No, probably not. For one thing, who are they trying to intimidate? The Ewoks? The Empire doesn’t care about “intimidating” a bunch of stone age savages.
The AT-ATs are there to defend against a full ground assault against the shield installation. The Rebels opted (at least in part because of the heavy armor guarding the main installation) for a commando raid targeting a smaller “back door” entrance.
He’s also a Jedi, who were always a bit outside the normal military command structure, even when they were commanding armies during the Clone War. Jedi reported to other Jedi, not the military, and if the Force told them to go haring off on some side mission, they were usually allowed to do that (and it usually turned out to be a good idea anyway.) The Rebel Alliance was consciously trying to recreate old Republic customs and laws, so treating their one Jedi as a sort of super commando who can write his own mission briefs tracks with what the Jedi were before the rise of the Empire.
They could have added two legs to the AT-AT. Think a mechanized elephant is intimidating? I’d crap my pants if I saw a 100’ tall mechanized COCKROACH coming at me!
Weirdly, the prequels included a “proto-AT AT” which had six legs, and over all looks a lot more functional as a military vehicle. But it’s a lot smaller, and lacks the “Oh shit” factor of the full-sized walkers.
On the subject of tripability, the old West End Games Star Wars RPG had a bit of lore around that. The AT-ATs were a vanity project for some Moff. An Imperial officer in charge of testing new weapons and equipment spotted the flaw in the design immediately, and during testing demonstrated that they were vulnerable to being tripped by a small craft equipped with a tow cable. The Moff in charge of the project buried the report and reassigned the officer to some shit backwater post. So, the officer copied his report and jumped sides to join the Rebels. The Snow Speeders were equipped with cables specifically based on that one officer’s recommendations.
Back to AT-ATs: how do they get them on the ground? Ginormous landing craft? Why didn’t the rebels use fighters to shoot them first? Or surface to air missiles? Ion cannon?
It’s not like they can land that far away. They almost move slower than I walk. “Well, the AT-ATs have landed. They’ll attack by tomorrow night.”
Or why doesn’t the Empire use TIE fighters to bomb the open air rebel gun emplacements? Yeah yeah “it ain’t that kind of movie.” Well, it should be!
I could probably make a case that the same kind of fandom principles apply to any human fan endeavor. Take sports. It’s not originally an activity that was intended to be analyzed to death. But now AI has led to a statistics analysis breakthrough that allows sportscasters to pull any random set of statistics out at any time. They can tell you a quarterback’s throwing accuracy broken down by weather patterns, time in the season, or who the receivers are.
And now what do fans do? Fantasy sports teams. You make a list of your favorite players and then rack up the stats for each individual during they respective games and somehow tabulate that into a score to compare against your buddies for their team- choosing ability. For money.
Yes, SF fans overanalyze their favorite stories. As I said, I think it is a type of participation, a way to delve into the world of the story to keep the enjoyment when the story is over.
It’s explicitly stated the Rebels have shield generators to protect them from aerial bombardment or lasers from space. The AT-ATs were carrying the troops below the shields to desroy the generators.
Yes, how did they land the AT-ATs? Shut up, they just did.
And the answer to those questions helps determine the engineering of the AT-AT: it has to fit into whatever shipping and deployment system used for them.
This seems pretty self-evident: they didn’t shoot down the landing craft because they couldn’t - the Imperial defenses on their landing zone were too strong.
Yeah, probably went something like that. Is this even meant to be a nitpick?
Literally explained on screen: the Rebel shield protected them from an aerial assault, which is why the Imperials had to launch a ground attack.
I’m all for picking apart a piece of media, but you also have to recognize that the film isn’t going to stop the plot for fifteen minutes just to explain why all the alternate plans they’re not using don’t work. You don’t watch Saving Private Ryan and ask “Why didn’t they use submarines to land all those troops on Normandy?” There’s a reason that wouldn’t work, and it doesn’t need to be included in the movie, because the movie isn’t about the plans they didn’t use.
Even in the movies, it works once. Not even the guy with Jedi powers was able to pull it off. It’s not exactly the magic bullet solution that people make it out to be.
Indeed, that’s exactly why Vader force-choked that one guy, because he brought the fleet out of hyperspace too close to Hoth, which allowed to Rebels to detect their presence and raise the shield.
At the time, I just accepted that as, “Admiral Ozzel made a tactical blunder, and Vader killed him for it.”
Over time, as I thought about it more, “coming out of hyperspace too close to Hoth” as being why the Rebels were prematurely alerted to their presence just felt strange to me. What they did – come out of hyperspace close to the planet – would have meant that the Rebels on the planet wouldn’t have been aware of the fleet until it was right on top of them.
Conversely, doing the opposite – come out of hyperspace some distance away – doesn’t seem to me any more strategically sound. It’s a fleet consisting of a massive Super Star Destroyer, and several Star Destroyers; they don’t have cloaking devices, and they are damned hard to hide. Coming out of hyperspace further away – and then having to approach the planet at sublight speed – seemingly would have given the Rebels more time to pick up the Imperial ships on their sensors, before they got into firing range.
I’m sure that there is some fan-wanked explanation for it somewhere. And I know I’m overthinking a line in a series that is full of goofy bits like that.
I think Vader wanted to sneak in under the shield’s range and attack from within. Instead they zapped into clear view outside its range. They can still land for a ground attack, but not deploy turbolasers from space.
No, actually, I’m not…at least, I don’t think so. It’s a question of when/where you emerge from hyperspace, and into “realspace,” as ships in hyperspace are generally portrayed to not be detectable/trackable by ships and bases in realspace.
Whether it’s the emergence from hyperspace, or the fact that the ships are now in realspace, they go from “undetectable” to “detectable” at that moment.
This is where nerd me feels compelled to reply, “among the many qualities of Star Destroyers, stealth is not one of them.”
Maybe the screenwriter who wrote that line had some tactic in mind that has eluded me for decades. Or maybe I’ve been thinking about it far too hard for all this time.
My thought is yes, destroyers are detectable while moving in. But scanning everywhere is hit or miss until they’re close. Space is big, planets are small, ships are tiny.
But maybe emerging from hyperspace shakes the whole of realspace nearby. Like an earthquake of space. That can be detected independently of whatever emerged from hyperspace and caused the spacequake.
By emerging close, the fleet caused a detectably large and close spacequake that let the rebels aim all their sensors and defenses directly at their attackers.
Had they emerged at an undetectable dstance and tried to sneak in undetected they might have failed. Or might have succeeded.
OTOH, by cannonballing in adjacent to their objective they were observed, tracked targets from the git-go.
It’s one theory and worth every penny you’ve paid for it.
