The Empire's tactics (and 'tanks') make no sense


Let's check what the Empire had the last time; a MOON-sized 'Death Star' that can explode planets quickly. Wow!

That kind of technological level must've taken ages to develop, right? When we think of weapons evolution, we probably start with rocks and sticks, move on to swords and spears, and so on until we come to the modern weaponry of guns, tanks, missiles and other realistic stuff (we'll forget the 'official story' claims for now, as they can neither be proven nor disproven, although the story has claims of physical impossibility, as in 'melting eyes').

From there, we can assume, The Empire's weapons research and development plus manufacturing ended up creating some pretty impressive 'light-based' stuff, although why light-based bullets would move SLOWER than the supposedly more primitive metal bullets, I can never understand.

In any case, inbetween 'metal bullets' and 'Death Star Ray Weapon'..

(which doesn't require a whole moon-sized facility/structure around it, now does it? Why couldn't they just build the CANNON itself and forget the megalomanic moon manufacturing?)

..there MUST have been similar progression as from rock to slingshot to bow and arrow to gun and so on.. right? RIGHT?

So they have this amazing cannon that can shoot a really powerful burst of energy in ray form throughout space for probably hundreds of millions of kilometers, but if they LOSE that particular, super advanced weapons, they..

..have to resort to those clumsy, badly designed, slow, massive 'walker' things?

WHAT?

Compared to just 'modern day' weaponry, even if we forget that F-19 actually existed as a superior stealth fighter, if we only think about 'conventional' weapons, this planet has superfast jet fighters, air-to-ground missiles and BOMBS (!), cannons (even shown in this movie), rocket launchers, tanks, attack helicopters, ground troops that can be dropped (deployed?) from a plane or helicopter to ANY spot on the map easily..

..The Empire has slow-moving, massive, easy-to-spot-from-kilometers-away type tanks that can't shoot very far, and that can be easily disposed of, and that actually would break the physical laws with being massive and heavy, and thus needing ENORMOUS amount of power to move their slow-inertia 'legs'.

What's the advantage here again over the things I mentioned?

Also, surely - SURELY !! - something as powerful as The Empire, with the destroyers that never destroy anything, have heard of and applied something called 'ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT'. Surely!

How the heck do you go from these stupidly clumsy and downright useless 'walker' things to 'being able to destroy a planet from hundreds of millions of kilometers away with one ray blast' without having SOMETHING more advanced and tactical inbetween, than slowly-moving 'walking things' that make no sense anyway, but especially considering this 'tech progression'.

Did The Empire NOT evolve their weaponry through 'tanks, airplanes, bombing, missiles, drones' etc. until they finally arrive at that massive cannon and 'Death Star'?

Did they skip a few step between 'completely useless, slow tanks deposited ridiculously far away from the target so they can slowly and cinematically creep towards it' and 'Amazingly Powerful Advanced Ray Cannon that can destroy a planet almost instantly with one ray burst'?

My point is, any group, entity, system, government, country, planet or entity that has vast armies, massive destroyers, and can build a 'Death Star', shouldn't have to revert to such stupidity and clumsy, useless non-tanks and forget that 'orbital bombardment' is a thing, just because they lose their most advanced weapon.

You can't have The Empire be powerful, menacing and have the most highly advanced weaponry at the same time as you show them being clunky, clumsy, having no air force, no bombs, no long-range cannons, and no orbital bombardment that would've destroyed the rebel base with precise strikes without anyone having to go on the surface to slowly die.

None of The Empire's tactical or weapons-side make any sense, as they're shown to be 'competent' and 'extremely incompetent' at the same time. I hate when movies do this just because it's 'cinematic' or something - someone should've at least given The Empire some TIE Fighters, so they could've shot and .. wait, don't they actually BOMB the asteroid later in the movie?! What gives? Why no bombs in the Hoth battle? WHy no orbital anything? Why no missiles, rockets and such that would've destroyed the base instantly?

NONE OF IT MAKES ANY SENSE!

reply

TL;DR

reply

They might look clumsy.
But they also might be cheap to build and deploy.
And they do "win" on Hoth.
So why the hatred?

reply

Yes, sometimes you need to take ground that is fortified and heavily defended. You can't just always blow up planets or large sections of them when you want or need to secure real estate. They were fearsome and decent weapons. But of course in combat you are going to take your losses.

I would like to see Ukraine have some of these massive AT-ATs when they are trying to retake open ground. They would be a game-changer over there!

reply

It looks like they would have no trouble to walk from Kyev straight to the cremlin and shoot Putin in his ass.

But that is also true of a child with a slingshot on a donkey's back.

reply

LMAO! Yeah, I think the AT-ATs would work very well in eastern Ukraine. I'm sure those tough Ukrainians would figure out how to use them pretty quick. Those guys are a quick study.

Hopefully Putin will get his due here real soon.

reply

Hear hear!

reply

you have a valid point, when the US developed nuclear weapons, we got rid of all tanks

reply

Let's distill this wall of text, and focus on the possibilities of the Empire in attacking the Hoth Rebel Base.

1. Death Star

Breaking out the good ol' DS and blowing the planet up could have worked if...

a) the Empire had a Death Star in stock (they don't, it was blown up by a farmboy recently - oopsie)
b) the goal of the mission allowed such approach (it did not, since Vader wanted to capture said farmboy and his companions to make an example out of them)

2. TIE Bombers / Missiles / orbital bombardment, etc.

You have a point here - bombing the trench or the ion cannon would have been a good idea. However, the speeders and spaceship hangars were positioned underground, so bombing the surface would not have destroyed the base. But destroying the base is not the goal of the mission. The goal is to capture the rebel figureheads. Hence the need for surface attack.

3. Fast moving tanks / surface vehicles

So your final point is: if they are taking a "boots on the ground" approach to this (aligned with the goal of the mission), then why are they using the slow moving AT-ATs, and why not something faster. Well, part of the reason is the cinematic effect, yes. But I can cite two practical reasons for using the walkers. One is paralyzing the rebels with fear. All Empire tech has this effect, see Star Destroyers, Stormtrooper helmets, and Vader's iconic gear. It's all designed to be intimidating. So that is one reason. The other is they truly believed that the walkers are not destructible by any means. Their armor was not penetrable by any known means at the time. They did not think that the rebels would be able to harm them in any way - in their eyes, it was guaranteed they will reach the base and capture / kill everyone inside.

reply

Only one thing foiled the plan: the fact that the rebels could evacuate the base before the Empire had the chance to finalize the perimeter around the planet. If there is one weakness in the opening of TESB, it's this.

Of course we get an explanation for this: the fleet was pulled out of hyperspeed too early. This servers a double purpose - it creates an opening for the rebels, and shows how Vader treats mistakes.

reply

The battles in all the films are inspired by history and the classic films Lucas loved.The Battle of Hoth was a classic battle where the attackers charge forward, the defenders hold the line while some ride out of flu out to meet the attackers.

It looks better than a Death Star nuking planets.

reply

The Empire must be subject to some form of economics where it costs less to build the walkers versus hovering ships that can operate within a planet's atmosphere. That it is not possible or practical to conquer all powers that the Empire desires to have influence over. An understanding of economics usually does not not go hand in hand with writer's of sci-fi. Some are better at reconciling economics with military force than others. Roddenberry while not expressly stating so implies that the various races and planets throw in for the construction of star bases and starships. It was harder to understand the motivation of Glen Larson's Cylons who were mechanical beings in terms of operating even as an Empire. Most likely all the materials the Cylons needed for ships were not found on their home world. That diminishing returns comes into play when trying to conquer a revival power for an energy source for example. In any event George Lucas was influenced by old movies and the walkers were a nod to the British who made use of elephants in Southern Asia.

reply

Are you saying the British rode on elephants all the way to southern Asia to attack? Can elephants even swim? Great Britain is an island

reply

Are you saying that you do not understand the concept of leaving the island (GB) via ship or plane then picking up elephants in South Asia to use in the local theater militarily? Time for you to retire from this board.

reply

Oh, now I get it. Thanks for clarifying

reply

You did get it but for some strange reason you act stupid for attention, this is a movie board , we talk movies here, delete your account and go elsewhere,

reply

How can I delete your account?

reply

Ignore milsey he is a troll that says stupid things for attention, been doing it for years

reply

All the usual clowns in this thread including the OP

reply