a COIL laser with megawatt capabilities. That is, several times more powerful than the weapons-grade laser already mentioned.

    Are you getting this? We are just reaching the point where our laser technology reaches that of the megawatt, and this is publicly considered to be used to neutralize incoming WMD attacks.

    Now, lets look at how this translates to SW technology.

    The first example to use will be the E-11 Blaster. It is commonly known that the average output of a blaster is about 8 megajoules. Just in case you didn’t follow, 1J = 1W. Meaning 8 megajoules is the same as 8 megawatts for intents and purposes in this argument.

    This in turn means that the average Stormtrooper walks around with a weapon that surpasses a modern anti-missile defense system laser.

    The MS-1 fire-linked heavy laser cannon is considered to be far stronger than the handheld E-11 discussed. The Airspeeder’s own CEC AP/11 dual laser cannons are stronger than the plasma technology that a Scarab can bring to the table. This is hardly a good point of argument. Just because the AT-AT is certainly weakest at the neck, it does not mean the Scarab has the stuff to deal with it.

    What is the point of all this you ask? Simple. The movies cannot possibly reflect the reality of the technology they mean to portray. These are simple scientific facts. Lucas simply had no idea what sort of piece he would create, and under what sort of scrutiny it would be put under. He cut a lot of numbers just to get his film(s) done. End of story.

    I’ve already demonstrated what sort of energy output is needed to create those minor burns you so candidly point us to. I’ve also demonstrated how much more powerful the weapons that “cause” those burns truly are. Where there would be a patch of red skin left by a blaster shot, there should be a neat little cauterized crater.

    I can certainly provide similar examples for everything else you enumerated, but there is simply no point. This argument alone debunks your entire dribble.””””

    What? So you took all of that time just to post an excuse? An excuse again? This reverts back to you posting fact sheets, and me posting on screen evidence. Let me give you a little education this time around in the form of history.

    Remember a crazy little man known as Hitler? You should read up on him at some point. Perhaps you could crack open a history book instead of a SW novel. The man was obsessed with super-weapons.

    On paper, his 150 – 200 ton super tanks would have crushed any and everything on land, and should have been invulnerable to any air strikes. Know why they didn’t make it onto the battle field? ecause the specs looked better than they performed in the real world.

    The same with his National level super battle-ships. The testing against real world run of the mill opponenets showed flaws, weaknesses, and tactical disadvantages.

    The same is happening here. You’re quoting statistics from a fact sheet, and ignoring what the movie shows happening. So whould we ignore the parts of the stories that don’t agree with your perception?

    Again, the action on screen speaks a whole lot louder than the fact sheets. I’m proposing that this is a case of agreeing to disagree. I’ve already seen several AT-AT’s destroyed, and one in a manner that shows an incredible vulnerabilty to much weaker impacts than is being claimed.

  93. Cpt Olimar April 6, 2009 at 1:28 am -      #93

    Your observation of the gap between actual ability and paper stats is quite true for technology in the real world. Testing is of utmost importance, something which Hitler did not have the time for, luckily.

    However, this is a fictional battle. We can’t assume things are NOT going to work unless there is reason to believe so. If an AT-AT’s shield’s are supposed to be able to handle a certain amount of energy, then they will.

    You say that he’s making an “excuse” with his argument about the difference between movie performance, and statistics on paper. Once again, I urge you to think about it in terms of the producer/director. The same argument exaplins why we can see blasters, if they actually went the speed of light, what fun would watching it be? Similarly, if the empire completely dominated and lost no troops at all, even defeats like the battle of hoth would be quite lame. Who wants to see a one sided battle in such a manner? The goal of the movies is first to provide entertainment, not to provide details on its technology. The EU appears to fill in the gaps here. Movies and games both share these “mechanics” if you will.

    You already admitted, I believe, to accepting the idea of “game mechanics” (correct me if i’m wrong here) but you don’t accept “movie mechanics.” Both have a main purpose to entertain, everything else comes a second, whether it be a close second or not. So i don’t see why you reject movie mechanics, which are comparable in nature.

  94. AlphaCommando April 6, 2009 at 2:22 am -      #94

    Your insult aside, it seems that L-W has a degree in history and I am a self-taught war historian; in a matter of speaking of course (mainly focusing on medieval and modern eras), I know plenty about anything pertaining to the battles and technology of WW1 and 2, and I must say that your overdoing it a bit on your analysis of the P. 1000 Ratte Landcruizer’s development (of which I assume you are speaking of).

    Actually there is plenty of proof regarding Hitler’s super tanks being very vulnerable to air, artillery and naval strikes along with all the structural, drive and weight problems even on paper, it is only by having a board of people less insane than him that pointed out alot of the flaws in his dreams that they never came to fruition. Engineers looked at the design and scoffed, knowing it would not work from the start, there isn’t even evidence that the tank we even put past the paper design (unlike the semi-disastrous Maus which atleast got to a incomplete hull). Your incorrect assessment aside…

    What your saying is that the “physics” of The Matrix films must be more real than actual physics merely because one is actual done in a move and one is “just on paper”? Because that is pretty much what you are saying, course I did it in a manner that makes it seem more ridiculous. You want to ignore actual calculation and move onto something that is completely scientifically incorrect when most of the stuff in that incorrect application are fully calculable is real life. Its a logical fallacy, sure Star Wars is science fiction, but when it can be explained with actual numbers and not thematic effect you need to go with that because the other way is but following a path of close mindedness without actually having to think to “prove” a point.

    We are simply arguing that math defeats phony physics made up by a man with no knowledge about what we was taking about, while you stand by the sillyness. Who is right, well personally we should ask the educated people, oh wait; that’s us….

    Also; learn to quote…its gets annoying to see a 7 paragraph post and only 1/10 of it is yours.

  95. L-W April 6, 2009 at 4:06 am -      #95

    Not to invoke Godwin’s law unnecessarily, but Hitler is hardly the perfect paradigm when forming a comparison between a galaxy spanning Empire and axis nations severely limited in their ability to harvest the provisions for war.

    History shows that Nazi Germany was harassed by a neighbor she could never possibly invade (Britain), drawn into dispute with the most industrious nation on the Planet and was waging war with one of the most effective mobilizations seen in human history; given the resources available, the Soviet Union could continue to churn out Tanks and Planes with great zeal (I hold firm to the belief that the T-34 was one of the best Tanks of the era).

    The comparison really doesn’t scale up. On one hand you have nation desperately deprived of the manpower and resources to fight several wars at once, on the other you have a galaxy spanning Empire with the resources capable of fighting several interstellar and even intergalactic wars without stress.

    The AT-AT has been proven effective in combat for centuries, utilized by the Republic, Imperial and Alliance forces and witnessing a successful track record from battling armed rebels at Hoth to liberating a heavily Vongformed Coruscant from the Yuuzhan Vong to tearing through a heavily .

    – – –

    Unless anyone here can substantially prove that a Scarab Plasma beam with a range of 0.4 miles can produce the equivalent output of at least *one* Heavy Turbolaser, then victory for the Covenant walker is limited to close engagements where it’s sufficient bulk could be used to get down and dirty.

    Shock Troopers like down and dirty, especially when their extremely accurate Proton missiles on higher settings can rip holes through Imperial Starship shielding when used en masse.

  96. L-W April 6, 2009 at 6:21 am -      #96

    I must have accidentally deleted the final segment of my fourth paragraph, it should have read like this.

    “The AT-AT has been proven effective in combat for centuries, utilized by the Republic, Imperial and Alliance forces and witnessing a successful track record from battling armed rebels at Hoth, liberating a heavily Vongformed Coruscant from the Yuuzhan Vong to tearing through a heavily fortified New Alderaan.”

  97. L-W April 6, 2009 at 9:22 am -      #97

    “Your observation of the gap between actual ability and paper stats is quite true for technology in the real world. Testing is of utmost importance, something which Hitler did not have the time for, luckily.”

    Not that I disagree with you Olimar, but this brings up a good point.

    Testing structurally unsound and inefficient Tanks during a state of total war is not the most resourceful of options to a country deprived of the materials necessary to accomplish full blown production and manufacturing. Even the relatively simple Panther and Tiger Tanks were too inefficient to roll off the production line in sufficient quantities to match the available number of powerful yet efficient T-34 Tanks to Soviet divisions (At the battle of Kursk, German armoured division supplemented their numbers with captured T-34 Tanks ).

    But the AT-AT *has* proven it’s worth in combat, surviving not only three violent Galactic regime changes, but also remained as the staple, the standard model for brute military force even when fighting an advanced intergalactic invasion armada, numbering in the quadrillions.

    Say what you want, but the Battle of Hoth was a conclusive success for the AT-AT, the four recorded losses appearing as minor and wholly acceptable obstacles in comparison to the losses sustained by the Rebel forces. The destruction of her fighter wing, the death of most of their pilots, half of the fleeing Shuttles intercepted and destroyed, the destruction of her interplanetary ion cannons, hundreds of Rebel casualties, billions of credits worth of military hardware lost to the enemy and one VERY expensive Planetary shield (A shield that can protect a Planet from weeks of continuous Orbital Bombardment is never cheap). The AT-AT did it’s job superbly, beyond even the best expectations of the designers, even when their shields were deactivated prior to the battle.

    The losses the Rebels sustained dealt a massive and nearly fatal blow to their efforts, 75% of her their available fighters were lost just attacking the AT-AT formation alone. Meanwhile the four walkers lost were no doubt replaced by the thousands constructed within seconds by Imperial factories stationed throughout the Galaxy.

    – – –

    To compare an extremely flawed, obviously impractical and structurally unsound “Super” Tank that never once passed the design phase in an insane excuse for engineering, to a platform that has proven it’s combat worthiness on multiple occasions throughout the series is a logical fallacy to say the least.

  98. Matapiojo April 6, 2009 at 10:47 am -      #98

    Alpha, don’t feel like this person is passing insults at you or L-W. He has clearly targetted me on that particular barb. Somehow he has identified me as a weak-link and has focused his wild arguments at superceeding the information I have provided.

    Which is interesting considering how he interpreted post #83 to be an excuse. An excuse ofr what exactly, I’m still not sure.
    ———————————————————-
    @Terror

    -“What? So you took all of that time just to post an excuse? An excuse again? This reverts back to you posting fact sheets, and me posting on screen evidence. Let me give you a little education this time around in the form of history.”

    That is interesting. I had never heard science and facts been called an excuse over cinematic fiction before.

    -“You’re quoting statistics from a fact sheet, and ignoring what the movie shows happening. So whould we ignore the parts of the stories that don’t agree with your perception?”

    Said by the individual imposing his own flawed perception over multiple others across several matches.

    By your statement, the following events are true:

    a – You can survive a drop from several hundred feet as long as you are within an inflatable emergency raft. [Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom]

    b – Your heart will really explode if you take a few steps after a Five Pointed Palm Heart Exploding Technique. [Kill Bill, Vol.2]

    c – You can take someone else’s life as long as you switch faces with that person. This procedure will change your skeletal structure, your body mass, your height and weight, and your speech. [Face Off]

    d – You can surf a Tsunami if you catch it just right. [Escape from L.A.]

    e – Oh, and snowboard an Avalanche. [xXx]

    f – You can jump a bus full of people over a

    g – You can survive a nuclear blast in your immediate vicinity if you hide yourself inside a fridge. [Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull]

    h – If you get mugged, fight back! You can stop the bullets fired at you with bullets yourself. [Wanted]

    j – Need to learn a new language? Sit over a campfire and listen to people speaking the desired tongue. It works MUCH better than Rosetta Stone. [The 13th Warrior]

    – “Again, the action on screen speaks a whole lot louder than the fact sheets. I’m proposing that this is a case of agreeing to disagree. I’ve already seen several AT-AT’s destroyed, and one in a manner that shows an incredible vulnerabilty to much weaker impacts than is being claimed.”

    Yea, I guess they do

    /facepalm

  99. Terror April 6, 2009 at 12:13 pm -      #99

    You misread then L-W. Where did I compare the two? I did not. Please stop misrepresenting what I said. What I did do however was use the Super Tank as an example of something that looks good on paper, but did not live up to the specs.

    Thus the point that specs are not everything. If they were, why is real world testing required? This was my point. That, and I’ve already cited a canon example of a Walker being destroyed with exponentially lower force than you claimed was required.

    Are you denying it happened?

    “””To compare an extremely flawed, obviously impractical and structurally unsound “Super” Tank that never once passed the design phase in an insane excuse for engineering, to a platform that has proven it’s combat worthiness on multiple occasions throughout the series is a logical fallacy to say the least.””””

  100. Terror April 6, 2009 at 12:17 pm -      #100

    Ok, now this is just plain childish. Are you telling me you apply the laws of physics to a SCIFI!!!??? Okkaaaaaay…

    There’s a thing called suspension of disbelief in order to watch a movie. You’re unaware of this?

    “”””By your statement, the following events are true:

    a – You can survive a drop from several hundred feet as long as you are within an inflatable emergency raft. [Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom]

    b – Your heart will really explode if you take a few steps after a Five Pointed Palm Heart Exploding Technique. [Kill Bill, Vol.2]

    c – You can take someone else’s life as long as you switch faces with that person. This procedure will change your skeletal structure, your body mass, your height and weight, and your speech. [Face Off]

    d – You can surf a Tsunami if you catch it just right. [Escape from L.A.]

    e – Oh, and snowboard an Avalanche. [xXx]

    f – You can jump a bus full of people over a

    g – You can survive a nuclear blast in your immediate vicinity if you hide yourself inside a fridge. [Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull]

    h – If you get mugged, fight back! You can stop the bullets fired at you with bullets yourself. [Wanted]

    j – Need to learn a new language? Sit over a campfire and listen to people speaking the desired tongue. It works MUCH better than Rosetta Stone. [The 13th Warrior]

    – “Again, the action on screen speaks a whole lot louder than the fact sheets. I’m proposing that this is a case of agreeing to disagree. I’ve already seen several AT-AT’s destroyed, and one in a manner that shows an incredible vulnerabilty to much weaker impacts than is being claimed.”

    Yea, I guess they do

    /facepalm”””””

1 2 3

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!