Which Tank is Designed Better AAT vs ATTE?

Today we put the Armored Assault Tank up against the All Terrain Tactical Enforcer, although these vehicles were not designed for the same roles. These were the most commonly used armored vehicles by each faction, during the clone was.

Follow our Host
ALLEN XIE
INSTAGRAM AXIEFILMS
TIKTOK AXIEFILMS

[kelvere]

"your family lineage is... moist" is not a sentence not expected and would very happily not hear again lmaoooo

[OrionInSpace]

“Those walkers are designed for terrain not space”

Never change Admiral never change😂

[thegamingkaiser]

Allen's Star Wars vehicle guru arc is my favorite arc in all of Star Wars so far.

[HeadlessChickenTO]

Funny enough, they would work well together. Use the ATTE as long-range support whole the AAT can provide close range cover. And both can move together at the same pace as you push your firing line forward.

[RedXlV]

Gun depression is less important on the AAT than it would be for a conventional tank, because as a hovertank the AAT can also tilt its hull to point the gun further down. Much like a real-life tank with hydropneumatic suspension can do (such as the Japanese Type 74 and Type 10 MBTs, and the Swedish Strv 103).

[sethb]

_As a Rebel, _ I'd take the AAT almost every time. Smaller size and omnidirectional repulsor movement favor those hit and run tactics, and while the ordnance launchers are strange and ammunition would be precious, being able to pull up and fire six shells at once before leaving is going to lend outsized punch to surprise attacks - and those shells were as customizable as what the AT-TE had for its mass driver with the full range of plasma, armor piercing, high explosive, and other rounds.

Not being able to aim those as easily is a definite minus, but the big draw is the smaller logistics tail. The AT-TE was made to be fielded as part of an army; it's big, complicated, tons of moving parts, large crew, with slow turning rates and ability to get out. They worked well in maneuver warfare with repair and supply depots and lifters to pick them up, but if I didn't have all of that stuff, I'd pick the tank that backyard speeder mechanics can keep maintained.

[WillAustin-lf]

The AAT fits the rebel combat doctrine of hit and run tactics. The AT-TE would be used in a defensive role keeping vital HQs and other areas of importance secure.

[thorpeaaron]

Let's be honest guys moisture farmers are the backbone of society.

[Forgotten_construct]

In order to fire the rockets, the AAT can probably selectivly strengthen and weaken areas of its repuslor to create an arc for the rockets
Edit: reading up on the wiki, the AAT is a energized projectile launcher which makes it very similar to the AT-TEs main gun

[minhao]

4:15 the t-54 didn't have an autoloader, only the t-64 and foward. The reason they are so low is because of the very flat terrain on eastern europe as seen in Ukraine. By making the tank low profile the chance of it getting hit reduces

[alecbaldwin]

Hey Allen! Great video, one thing you missed on the AT-TE, it has inertia dampeners, so its crew and passengers can even survive violent falls from extreme heights, or if the walker is in a gallop the crew won't be thrown around too badly. Pretty sweet, especially when operating in hostile environments and in vacuum.

[santiagoberea]

The reflection on the table matching the background or vice-versa is spectacular

[donovanchau]

The T-54/55 and T-62 didn’t have an autoloader and autoloader vehicles don’t necessarily have to be low profile and compact. The Soviet tank design doctrine evolved from the T-34-85 to the T-44 and then to the T-54/55 series. During WW2, Soviet tanks (looking at mainly T-34 and IS series) were known to be rather cramped which made the tanks decently well armored despite being smaller than their opponents (they’re also a lot cheaper with less material used). T-54/55 came along following this design style but also came with a wider turret for a larger gun. It wasn’t until the T-64 that the Soviets got an autoloader into one of their tanks, it just followed the same low profile, well armored, harder to hit design of older designs (they’re also designed by the same guy, Alexander Morozov, who designed the T-44, T-55, and he did work on the T-34 too). Tanks like the Leclerc and Abrams X demonstrator have autoloaders despite being just as large as your normal NATO style MBTs.

[acd-combatives]

I like how you incorporate real world battle comparisons.

[cav-]

2:05 okay, now I see the why the whole twi’lek appeal is a thing. 28 years after seeing one the first time, I never ever ever noticed that.

[tedrex]

So the AAT is the Sherman of the SW universe, just "good enough" in all areas but the most useful tank if you have a massive economy and the resources available to out produce your enemy.

[tankenjoyer]

I like how you mention autoloaders and then immediately go to T-55

pretty funny

[kilroywashere]

I like the AAT because it is definitely a get-in get-out tank. Its long, accurate range allows for sniping with it or even, as shown, in an artillery useage, especially behind cover with a scout to locate ramge. I would also argue the hover capability makes them incredibly mobile as you can move with a lot faster out of the way of incoming projectiles.

[SomeOrdinaryJanitor]

something to take into consideration is while the main cannon on the AAT is limited in its frontal gun depression, being a hover tank gives it increased mobility, and the side mounted autocannons aren't restricted in depression.

[Elderrion]

These vehicle videos are helping me write a star wars fanfic