Allen, you've made us here in the 41st Millennium very proud with your Humanity First movement, it's amazing that even before the xenos exploited our weakness during the Age of Strife, people like you were hating them.
The Mass Driver Cannons on those tanks are one of the main reasons why I would use them if I built a dream army. I think other armies would have used them, too if they were available.
@Gaius Wyrden I'd have to disagree, its extremely easy to claim a work of fantasy to be superior to reality when said work of fantasy is not subject to the same rules as reality. Of course this is the same universe where space ships fight like its the pacific theater and fighter craft are some how viable in a universe where directed laser weapons are a common part of ship design. While the AAT can hover, giving it a mobility advantage no part of its design make any logical sense. It is an absurdly tall floating target with most of its weapons stuck in a forward facing position built into the hull, while the main gun seems to lack the ability to depress beyond perhaps 10 to 15 degress if I were to be generous. As energy weapons are entirely thermal based the vehicle would have to melt its way through a modern MBT's composite armor before hitting anything vital, this is not even taking into consideration the various refits and armor protection packages developed for the platform which adds panels of reactive armor over weak points. The modern M1A2 has a number of design features such as damage control and compartmentalization that the AAT just outright lacks much to the AAT's detriment. The M1A2 has a plethora of features learned over nearly a century of R&D into armored warfare, and boast a 120mm smooth bore gun firing a plethora of munition types all of which routinely penetrate anywhere between 300 to 400mm of solid armor grade steel. I don't care what magic mcguffin metal the AAT is made of, physics says dense projectiles going very fast will do big damage to even the hardest of materials.
@Gaius Wyrden It's front armor has been proven to be penetrated easily by an RPS-6, which is handheld launcher used by Cloned Troopers. Not to mention an RPS-6 fires a much smaller explosive and a shaped charge that has no where near the penetration rate of a 120mm smoothbore weapon. Also, the infantry protecting the AAT is very lackluster and would be susceptible to the anti-infantry fifty cal on the top of the M1A2's turret. Which does have the capability of firing armor piercing rounds. Hell, 7.62 NATO rounds could probably punch through the hull of a B1 and possibly a B2. If not a 7.62, grab a .308 round and put it through the B2. Moreover, if a M1A2 is deployed with Infantry, the infantry formation would typically have various squad support weaponry with it. This would include such weapons as a M249 SAW and possibly even a SMAW, which a SMAW could easily fire a round right through an AAT. You could also count the ability of an Air Force combat controller being present in said formations of infantry, which are able to call in various air support craft. Such craft as an A-10 Thunderbolt II could make easy work of an AAT, as it has the armor to withstand small arms fire and the ability to employ guided rocket explosives due to the craft having an advanced guidance package on it and also being able to spit out 30mm rounds at 60RPS. All in all, the AAT would be fucked.
@Gaius Wyrden No, your's is. Not only are you too arrogant to accept that the tank can lose to modern technology, but you down right don't seem to have the knowledge or understanding of anything that I just said. A simple Army platoon or Marine Rifle platoon could make easy work of a droid counterpart. Not only are they more skilled, but they're more diverse and capable of taking targets down. I would advise that you do a bit of research before spouting out your claims, because your point of reference is just saying that the AAT would win because it has more advanced technology in it. Yet, history has shown that advanced technology does not always lead into victory. Some examples of that are; The Vietnam War, War between the Israeli and Syrians, World War II militias against Nazi War machine (Poland and France were big contributors in this regard.), the Russian T-34 versus the Panzer IV (Before the Panzer 4 F2), ect.
Honestly I think one of our MBTs would be a good match for most star wars "Tanks". Sure Durasteel may be tough, but Things like HEATFS and APFSDS could most likely punch through.
Tactics would need to be the main factor, I imagine. All the Star Wars vehicles have humongous weak spots and vulnerabilities to exploit, but they still pack a world of firepower, so they could demolish our tanks in a successful ambush. Just like that cliff battle, where the AATs laid waste to the exposed and vulnerable AT-TEs. I personally always thought the Republic walker packed more of a punch then the Separatist hovertank, yet look what the element of surprise caused in that scenario. All I'm saying is, you better have a very competent commander and a really good reconnaissance team. Otherwise, you won't be able to exploit the many weaknesses in the Star Wars vehicles if THEY are the ones getting the drop on *your* tanks. _Strategy, as always, being the true key to victory._
Funny you mentioned the persuader class's fixed guns. In the 2005 star wars battlefront 2, you could maneuver around it and be relatively safe as you slowly chip away at it's armor and health
WolfDiamondShadow actually ww2 historians are starting to claim the battle of brody was a larger tank battle than kursk, although its not unanimous agreement
Actually, the US Tankers of WW2 had a wide variety of ways to increase their armor protection. The Sandbags were used, but over Applique Armor. This is a welded piece of steel plate added to the exterior of Tanks. Logs were also used, also over Applique Armor. The Tankers even added the same Cage-like system that is now found on modern M1127 Strykers. And in the end... It was the US Army Research Branch that finally increased US Tanker survival rates, already the highest in the US Army Ground Forces (Combat), no seriously, it was, just ask The Chieftain, he did a video on it. Sherman started WW2 with an 80% chance of catching fire, which was normal as the Tiger, T-34, and Churchill also caught fire 80% of the time when they wwere defeated as well. The Panther had a 63% chance of catching fire due to combat, which doesn't include just driving the Tank off the Rail Flatbed, but that's something else entirely. By the time WW2 ended, the M4 Sherman had a Burn Out Rate of, get this, 40% or less depending on model, but typically as low 34% chance of catching fire. As it turns out, shooting a Tank in the FRONT or SIDES, will NOT cause the fuel tanks in the BACK of the Tank to catch fire. Go figure, right? Who would have thunk it? It turns out, that shooting a Tank in the front or sides into where the ammunition is located or close to the ammunition, would IGNITE the ammunition if kept in an unsecured, unshielded, exposed, dry, loose, and unarmored location. But if you relocate the ammunition to a harder to hit place, like the floor of the Tank, and secure it firmly in a shielded location with an added protection of water-filled water bladders, the ammunition will NOT ignite. Again, who would have thunk it, right?
Something that's always bugged me is engagement distance. Today, MBT's have the capability to engage targets accurately from miles away, while Star Wars vehicles always have to engage one another up close. Surely with their advanced technology, they could develop weapon systems that could destroy targets from easily a dozen miles away. Note: the only vehicle I've seen able to do something like that is the Hellfire Droid Tank, though I am not sure what the distance was on its missiles in AotC.
Cool factor, imagination of the creators, and let's be honest, the Star Wars vehicles could do all these awesome stuff we can't start imagining, walker tech would be so advanced it would put our most high tech mobile platforms to shame, I can imagine that an AT-ST would be able to run faster than 80 km and shrugging anti tank rounds like pebbles, I can see capital ships sniping themselves from light years or just space haulers launching space rocks at planets, but I don't want to see the latter since it would be boring, I also don't want to see real life space fighter combat tbh, the science behind it makes it sound dull, overall reality doesn't seem to allow a lot of cool shit.
I think what we're seeing here and in other movie franchises is a fact of inexperienced writers. Inexperienced to how battles work that is. Also, the epic visual quality of large, open field, napolionic battles is irresistible to movie makers. So even with the impossibly advanced weaponry of star wars, the tactic is still "let's all line up and walk towards our enemies across open fields". Makes for a good climax to a story.
It's kind of amazing that the Republic even stood a chance against the sheer numbers advantage of the separatists. The Sherman was widely made fun of but what they dont mention in those jokes is that it allowed for pack tactics that destroyed 4 german tanks for each Sherman lost.
if you are comparing class to class battle tanks: rep: tx-130 saber sep: AAT (more of a direct line of sight artillery vehicle), NR-N99 Persuader-class droid enforcer (snail droid) heavy tank/heavy troop transports rep: ATTE, HAV a5 (and later a6) juggernaut sep: mtt recon/scout vehicles: -rep: infantry support platform (hover), atrt outrider units: rep: biker troops sep: stap units i am leaving afew out but still
@@athirww7414 - Correct. The Centurion arrived a month before the end of hostilities in Europe, but it was only a small test group of six Tanks. They were not issued out in time to see combat before the Germans surrendered. Then the Japanese surrendered before they could be shipped to the China-Burma-India Theater or the Pacific. The Centurion DID see combat in the Korean War. There they proved that if a Tank can get there, it IS Tank Country. The Centurion was a genuine threat to the North Koreans and Chinese Communist forces in Korea. They found it very hard to build a bunker on a mountain, that the Centurion couldn't climb atop another mountain and accurately snipe it from. They also found all of their AT Weapons and Tactics typically failed with crippling results against Centurion. They had to haul in some heavy artillery, literally both haul and heavy on occasions, to disable or destroy Centurions. When Australia sent an expedition to Vietnam, they took Centurions with them, including arguably the most famous Centurion in the world, the Centurion Atomic Tank. That is an Australian Centurion Mark III Command Tank that survived a Nuclear Weapons Test back in the 1950s. The Australians were genuinely surprised it survived the test as it was parked only 300 yards from the blast and fully fueled and armed. The Aussies even left the motor running as part of the test and that was the only reason the engine failed. The Atomic Tank ran out of fuel and had to be refueled so they could actually drive it back to finish cleaning it up for repairs to re-enter service. Damaged in Vietnam, no crew was killed, but three were wounded when the Fighting Compartment was breached. The vehicle was quickly repaired and returned to service. When the Australians left, they took their Centurions home too. The Atomic Tank served for a while longer and is now a Gate Guardian in front of the Military HQ of the Australian Army.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 - But more adaptable and upgradeable. Not to mention, rugged and able to get places. When the Centurion did arrive in Korea, it was found to go places that no other Tanks had been able to get to. Once in those places, the North Koreans and ChiComms were quick to discover that 84mm packed enough punch to knock out defenses and either suppress their forces or escort the attacking UN Infantry up the mountains everyone thought no Tank could climb.
@Magni56 One of the most amazing arguments i've ever seen in how utterly annihilated he was at the end. Also fantastic knowledge on tanks here as well, my only slight nit pick is the Challenger 2 was put into service in the 1990's and i believe was designed in 1992. Though i could be wrong so any corrections would be appreciated.
I think an important aspect of the AT-TE that's left out is that the mass driver of the AT-TE can have an arc and is shown to be capable of acting as artillery, plus it can carry multiple kinds of ordnance, making it capable of dealing with multiple scenarios. The legs aside, it's probably a tanker's dream. Long range cannon, anti-personnel protection on front and back, and can carry its own infantry escort. It's slow speed is almost completely made up for if maybe a tank in the column have AT-RTs for recon. The one thing I think is missing is side hatches. If infantry were capable of fighting from inside the walker, then it would be the ultimate medium tank in Star Wars. Especially if it was possible to mount Z-6's from these hatches.
@Gaius Wyrden Yeah, but then again I feel its true potential is held back by not enabling infantry to fight from within the vehicle. Then it would be essential a mobile strong point.
@Gaius Wyrden The reason I would want infantry to fight from inside is the side pannels would allow them to shoot targets out of the laser turret's sights.
To be honest I'm not a fan of the history of the clone wars videos, but I am a fan of tanks ( my interest coming mostly from modelling them) and I found this really interesting and entertaining.
Lol like obi-wan. Tbh HigherGround is better. But doesn't matter if you have High Ground or not Allen's point was that if you can't aim up or down but you're going against a tank that can then ur skrewd. Imagine ur on high ground you cant aim down but your enemy CAN aim up. You can be on a flat surface in a Droid tank-FaceHug a Clone tank then he can't aim down to shoot u or vice versa. Play any Starwars Game like the old or new BF2 or a tank game like World of Tanks or War Thunder and try it. Same concept and his info is solid. Good video.
I would like to modify the front of AT-TE by adding armour at the driver front and move the cockpit backwards even if it would decrease the number of troops it can carry
The republic and empire always had the cooler stuff it seemed. I have to say for the most part the separatist had practical ground vehicles. Now a days tanks and ammunition could take out any walker with ease, especially DU rounds that's some nasty stuff right there..
To get the most out of APFSDSDU rounds, you'll need to stay around 1.55km/s range, for that's where the ammunition works best with. Funnily enough, _Traveller_ and the _GURPS_ RPG family has a nastier projectile: APHD (Armor Piercing, _Hyper_ Density). Basically take the process that higher GURPS TLs use to make their armor (i.e. use artificial gravity to push the densities beyond what is normally possible) and apply it to their projectile ammunition. Such ammunition goes through armor like a hot knife through butter (AP rounds in the GURPS system have an 'Armor Divisior' (aka 'how effective a round is against armor'), and APHD has the second highest value with a AD of 5 (the highest is reserved for matter disruptor gravity-control weapons, which have a value of 100 or basically 'I _laugh_ at your armor').
Curiously enough, the Rebell Alliance in Legends use actual track tanks like the T3-B and T4-B, two tanks that were powerful enough to outmatch any Imperial vehicle, specially the AT-AT Plus I honestly believe that repulsor lifts and legs are a good upgrade to tanks in situations when regular tracks aren't enough or you find yourself in terrain unfavorable to tracks
I agree. Different types of propulsions for different situations. Walker legs are indeed very good for scaling steef terrains like walls or cliff and catching enemies off guard. Repulsor lifts are a good way to transport your vehicles *over water* and other difficult terrains, quickly and hopefully unexpected by the enemy. I really hadn't thought of that until Allan mentioned it! Tracks, however, do still seem like the best alternative if you want to get your vehicles to somewhere fast. At least that's the impression left by the Juggernaut tank, the Hellfire droid and the *big-wheel-something* droid whose name I forgot. All three seemed to move *substantially faster* then the AT-TE, the AAT, the Saber tank. _Of course, we're talking about tanks._ Faster vehicles like speeders and the AT-RT walkers definitelly benefit more fron their respective propulsion methods.
@@cancelanime1507 yeah but there was tech that basically disrupted repulsor fields thus making it a gamble since if the enemy happens to have that your highly mobile tank just turned into a lightly armored bunker
The Centurion and T-54/55 series tanks were both designed and fielded at the same time. Both world war 2 technology, and both classic vehicles that are still in service all around the world, upgraded with various packages that you can buy off the shelf. They are 100% contemporaries in everyway. Saying that the T-55 is more advanced is a misnomer, as the Centurion, in stock form, is more than likely the superior vehicle.
The problem with any of this is that many things in Star Wars, and a lot of other Sci-Fi franchises, is that things like walkers are supposed to be unique and stand out for the entertainmentof the audience, not be logically fleshed out.
Seems like a lot of advanced experimental military equipment has been in that "It's terrifying when it doesnt break down!" boat... for example Canada entered world war 1 with some of the most accurate rifles ever made at the time, unfortunately they quickly stopped working in wet and muddy conditions... you can see how that would be a problem.
AT-ATs were dummy hard to take down but they still probably weren't nearly as cost effective as the AT-TE. If the Empire spent their AT-AT development and procurement budget on just improving and building more AT-TEs they'd have a better fighting force.
Stop spreading false information. Neither Tarkin or the Tarkin doctrine are behind the replacement of some Clone Wars era vehicles. Besides the Empire still uses AT-TEs and Juggernauts.
Well what about the republic hover tank? It maybe slow, but it's middle launchers are capable of being fired separately for long range. Downside of it tho is that it's quite slow in movement, and can't tank snipe like the att with it's single barrel mounted gun
Fixed Gun 'Tanks' are actually called Assault Guns or Tank Destroyers, depending on use. The Assault Gun is used in direct assaults on fortified areas in support of the Infantry. While Tank Destroyers are self-explanatory in their purpose. Though both were often pressed into each other's roles or into roles meant by the Tank, resulting in the Assault Gun falling out of favor and the Tank Destroyer disappearing until about 40 years ago, after a 40 year hiatus. Though there were always some kind of attempts to keep Tank Destroyers in service or make new ones, it was just that Tanks had evolved to the point where it wasn't necessary until reliable Anti-Tank Missiles arrived and suddenly, anything you could mount a Missile Launcher to, was a Tank Destroyer. Still, a Missile-armed TD won't be of as much use as a Tank. I do believe the last major use of Assault Guns was in either the Six Days War or the Yom Kippur War. Also, I will point out a pet peeve here: The Israelis didn't just have Centurions. They also had Shermans, dammit! The Israeli Tank Forces were equipped with a variety of Tanks actually. They had M48 Pattons, M60 MBTs, Centurions, M4 Shermans, AMX-13s, and even had captured large numbers of T-54/55s and other Tanks from just about every country that produced Tanks. The Israelis often modified their Tanks and gave them localized names due to modifications, the Centurions modified by the Israelis were called Sho'ts (meaning Whip). Due to their engine and for reasons unknown to me, they became internationally known as the Sho't Kal for the Continental engines the Israelis dropped into them. The Israelis had also further modified the Sho't with more armor, new transmissions, and the Modele F1 105mm Tank Gun, also noted as the CN-105-F1 in some sources, which was a French version of the British Royal Ordnance L7 105mm Tank Gun. Incidentally, the M4 Sherman was able to accept the CN-105-F1, because the US Army had briefly used M4 Shermans with 105mm Howitzers in place of their 75mm and 76mm guns as Artillery Tanks. The concept actually worked and worked exceptionally well. The drawback was that dedicated Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs) simply did far better. So the US Army converted all of their 105 Shermans into normal Shermans with 75mm and 76mm guns. The Israelis, who bought, stole, 'borrowed', leased, and captured large numbers of Shermans decided to tinker with the American Tanks. The Sherman was capable of many things, the last Sherman derived vehicle in Israeli service wasn't retired until a few years ago. The Israelis did a program to swap the Turrets of Shermans with some French Tanks they had taken, post-WW2 developed ones, but they also had some Pre-WW2 French Tanks they captured from the Arabs (don't even ask why they were in use, I haven't a clue). They put the French Turrets, with a better gun, onto the Sherman hulls and oddly, put Sherman Turrets with Sherman guns onto the French Hulls. Don't know the story behind that one honestly, so I'm not going there. Anyways, they couldn't keep doing that for a number of reasons. So the Israelis simply took the French Tanks Guns, 75mm SA 50, also known as the CN-75-50, Tank Guns based on the German Panther's L70/7.5cm KwK 42 (the French had previously used two Regiments of Panther Tanks in their service), and mated it to the Sherman's Turret using the same techniques and developments as the British did with the 17-pdr. and the Sherman Firefly. Incidentally, all of these Shermans, called M-50 in Israeli service and the Super Sherman internationally (again, no idea how), used what was called the 'Old' or Early Sherman Turret seen on the M4 Sherman original onward. Then, later on when they had the CN-105-F1, the Israelis used the later Sherman 'New' or Later Turret vehicles. They installed the 105mm guns in these later Shermans, often easy to identify due to the difference in the back of the Turret. The vehicles were re-engined with new running gears and transmissions and were again up-armored. The Israelis designated them the M-51, but internationally, again, they were known as the Isherman which was short for 'Israeli Sherman.' The Israeli Tank forces were mostly made up of either M-51s or Sho'ts. Then there were the M48s and M60s, Magach 1-5 for the M48 and Magach 6 and 7 for the M60. The AMX-13 was withdrawn from service for having a weak gun and thin armor by 1970. There was an attempt to acquire the British Chieftain, but the British withdrew from that deal, leading the Israelis to eventually develop the Merkeva Mk1. As for captured Tanks? Well it's a list of who and what of just about every Tank there could have been, even some WW2-era Italian Tanks and Tankettes, too! The ones that lasted the longest were some Soviet designs, the T-54/55 being the chief vehicle, but due to their small size, as you noted, they were extremely unpopular with Israeli crews and their safety systems left much to be imagined by the Israelis. As such, most Soviet Tanks were either scrapped or phased out into other service rather quickly, such as APCs, where they were still complained about due to their small size, or into other areas of use. Eventually all of these converted vehicles were also phased completely out of service altogether. Israeli forces captured a number of Soviet T-62s in the Yom Kippur War, but never seriously considered keeping them as they only kept operational enough, for the amount of ammunition and spare parts the Israelis captured during the war. (It should be noted that a platoon of 7 Israeli Tanks fought off about 100+ Syrian T-62s, destroying or disabling most for the loss of 5 Sho'ts. The Sho'ts entire Company was facing almost 500 T-62s. The Israeli Company lost much of its strength, but nearly destroyed all the Syrian T-62s on its own.) Likely a number of short comings with Soviet Tank designs. Too small, Gun Elevation/Depressment was poor, safety failings (T-62 apparently had a notorious reputation for ripping men's arms off with their autoloaders in just Arab service alone), difficult to upgrade, and were typically subpar to Western Tanks as a general rule. That last one was mostly because they were generally the 'Monkey Units' or weapons that were intentionally designed and built to much lower standards and would have cost too much to re-engineer into First Rate Vehicles.
You always talk about AT-AT and AT-TE when talking about tanks but I never hear anything about the TX-130, or has that all been thrown into the forgotten unknown region of legands?
At the very beginning of tank development, the WW1 Germans considered using legs for their A7V tank prototypes. They did not pursue this design for a variety of reasons. I do wonder though, what that would look like. I imagine it would probably be quite squat and low to the ground, with a plodding sort of gate.
Chassis that became first German produced tank was designed primarily as a artillery tractor. A7V was decent in terms of mobility on most terrain, but stereotypical no man's land on western front was edge case where far better were British tanks, as A7V had far smaller possible area where tracks could propel vehicle through mud
I would compare the AT-TE to the Char B1 Bis, multiple guns, big armor, vulnerable movement units, and massive firepower if facing forwards. I would also note the faults of the Bis as to why the AT-TE was not great, and the design of the Bis with Star Wars tech and armor would be much better in design than the AT-TE personally. Feel free to argue with me if you want if you think a tank fits it better.
Technically, a tank without a rotating turret (NR-N99) isn't a tank. It's a tank destroyer. Germany made a lot of tank destroyers on tank chassis in WWII because they were cheaper, lower profile and you could put on a bigger gun because you didn't need the hardware to rotate it. Minor point. Good video.
Technically... *laughs in Swedish S-tanks* So how do you classify vehicles such as 2A1 Gwoździk, M10 Wolverine or Panzerhaubitze 2000 - all of them have rotating turret. Or en rebours - is Strv 103 a tank or tank destroyer as you called such vehicle
Okay, I have a radically new design idea for Star Wars armoured vehicles: Antigrav repulsors AND legs. Wanna go fast or over a body of water obstructing a direct route? Fly my pretties. Some dipshit wants you to assault a vertical cliff a couple hundred meters high? Honestly just call in dropships ... LEGS I mean, yes, legs. Have the tanks climp a nearly 90° vertical cliff, great idea, amazing, woohoo~ Also got a revolutionary active defense system idea to protect those new tank-thingies from enemy blasterfire! You just take a lightsaber, mkay ... you put that lightsaber on a real juiced up spinner, mkay and *WHIRRR* it goes spinning around like superfast and it will deflect a good chunk of incoming blaster fire. Just put enough of those on your vehicle for sufficient coverage of critical sections and viola: mechanized Jedi tank! Big brain design boyz!
@@robobo2226 technically an M4A2 76 W HVSS modified to look as much like an M4A3 76 W HVSS as possible. It is indeed Fury, currently at the Tank Museum in the UK.
I would caution; screening tanks with infantry, to protect against enemy infantry, is a great idea. But the idea of an "independent" tank that could use multiple gun turrets to "screen" itself was shown historically to be a failure, such as with the Vickers Independent tank and derivative models (such as the Soviet T-35 or American M2 Medium Tank, or the various British multi-turreted tanks (such as the Cruiser Mk I.).
That is largely due to technology, though. The funny thing is that tanks are now getting additional turrets in the form of Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)... add a computer that can autonomously track and engage targets in a combat environment and you get something akin to what the various multi-turreted tanks were trying to achieve. ;)
I thought not. It's not a story the Allied would tell you. It's a German legend. King Tiger was a heavy tank from Germany, so powerful and so armoured he could use the upper glacis to influence the battlefield to protect the Reich. He had such a knowledge of the armoured side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.
Kuba Król unfortunately gave his users everything he had. And his fuel tanks ran empty in his sleep. It’s ironic. He could protect others from dying, but not himself.
You have repulsor lifts. I'd say tanks are obsolete in the Star Wars universe now that equivalent firepower can basically fly around and be protected while doing so.
They did. In fact majority of vehicles weren't walkers. Clone walkers were designed to be universal as doctrine demanded them to be moved between planets and usually they were dropped so they didn't need to be that fast. Empire focus on them mostly due to stupid Tarkin doctrine and supposed fear caused by towering machines. We rarely see ground combat beside that, though.
Tactical Droid: "Why do I hear boss music?" B1: Sir, we spotted a large group of republic Walkers heading our way from the back." Tactical Droid: "Wait, what?! How did an entire WALKER COLLUMN flank us undetected?!"
Yes, weak points were the joints of the leg. However if you go into the lore, the republic’s vehicles were designed to be replaced by better versions with the coming of the empire. Sidious want to make sure in the event of clones resisting the data chip, that his new army would have better gear to more easily take them down.
Outright destruction - unlikely, but possible, especially when facing lightly armoured targets Damaging - very likely, disabling damage possible Disruption of armoured column with these vehicles - very likely if AA/AD systems haven't intercepted such aircraft
*Umbaran Mobile Heavy Cannons appear* Rex: We've got a problem! *Umbaran Mobile Heavy Cannons start killing the 501st.* Rex: Pull back! Pull back now! *The 501st try to destroy the Umbaran tanks with rockets, but show no effect.* 501st Trooper: Rocket launchers don't work on these things!
Fun fact when the first "modern" tank prototype came out it was called the little wille the second prototype being very similar to the mark I was called the big wille... for obvious reasons the British government changed the name for later tanks to mark I yet many tank crews still called them there willes......... Want more facts im more then happy too
The entire Star Wars military doctrine would be scraped by a real general. With only line of sight weapons a mobile artillery like the M-270 MLRS could wipe out the entire army with a steady and organized retreat and fire tactics.
Allen, you've made us here in the 41st Millennium very proud with your Humanity First movement, it's amazing that even before the xenos exploited our weakness during the Age of Strife, people like you were hating them.
"We're an assault tank, not a boat!" - Canderous Assault Tank driver. I love the Canderous Assault Tanks from FOC. It's powerful and awesome.
Mass drivers op
The Mass Driver Cannons on those tanks are one of the main reasons why I would use them if I built a dream army. I think other armies would have used them, too if they were available.
FOC?
@@scottland8698Empire at War: Forces of Corruption
Lucas Watanabe ah, thank you
Okay, but let’s just be honest, seeing an M1 Abrams or something going up against an AAT would be badass
itd be short... like O neil said in SG1- that is a weapon of intimidation, this is a weapon of war'
@@andyf4292 An AAT can shoot star fighters out of the sky though. I think it would engage the Abrams from very far away. Plus, it has 6 rocket tubes.
@Gaius Wyrden I'd have to disagree, its extremely easy to claim a work of fantasy to be superior to reality when said work of fantasy is not subject to the same rules as reality. Of course this is the same universe where space ships fight like its the pacific theater and fighter craft are some how viable in a universe where directed laser weapons are a common part of ship design.
While the AAT can hover, giving it a mobility advantage no part of its design make any logical sense. It is an absurdly tall floating target with most of its weapons stuck in a forward facing position built into the hull, while the main gun seems to lack the ability to depress beyond perhaps 10 to 15 degress if I were to be generous. As energy weapons are entirely thermal based the vehicle would have to melt its way through a modern MBT's composite armor before hitting anything vital, this is not even taking into consideration the various refits and armor protection packages developed for the platform which adds panels of reactive armor over weak points. The modern M1A2 has a number of design features such as damage control and compartmentalization that the AAT just outright lacks much to the AAT's detriment.
The M1A2 has a plethora of features learned over nearly a century of R&D into armored warfare, and boast a 120mm smooth bore gun firing a plethora of munition types all of which routinely penetrate anywhere between 300 to 400mm of solid armor grade steel. I don't care what magic mcguffin metal the AAT is made of, physics says dense projectiles going very fast will do big damage to even the hardest of materials.
@Gaius Wyrden It's front armor has been proven to be penetrated easily by an RPS-6, which is handheld launcher used by Cloned Troopers. Not to mention an RPS-6 fires a much smaller explosive and a shaped charge that has no where near the penetration rate of a 120mm smoothbore weapon. Also, the infantry protecting the AAT is very lackluster and would be susceptible to the anti-infantry fifty cal on the top of the M1A2's turret. Which does have the capability of firing armor piercing rounds. Hell, 7.62 NATO rounds could probably punch through the hull of a B1 and possibly a B2. If not a 7.62, grab a .308 round and put it through the B2. Moreover, if a M1A2 is deployed with Infantry, the infantry formation would typically have various squad support weaponry with it. This would include such weapons as a M249 SAW and possibly even a SMAW, which a SMAW could easily fire a round right through an AAT. You could also count the ability of an Air Force combat controller being present in said formations of infantry, which are able to call in various air support craft. Such craft as an A-10 Thunderbolt II could make easy work of an AAT, as it has the armor to withstand small arms fire and the ability to employ guided rocket explosives due to the craft having an advanced guidance package on it and also being able to spit out 30mm rounds at 60RPS. All in all, the AAT would be fucked.
@Gaius Wyrden No, your's is. Not only are you too arrogant to accept that the tank can lose to modern technology, but you down right don't seem to have the knowledge or understanding of anything that I just said. A simple Army platoon or Marine Rifle platoon could make easy work of a droid counterpart. Not only are they more skilled, but they're more diverse and capable of taking targets down. I would advise that you do a bit of research before spouting out your claims, because your point of reference is just saying that the AAT would win because it has more advanced technology in it. Yet, history has shown that advanced technology does not always lead into victory. Some examples of that are; The Vietnam War, War between the Israeli and Syrians, World War II militias against Nazi War machine (Poland and France were big contributors in this regard.), the Russian T-34 versus the Panzer IV (Before the Panzer 4 F2), ect.
Honestly I think one of our MBTs would be a good match for most star wars "Tanks". Sure Durasteel may be tough, but Things like HEATFS and APFSDS could most likely punch through.
Tactics would need to be the main factor, I imagine.
All the Star Wars vehicles have humongous weak spots and vulnerabilities to exploit, but they still pack a world of firepower, so they could demolish our tanks in a successful ambush.
Just like that cliff battle, where the AATs laid waste to the exposed and vulnerable AT-TEs.
I personally always thought the Republic walker packed more of a punch then the Separatist hovertank, yet look what the element of surprise caused in that scenario.
All I'm saying is, you better have a very competent commander and a really good reconnaissance team.
Otherwise, you won't be able to exploit the many weaknesses in the Star Wars vehicles if THEY are the ones getting the drop on *your* tanks.
_Strategy, as always, being the true key to victory._
Funny you mentioned the persuader class's fixed guns. In the 2005 star wars battlefront 2, you could maneuver around it and be relatively safe as you slowly chip away at it's armor and health
It's almost like all the "tanks" in Star Wars were designed by people who had no idea what they were doing.
Star was designers are supposed to try to make their vehicles look cool, not practical
@@ratbat1072 why not both?
They knew exactly what they were doing, making something cool and kinda alien. All about the story and cool factor.
Ratbat 1986 They can do both lol
That is a good point but as this is a galaxy far away each culture has their aesthetics.
I think the Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War is pretty lobsided plus last tank battle in the 20th century.
@WolfDiamondShadow ok.
@WolfDiamondShadow ok.
The Iraqis were unprepared for how fast US armored divisions could move. That battle was a slaughter.
Even if the army equipment was switched the Americans would have won. Training and tactics go a long way.
WolfDiamondShadow actually ww2 historians are starting to claim the battle of brody was a larger tank battle than kursk, although its not unanimous agreement
*Insert Gru meme here*
How do you protect your tanks?
Germany: Side skirt armor!
America: Sandbags
Russia: Infantry
Russia: Infantry
Israel: Iron Fist protection system.
in being useful support or just cannon fodder protecting the tanks as meat shields lmao.
Tiger tanks has 92 shells
Russia send 93 t34s
No trophy system?
Actually, the US Tankers of WW2 had a wide variety of ways to increase their armor protection. The Sandbags were used, but over Applique Armor. This is a welded piece of steel plate added to the exterior of Tanks. Logs were also used, also over Applique Armor. The Tankers even added the same Cage-like system that is now found on modern M1127 Strykers.
And in the end... It was the US Army Research Branch that finally increased US Tanker survival rates, already the highest in the US Army Ground Forces (Combat), no seriously, it was, just ask The Chieftain, he did a video on it.
Sherman started WW2 with an 80% chance of catching fire, which was normal as the Tiger, T-34, and Churchill also caught fire 80% of the time when they wwere defeated as well. The Panther had a 63% chance of catching fire due to combat, which doesn't include just driving the Tank off the Rail Flatbed, but that's something else entirely.
By the time WW2 ended, the M4 Sherman had a Burn Out Rate of, get this, 40% or less depending on model, but typically as low 34% chance of catching fire.
As it turns out, shooting a Tank in the FRONT or SIDES, will NOT cause the fuel tanks in the BACK of the Tank to catch fire. Go figure, right? Who would have thunk it?
It turns out, that shooting a Tank in the front or sides into where the ammunition is located or close to the ammunition, would IGNITE the ammunition if kept in an unsecured, unshielded, exposed, dry, loose, and unarmored location.
But if you relocate the ammunition to a harder to hit place, like the floor of the Tank, and secure it firmly in a shielded location with an added protection of water-filled water bladders, the ammunition will NOT ignite.
Again, who would have thunk it, right?
Something that's always bugged me is engagement distance. Today, MBT's have the capability to engage targets accurately from miles away, while Star Wars vehicles always have to engage one another up close. Surely with their advanced technology, they could develop weapon systems that could destroy targets from easily a dozen miles away.
Note: the only vehicle I've seen able to do something like that is the Hellfire Droid Tank, though I am not sure what the distance was on its missiles in AotC.
probably just for the cool factor
Cool factor, imagination of the creators, and let's be honest, the Star Wars vehicles could do all these awesome stuff we can't start imagining, walker tech would be so advanced it would put our most high tech mobile platforms to shame, I can imagine that an AT-ST would be able to run faster than 80 km and shrugging anti tank rounds like pebbles, I can see capital ships sniping themselves from light years or just space haulers launching space rocks at planets, but I don't want to see the latter since it would be boring, I also don't want to see real life space fighter combat tbh, the science behind it makes it sound dull, overall reality doesn't seem to allow a lot of cool shit.
Nobody wants to watch ppl snipe each other from the opposite side of the Galaxy, viewers like messy broadside engagements
Gaius Wyrden but doesn’t the at-te and aat uses mass drivers or something?
I think what we're seeing here and in other movie franchises is a fact of inexperienced writers. Inexperienced to how battles work that is. Also, the epic visual quality of large, open field, napolionic battles is irresistible to movie makers. So even with the impossibly advanced weaponry of star wars, the tactic is still "let's all line up and walk towards our enemies across open fields". Makes for a good climax to a story.
I miss the Juggernaut, UT-AT and AT-AP in this video.
AT-TE's were often used together with LAAT gunships, AT-RT's and artillery support.
Also some modern tanks have soft/hard kill systems to stop anti-tank missiles and RPGs.
It's kind of amazing that the Republic even stood a chance against the sheer numbers advantage of the separatists. The Sherman was widely made fun of but what they dont mention in those jokes is that it allowed for pack tactics that destroyed 4 german tanks for each Sherman lost.
I always find it funny that the hovertank in rogue one was clearly a tracked vehicle you can see them when they toss the grenade in front of it.
yup also how it moves it bobs up an down
if you are comparing class to class
battle tanks:
rep: tx-130 saber
sep: AAT (more of a direct line of sight artillery vehicle), NR-N99 Persuader-class droid enforcer (snail droid)
heavy tank/heavy troop transports
rep: ATTE, HAV a5 (and later a6) juggernaut
sep: mtt
recon/scout vehicles:
-rep: infantry support platform (hover), atrt
outrider units:
rep: biker troops
sep: stap units
i am leaving afew out but still
“WW2 era centurion tanks” I’m gonna stop you right there-
05_2_ ChaseKatona well the centurion tank was introduced during the last months of the war but didnt see action during ww2
@@athirww7414 - Correct. The Centurion arrived a month before the end of hostilities in Europe, but it was only a small test group of six Tanks. They were not issued out in time to see combat before the Germans surrendered. Then the Japanese surrendered before they could be shipped to the China-Burma-India Theater or the Pacific.
The Centurion DID see combat in the Korean War. There they proved that if a Tank can get there, it IS Tank Country.
The Centurion was a genuine threat to the North Koreans and Chinese Communist forces in Korea. They found it very hard to build a bunker on a mountain, that the Centurion couldn't climb atop another mountain and accurately snipe it from. They also found all of their AT Weapons and Tactics typically failed with crippling results against Centurion. They had to haul in some heavy artillery, literally both haul and heavy on occasions, to disable or destroy Centurions.
When Australia sent an expedition to Vietnam, they took Centurions with them, including arguably the most famous Centurion in the world, the Centurion Atomic Tank.
That is an Australian Centurion Mark III Command Tank that survived a Nuclear Weapons Test back in the 1950s. The Australians were genuinely surprised it survived the test as it was parked only 300 yards from the blast and fully fueled and armed. The Aussies even left the motor running as part of the test and that was the only reason the engine failed.
The Atomic Tank ran out of fuel and had to be refueled so they could actually drive it back to finish cleaning it up for repairs to re-enter service.
Damaged in Vietnam, no crew was killed, but three were wounded when the Fighting Compartment was breached. The vehicle was quickly repaired and returned to service. When the Australians left, they took their Centurions home too. The Atomic Tank served for a while longer and is now a Gate Guardian in front of the Military HQ of the Australian Army.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 - But more adaptable and upgradeable. Not to mention, rugged and able to get places.
When the Centurion did arrive in Korea, it was found to go places that no other Tanks had been able to get to.
Once in those places, the North Koreans and ChiComms were quick to discover that 84mm packed enough punch to knock out defenses and either suppress their forces or escort the attacking UN Infantry up the mountains everyone thought no Tank could climb.
@Magni56 One of the most amazing arguments i've ever seen in how utterly annihilated he was at the end. Also fantastic knowledge on tanks here as well, my only slight nit pick is the Challenger 2 was put into service in the 1990's and i believe was designed in 1992. Though i could be wrong so any corrections would be appreciated.
Y'all a bunch of ROTC nerds
I think an important aspect of the AT-TE that's left out is that the mass driver of the AT-TE can have an arc and is shown to be capable of acting as artillery, plus it can carry multiple kinds of ordnance, making it capable of dealing with multiple scenarios. The legs aside, it's probably a tanker's dream. Long range cannon, anti-personnel protection on front and back, and can carry its own infantry escort. It's slow speed is almost completely made up for if maybe a tank in the column have AT-RTs for recon. The one thing I think is missing is side hatches. If infantry were capable of fighting from inside the walker, then it would be the ultimate medium tank in Star Wars. Especially if it was possible to mount Z-6's from these hatches.
@Gaius Wyrden Yeah, but then again I feel its true potential is held back by not enabling infantry to fight from within the vehicle. Then it would be essential a mobile strong point.
@Gaius Wyrden The reason I would want infantry to fight from inside is the side pannels would allow them to shoot targets out of the laser turret's sights.
You are forgetting the republics saber class repulsor tank and the AT-RT,they were often deployed alongside the AT-TE
Yeah I noticed that too, along with the Juggernaut Tank.
Is that still the case post Disney?
@@stevenharper9108 The AT-RT appeared in TCW's so they defiantly would, though im not sure about the saber
Because of star wars: legion yes the TX-130 is cannon
@@TimberwolfJ1 and also Battlefront 2
To be honest I'm not a fan of the history of the clone wars videos, but I am a fan of tanks ( my interest coming mostly from modelling them) and I found this really interesting and entertaining.
7:14 and 10:16
So you are saying that being able to use the high ground is important?
Mkay
Lol like obi-wan. Tbh HigherGround is better. But doesn't matter if you have High Ground or not Allen's point was that if you can't aim up or down but you're going against a tank that can then ur skrewd. Imagine ur on high ground you cant aim down but your enemy CAN aim up. You can be on a flat surface in a Droid tank-FaceHug a Clone tank then he can't aim down to shoot u or vice versa. Play any Starwars Game like the old or new BF2 or a tank game like World of Tanks or War Thunder and try it. Same concept and his info is solid. Good video.
I would like to modify the front of AT-TE by adding armour at the driver front and move the cockpit backwards even if it would decrease the number of troops it can carry
Calling it now! Here come the Arial and Nautical versions, alongside versions for the Empire and Rebels!
One of the reasons the ATT used legs instead of repulsors is because repulsors can't go through a deflector shield while legs can
That and in Legends there are planet where you can't _use_ repulsors.
The republic and empire always had the cooler stuff it seemed. I have to say for the most part the separatist had practical ground vehicles. Now a days tanks and ammunition could take out any walker with ease, especially DU rounds that's some nasty stuff right there..
To get the most out of APFSDSDU rounds, you'll need to stay around 1.55km/s range, for that's where the ammunition works best with.
Funnily enough, _Traveller_ and the _GURPS_ RPG family has a nastier projectile: APHD (Armor Piercing, _Hyper_ Density). Basically take the process that higher GURPS TLs use to make their armor (i.e. use artificial gravity to push the densities beyond what is normally possible) and apply it to their projectile ammunition. Such ammunition goes through armor like a hot knife through butter (AP rounds in the GURPS system have an 'Armor Divisior' (aka 'how effective a round is against armor'), and APHD has the second highest value with a AD of 5 (the highest is reserved for matter disruptor gravity-control weapons, which have a value of 100 or basically 'I _laugh_ at your armor').
Curiously enough, the Rebell Alliance in Legends use actual track tanks like the T3-B and T4-B, two tanks that were powerful enough to outmatch any Imperial vehicle, specially the AT-AT
Plus I honestly believe that repulsor lifts and legs are a good upgrade to tanks in situations when regular tracks aren't enough or you find yourself in terrain unfavorable to tracks
I agree. Different types of propulsions for different situations.
Walker legs are indeed very good for scaling steef terrains like walls or cliff and catching enemies off guard.
Repulsor lifts are a good way to transport your vehicles *over water* and other difficult terrains, quickly and hopefully unexpected by the enemy. I really hadn't thought of that until Allan mentioned it!
Tracks, however, do still seem like the best alternative if you want to get your vehicles to somewhere fast. At least that's the impression left by the Juggernaut tank, the Hellfire droid and the *big-wheel-something* droid whose name I forgot. All three seemed to move *substantially faster* then the AT-TE, the AAT, the Saber tank. _Of course, we're talking about tanks._ Faster vehicles like speeders and the AT-RT walkers definitelly benefit more fron their respective propulsion methods.
The republic also had saber tanks, which were repulsor craft and lower profile.
You didn’t mention the TX-130 Sabre-class or the Juggernaut!
Fxxx legs and hover tech, prefer caterpillar tracks.
Caterpillar tracks like the ones on the m4 sherman are narrow therefore still may have poor off-road performance
Hovertanks are good but legs do suck.
Hell yeah. Sexy and functional! Not like ugly and fragile legs or boring and unreliable repulsor tech.
Edward Hahm Repulser tech is not unreliable otherwise it wouldn’t be used in everyday technologies like speeders and senate pods..
@@cancelanime1507 yeah but there was tech that basically disrupted repulsor fields thus making it a gamble since if the enemy happens to have that your highly mobile tank just turned into a lightly armored bunker
Loving the Jedi robes
The Centurion and T-54/55 series tanks were both designed and fielded at the same time. Both world war 2 technology, and both classic vehicles that are still in service all around the world, upgraded with various packages that you can buy off the shelf. They are 100% contemporaries in everyway. Saying that the T-55 is more advanced is a misnomer, as the Centurion, in stock form, is more than likely the superior vehicle.
People have compared the tactics in the Clone Wars to the tactics from the Napoleonic Wars, but they really are closer to the Tactics from WWI
10:22 One could say...they used the high ground to defeat the tanks.
Centurian tanks could easily take out a T-55, Centurians were good tanks that could beat any tank until t-64 came around.
Yeah I mean the later versions with a l05mm rifled cannon. Not earlier ones
Maybe one on "what fighter plane history can teach us on clone wars dog fights?"
Imagine not subscribing to Generation Tech
This post was made by the Generation Tech Subscriber Gang
The problem with any of this is that many things in Star Wars, and a lot of other Sci-Fi franchises, is that things like walkers are supposed to be unique and stand out for the entertainmentof the audience, not be logically fleshed out.
I hope we see the TX-130 tank in this last season of Clone Wars
Seems like a lot of advanced experimental military equipment has been in that "It's terrifying when it doesnt break down!" boat... for example Canada entered world war 1 with some of the most accurate rifles ever made at the time, unfortunately they quickly stopped working in wet and muddy conditions... you can see how that would be a problem.
I think the Republic TX-130 Hover tank is a better comparison to the Sepatatist AAT, but overall most of the points still stand.
To be honest Kashyyyk mission in Fallen Order changed my opinion abut AT-AT, but it still shouldn't be Empires main troop transport.
I’ve always imagined that Star Wars tanks while mostly the at te was more like a self propelled gun,
Curse you Tarkin for replacing the AT-TE for the walking target AT-AT.
AT-ATs were dummy hard to take down but they still probably weren't nearly as cost effective as the AT-TE. If the Empire spent their AT-AT development and procurement budget on just improving and building more AT-TEs they'd have a better fighting force.
@@aviatorengineer3491 Agreed.
Angry Landcruiser P1500 Ratte noises
Stop spreading false information. Neither Tarkin or the Tarkin doctrine are behind the replacement of some Clone Wars era vehicles. Besides the Empire still uses AT-TEs and Juggernauts.
engineers: ok so we could make our vehicles more practical with wheels OOOORR we could make them look sick as hell with some legs
head engineer: legs
Do a review video of the A6 Clone turbo tanks/juggernauts strengths and/or weaknesses
Well what about the republic hover tank? It maybe slow, but it's middle launchers are capable of being fired separately for long range. Downside of it tho is that it's quite slow in movement, and can't tank snipe like the att with it's single barrel mounted gun
Fixed Gun 'Tanks' are actually called Assault Guns or Tank Destroyers, depending on use. The Assault Gun is used in direct assaults on fortified areas in support of the Infantry. While Tank Destroyers are self-explanatory in their purpose. Though both were often pressed into each other's roles or into roles meant by the Tank, resulting in the Assault Gun falling out of favor and the Tank Destroyer disappearing until about 40 years ago, after a 40 year hiatus.
Though there were always some kind of attempts to keep Tank Destroyers in service or make new ones, it was just that Tanks had evolved to the point where it wasn't necessary until reliable Anti-Tank Missiles arrived and suddenly, anything you could mount a Missile Launcher to, was a Tank Destroyer.
Still, a Missile-armed TD won't be of as much use as a Tank.
I do believe the last major use of Assault Guns was in either the Six Days War or the Yom Kippur War.
Also, I will point out a pet peeve here:
The Israelis didn't just have Centurions. They also had Shermans, dammit!
The Israeli Tank Forces were equipped with a variety of Tanks actually. They had M48 Pattons, M60 MBTs, Centurions, M4 Shermans, AMX-13s, and even had captured large numbers of T-54/55s and other Tanks from just about every country that produced Tanks.
The Israelis often modified their Tanks and gave them localized names due to modifications, the Centurions modified by the Israelis were called Sho'ts (meaning Whip). Due to their engine and for reasons unknown to me, they became internationally known as the Sho't Kal for the Continental engines the Israelis dropped into them. The Israelis had also further modified the Sho't with more armor, new transmissions, and the Modele F1 105mm Tank Gun, also noted as the CN-105-F1 in some sources, which was a French version of the British Royal Ordnance L7 105mm Tank Gun.
Incidentally, the M4 Sherman was able to accept the CN-105-F1, because the US Army had briefly used M4 Shermans with 105mm Howitzers in place of their 75mm and 76mm guns as Artillery Tanks.
The concept actually worked and worked exceptionally well. The drawback was that dedicated Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs) simply did far better. So the US Army converted all of their 105 Shermans into normal Shermans with 75mm and 76mm guns.
The Israelis, who bought, stole, 'borrowed', leased, and captured large numbers of Shermans decided to tinker with the American Tanks. The Sherman was capable of many things, the last Sherman derived vehicle in Israeli service wasn't retired until a few years ago.
The Israelis did a program to swap the Turrets of Shermans with some French Tanks they had taken, post-WW2 developed ones, but they also had some Pre-WW2 French Tanks they captured from the Arabs (don't even ask why they were in use, I haven't a clue). They put the French Turrets, with a better gun, onto the Sherman hulls and oddly, put Sherman Turrets with Sherman guns onto the French Hulls. Don't know the story behind that one honestly, so I'm not going there.
Anyways, they couldn't keep doing that for a number of reasons. So the Israelis simply took the French Tanks Guns, 75mm SA 50, also known as the CN-75-50, Tank Guns based on the German Panther's L70/7.5cm KwK 42 (the French had previously used two Regiments of Panther Tanks in their service), and mated it to the Sherman's Turret using the same techniques and developments as the British did with the 17-pdr. and the Sherman Firefly.
Incidentally, all of these Shermans, called M-50 in Israeli service and the Super Sherman internationally (again, no idea how), used what was called the 'Old' or Early Sherman Turret seen on the M4 Sherman original onward.
Then, later on when they had the CN-105-F1, the Israelis used the later Sherman 'New' or Later Turret vehicles. They installed the 105mm guns in these later Shermans, often easy to identify due to the difference in the back of the Turret. The vehicles were re-engined with new running gears and transmissions and were again up-armored. The Israelis designated them the M-51, but internationally, again, they were known as the Isherman which was short for 'Israeli Sherman.'
The Israeli Tank forces were mostly made up of either M-51s or Sho'ts. Then there were the M48s and M60s, Magach 1-5 for the M48 and Magach 6 and 7 for the M60. The AMX-13 was withdrawn from service for having a weak gun and thin armor by 1970. There was an attempt to acquire the British Chieftain, but the British withdrew from that deal, leading the Israelis to eventually develop the Merkeva Mk1.
As for captured Tanks? Well it's a list of who and what of just about every Tank there could have been, even some WW2-era Italian Tanks and Tankettes, too! The ones that lasted the longest were some Soviet designs, the T-54/55 being the chief vehicle, but due to their small size, as you noted, they were extremely unpopular with Israeli crews and their safety systems left much to be imagined by the Israelis.
As such, most Soviet Tanks were either scrapped or phased out into other service rather quickly, such as APCs, where they were still complained about due to their small size, or into other areas of use. Eventually all of these converted vehicles were also phased completely out of service altogether.
Israeli forces captured a number of Soviet T-62s in the Yom Kippur War, but never seriously considered keeping them as they only kept operational enough, for the amount of ammunition and spare parts the Israelis captured during the war.
(It should be noted that a platoon of 7 Israeli Tanks fought off about 100+ Syrian T-62s, destroying or disabling most for the loss of 5 Sho'ts. The Sho'ts entire Company was facing almost 500 T-62s. The Israeli Company lost much of its strength, but nearly destroyed all the Syrian T-62s on its own.)
Likely a number of short comings with Soviet Tank designs. Too small, Gun Elevation/Depressment was poor, safety failings (T-62 apparently had a notorious reputation for ripping men's arms off with their autoloaders in just Arab service alone), difficult to upgrade, and were typically subpar to Western Tanks as a general rule. That last one was mostly because they were generally the 'Monkey Units' or weapons that were intentionally designed and built to much lower standards and would have cost too much to re-engineer into First Rate Vehicles.
Tanks were designed as infantry support vehicles from the start. Large scale tank battles are a rarity yet necessary at times.
Although this may be Armor original mission, the primary purpose of modern tanks is to defeat enemy tanks.
I cannot imagine an AT-TE moving at 60kmph
You always talk about AT-AT and AT-TE when talking about tanks but I never hear anything about the TX-130, or has that all been thrown into the forgotten unknown region of legands?
The tanks in WWI were slow because they were initially intended to have infantry keep up with them.
At the very beginning of tank development, the WW1 Germans considered using legs for their A7V tank prototypes. They did not pursue this design for a variety of reasons. I do wonder though, what that would look like. I imagine it would probably be quite squat and low to the ground, with a plodding sort of gate.
Chassis that became first German produced tank was designed primarily as a artillery tractor. A7V was decent in terms of mobility on most terrain, but stereotypical no man's land on western front was edge case where far better were British tanks, as A7V had far smaller possible area where tracks could propel vehicle through mud
Think it would have been cool if the SPAA was based on the hull of a Turbo Tank. Would have made a lot more sense than a bunch of little feet
I would compare the AT-TE to the Char B1 Bis, multiple guns, big armor, vulnerable movement units, and massive firepower if facing forwards. I would also note the faults of the Bis as to why the AT-TE was not great, and the design of the Bis with Star Wars tech and armor would be much better in design than the AT-TE personally. Feel free to argue with me if you want if you think a tank fits it better.
Technically, a tank without a rotating turret (NR-N99) isn't a tank. It's a tank destroyer. Germany made a lot of tank destroyers on tank chassis in WWII because they were cheaper, lower profile and you could put on a bigger gun because you didn't need the hardware to rotate it. Minor point. Good video.
Technically... *laughs in Swedish S-tanks*
So how do you classify vehicles such as 2A1 Gwoździk, M10 Wolverine or Panzerhaubitze 2000 - all of them have rotating turret. Or en rebours - is Strv 103 a tank or tank destroyer as you called such vehicle
When will British ben will restart
Being on the videos
Hes on gen films lately
Hey I just noticed that the AT TEs in ep 2 didn't have turret gunners, at least on one of them
As yes Jedi Allan is here and the vid is about tanks this is a good sign.
If you wanna beat Chechens, you gotta get a good interior decorator.
Okay, I have a radically new design idea for Star Wars armoured vehicles: Antigrav repulsors AND legs. Wanna go fast or over a body of water obstructing a direct route? Fly my pretties. Some dipshit wants you to assault a vertical cliff a couple hundred meters high? Honestly just call in dropships ... LEGS I mean, yes, legs. Have the tanks climp a nearly 90° vertical cliff, great idea, amazing, woohoo~
Also got a revolutionary active defense system idea to protect those new tank-thingies from enemy blasterfire! You just take a lightsaber, mkay ... you put that lightsaber on a real juiced up spinner, mkay and *WHIRRR* it goes spinning around like superfast and it will deflect a good chunk of incoming blaster fire. Just put enough of those on your vehicle for sufficient coverage of critical sections and viola: mechanized Jedi tank!
Big brain design boyz!
Great Video man. XD Thanks for sharing with us. :)
Is that the "Fury" M4 Sherman tank at that Thumbnail?
M4 Firefly, yes
Michelangelo Buonarroti
That’s a M4A2E8.
@@robobo2226 technically an M4A2 76 W HVSS modified to look as much like an M4A3 76 W HVSS as possible. It is indeed Fury, currently at the Tank Museum in the UK.
@@jacobscott1433 it's an m4a2e8 76w
@@TANKCRAZY1 the e8 designation was the expirmental designator for the Horizontal Volute Suspension System. The service model was M4a2 76 (W) HVSS.
I would caution; screening tanks with infantry, to protect against enemy infantry, is a great idea. But the idea of an "independent" tank that could use multiple gun turrets to "screen" itself was shown historically to be a failure, such as with the Vickers Independent tank and derivative models (such as the Soviet T-35 or American M2 Medium Tank, or the various British multi-turreted tanks (such as the Cruiser Mk I.).
That is largely due to technology, though. The funny thing is that tanks are now getting additional turrets in the form of Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)... add a computer that can autonomously track and engage targets in a combat environment and you get something akin to what the various multi-turreted tanks were trying to achieve. ;)
What about the Republic's TX-130 Sabre tank?
Have you done a video about what if the rebels captured the death star
Do a what if domino squad survived rishi
Thanks for the info. More material for a fan fic.
Have you ever heard the tragedy of King Tiger the Heavy?
I thought not. It's not a story the Allied would tell you. It's a German legend. King Tiger was a heavy tank from Germany, so powerful and so armoured he could use the upper glacis to influence the battlefield to protect the Reich. He had such a knowledge of the armoured side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.
Kuba Król unfortunately gave his users everything he had. And his fuel tanks ran empty in his sleep. It’s ironic. He could protect others from dying, but not himself.
You hit the nail on the head!
You have repulsor lifts. I'd say tanks are obsolete in the Star Wars universe now that equivalent firepower can basically fly around and be protected while doing so.
Correction: Centurion tanks are Cold War era; they did not exist until after ww2
The strongest armor Ever Used in Star Wars is Plot Armor :)
I always have wondered why the Republic didn't have any non walking armor.
TX-130
Juggernauts!
They did. In fact majority of vehicles weren't walkers. Clone walkers were designed to be universal as doctrine demanded them to be moved between planets and usually they were dropped so they didn't need to be that fast. Empire focus on them mostly due to stupid Tarkin doctrine and supposed fear caused by towering machines. We rarely see ground combat beside that, though.
ive always liked the AT-TE, despite its more.... obvious.. flaws, a lot moreso than the AT-AT.
Tanks beat everything, except plot armor. I would love to see better vehicles in SW.
The new movies don't give me much hope
A10 goes BRRRRT!
@@custink22 now that is true, but the A-10 is a tank on the sky so in theory it is still true.
@@luisemoralesfalcon4716 good point. I stand corrected.
The heat cannot be protected by land mines because of its feet
“Avoiding tracked vehicles” *cough cough persuader tank*
*Starts playing Ghost Division in the background*
Tactical Droid: "Why do I hear boss music?"
B1: Sir, we spotted a large group of republic Walkers heading our way from the back."
Tactical Droid: "Wait, what?! How did an entire WALKER COLLUMN flank us undetected?!"
@@olafgurke4699 B1: "Wait sir Those aren't walkers! Those are fast and heavily armed tracked tanks!"
@@pyeitme508 I actually meant a Platoon of AT-TE's, tho.
The Panzer Elite never retreat.
Tank warfare means hit them hard and hit them fast
STANDING IN THE LINE OF FIRE!
32 WILL LEAD THE WAY!
COMING OVER TRENCH AND WIRE!
GOING THROUGH THE ENDLESS GRAY!
Sorry, had to.
Hello there!
General Kenobi!
You are a bold one.
What happened to Darth Maul’s legs?
The grew a new maul
the m1 abrams goes 70 MPH not kph
The republic also had the TX -130 what about it?
You do not need more effective armour if your gunner is able to blast enemy rockets out of the sky like this guy on Saleucamie ^^
um didn't the atte actually have armour that dispersed the energy of attacks that hit it and was damned hard to actually penetrate
Yes, weak points were the joints of the leg. However if you go into the lore, the republic’s vehicles were designed to be replaced by better versions with the coming of the empire. Sidious want to make sure in the event of clones resisting the data chip, that his new army would have better gear to more easily take them down.
Werent their more practical tanks that the republic and empire used in legends?
Big thenk for using metric!
Could an A-10 warthog take out an AT-AT? A separatist tank?
Outright destruction - unlikely, but possible, especially when facing lightly armoured targets
Damaging - very likely, disabling damage possible
Disruption of armoured column with these vehicles - very likely if AA/AD systems haven't intercepted such aircraft
@Gaius Wyrden Actually it might the gun might not penetrate the armor but doesn't mean the other ordinance it can carry won't do damage.
*Umbaran Mobile Heavy Cannons appear*
Rex: We've got a problem!
*Umbaran Mobile Heavy Cannons start killing the 501st.*
Rex: Pull back! Pull back now!
*The 501st try to destroy the Umbaran tanks with rockets, but show no effect.*
501st Trooper: Rocket launchers don't work on these things!
American soldier or marine: "THEN USE DA JAVELIN ANTI-TANK MISSILES OR TOW MISSILES JACKASS!"
@@pyeitme508 "CALL IN THE FU**ING AIRSUPPORT!"
@@jangustl_wt2358 They did that in the episode
@@pyeitme508 Yeah, sure
RUclips: Historical Content? Demonitize!
Fun fact when the first "modern" tank prototype came out it was called the little wille the second prototype being very similar to the mark I was called the big wille... for obvious reasons the British government changed the name for later tanks to mark I yet many tank crews still called them there willes.........
Want more facts im more then happy too
If your tanks get destroyed but the turret survives, you just put it in the ground and call it a bunker lol
That is actually real combat tactic.
*disabled, if destroyed then most likely equipment in said turret is unusable
Tanks, you're welcome.
Was that no mans land clip from war horse?
Call me surprised this video not sponsored by World of Tanks. Missed opportunity.
The entire Star Wars military doctrine would be scraped by a real general. With only line of sight weapons a mobile artillery like the M-270 MLRS could wipe out the entire army with a steady and organized retreat and fire tactics.
i wouldnt call he atte a mbt its more of and apc the republic did have a hover tank though
No love for the TX-130???
Good job
I always find it ironic that a tank is used to protect your men but you need men to protect the tanks. Tanks are just self propelled artillery .
Biggest regret was becoming an Airman instead of a tanker.
What are the names of the ww1 movies in the beginning except 1917?