Originally posted by PwnedX Wings have torpedoes, dude.
To fast. Thats like using a fighter to strafe a building. Much easier to use light armor/gunship.Now that i think of it, snowspeeders are more like gunships than light armor.
No difference except lighter armor, faster, more guns, and a cannon that is heavier.
A quick clip of the last dude of Rambo's height to attempt fighting a walker:
Still to fast. They are starfighters, fastest shit they have, in a place where 50 miles is nothing. They move more than likely in excess of 2000 mph, in order to do anything. Atmosphere will slow it down, but if they go in for a strafing run, they will slow down, yes, but the timing required to hit a neck on a moving target from several miles away, even with a targeting computer, would take some amazing flying. Only a couple people could do that if they had to. Stands to reason therefore even if they had known that, only Rogue would have attempted it.
And yeah, i knew they had torpedoes, but they come in limited supply and move slower than lasers. Thats like having a fighter fire a missile at a tank from a couple hundred feet in the air, even with radar guidance its not even close to an assured hit.
Originally posted by PwnedMhm, so an X Wing, when it comes to speed, it's all or nothing? I could swear I saw them going at different speeds.
Still to fast. They are starfighters, fastest shit they have, in a place where 50 miles is nothing. They move more than likely in excess of 2000 mph, in order to do anything. Atmosphere will slow it down, but if they go in for a strafing run, they will slow down, yes, but the timing required to hit a neck on a moving target from several miles away, even with a targeting computer, would take some amazing flying. Only a couple people could do that if they had to. Stands to reason therefore even if they had known that, only Rogue would have attempted it.And yeah, i knew they had torpedoes, but they come in limited supply and move slower than lasers. Thats like having a fighter fire a missile at a tank from a couple hundred feet in the air, even with radar guidance its not even close to an assured hit.
As i said, they slow down in atmosphere, and undoubtedly the Empire supports their ground operations.
Now, quit this string of argument, Rambo doesnt get an X-Wing as well, there are none to steal, so this point is moot, as its the same universe stuff, and X-Wing could take out any Earth armor as well.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did you not see the still of the video? THE AT-AT WAS NOT DESTROYED BY A SHOT TO THE NECK. Shot to the front of the body, after it took a massive fall.
✅
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Oh yeah, the body, which is FULLY ARMORED......The body, which is stronger than the neck.Thanks!!! 😱
After it crashed and by the blaster fire of a snow-speeder.
So you're back to where you began, having to prove that an RPG is equal too or greater than a snow-speeder's guns and the fall the AT-AT took.
Go.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girthhaermm The armor was still intact, dude. Now, before, when we were talking about the neck, your argument had some merit, bit the SOLID armor of the AT AT's body being weakened by the fall.......until it falls and is fu**ed up.....like your apparent post-IQ. 😂
Fail. F-. Off to detention, you.
RJ, structural damage from a fall would be negligible, yes. That shot WAS, however, a horizontal shot between the plates, which penetrated into the area where the engine was, as evidenced by the explosion. More than likely, larger blaster cannons fire explosive rounds (CANNONS being a key word in that logic)
Originally posted by PwnedWhere the ENGINE was?
RJ, structural damage from a fall would be negligible, yes. That shot WAS, however, a horizontal shot between the plates, which penetrated into the area where the engine was, as evidenced by the explosion. More than likely, larger blaster cannons fire explosive rounds (CANNONS being a key word in that logic)
BETWEEN the plates?
Proof, and proof, please.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
haermm The armor was still intact, dude. Now, before, when we were talking about the neck, your argument had some merit, bit the SOLID armor of the AT AT's body being weakened by the fall.
No, it's a logical conclusion. It was said that the AT-AT armour was too strong for the snow-speeder to damage. Why they went with the cable-trip move. AFTER it fell, a snow-speeder was able to destroy it.
We are to assume:
A) That AT-AT armour wasn't that strong and they went for the cable-trip for lulz
B) The fall damaged it enough where blaster-fire was effective.
Which sounds more reasonable?
Originally posted by Robtard
No, it's a logical conclusion. It was said that the AT-AT armour was too strong for the snow-speeder to damage. Why they went with the cable-trip move. AFTER it fell, a snow-speeder was able to destroy it.We are to assume:
A) That AT-AT armour wasn't that strong and they went for the cable-trip for lulz
B) The fall damaged it enough where blaster-fire was effective.
Which sounds more reasonable?
That the neck armor is nowhere near as strong.