I’d argue they are since in every instance we see them being used they are used as tanks. People in starwars have described them as tanks, but many will still argue they’re not. Yes, they carry troop, but they’re also used for laying down heavy fire and in ways typically seen as tanks. What’s the verdict?
Comments
Reminders for Commenters:
All responses must be A) sincere, B) polite, and C) strictly watsonian in nature. If “watsonian” or “doylist” is new to you, please review the full rules here.
No edition wars or gripings about creators/owners of works. Doylist griping about Star Wars in particular is subject to permanent ban on first offense.
We are not here to discuss or complain about the real world.
Questions about who would prevail in a conflict/competition (not just combat) fit better on r/whowouldwin. Questions about very open-ended hypotheticals fit better on r/whatiffiction.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The modern equivalent is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
No. The few times we see them in action they are being used as troop transports, that’s the role they played in Hoth after all. That they have guns installed doesn’t change their primary role.
Also they aren’t a tank, they’re siege towers. They don’t have the mobility or firepower to be a tank.
It’s an Assault Transport. It’s meant to ferry troops to the battle field and then support them in assaulting positions, especially fixed positions. It can be used to assault other vehicles, but it’s not great for that. The head has limited traverse and it’s not very maneuverable. There are many other vehicles in the Star Wars line that can beat one if they can use their maneuverability to get to its sides or rear (and that includes rotating weapon systems).
Tanks generally are used to assault enemy armor first then exploit openings in enemy lines to surround troops and generally require infantry support to keep enemy infantry and light vehicles from their flanks. They can be used to blow up fixed positions or dug in infantry, but that’s not their primary function.
The two types of vehicles are entirely different in operation, deployment, objective, and design. AT-ATs are not Tanks.
They’re much closer to a Bradley with a heavier canon than they are to a Abrams that just happens to have room in the rear for a Infantry squad. And that’s how we see them used in every instance: they support infantry in an assault on enemy positions or troops. At Hoth and earlier at Scarif they deploy infantry, then fire at the enemy artillery/machine guns and then support individual advancements of troops past defensive positions like trenches.
On the battle of Battle of Naboo, the Droid tanks pour fire into the shield system then strike artillery and massed troop positions. then they break through the infantry and start surrounding the Gungans, while Droid Infantry stays near by and holds off the Gungans (especially their cavalry and demolition units), then helps secure the surrounded troops.
The https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/TX-225_Occupier Occupier is much closer to a Tank (even if it was moronically deployed in a city) and it was used as one. Again, it was sent in to destroy a troop formation, take out fortified rebels, and required Infantry support to keep the Rebels from getting close to it and disabling it.
Think of a bradly
It’s both, essentially.
It carries troops, so it’s a transport. It’s got beefy guns and bulky armor, so it can function like a tank.
I think it’s kinda silly, but you have to remember that this isn’t a weapon of war. It’s a weapon of terror. After the empire was founded, it didn’t go to war, and it was mostly unchallenged in martial might.
Sure, there were minor scuffles, but once they deployed some real force (like a star destroyer or two), things usually got really quiet, really fast.
Oh boy. The argument about whether an armored fighting vehicle is or is not a tank.
It all comes down to what the intended purpose is, regardless of what it winds up being capable of in a pinch. A knife can be an entrenching tool in a pinch, but that’s not the intended purpose. Since one of the AT parts of the AT-AT stands for Armored Transport, and one of the most prominent examples of the vehicle in use shows it transporting troops, I’d say that transport is the primary purpose.
But if you are the kind of person who says a big gun that can drive around on its own and has enough armor to shrug off small arms fire is a tank, then, sure, it can be a tank.
it’s a troop transport with a big ass gun on the front.
I guess(not a military expert) it’s like a mortar mixed with a troop transport.
We will consult the Tank Alignment Charts:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fzwmzch431zu41.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2Foqvh4OAhacdzr6G0RramRTMNZIn4WYzOTFsj7hwDc6k.png%3Fwidth%3D960%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Ddd4460e6594bbb9100ae4bfc8c5efab543311aa4
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fthe-astra-militarum-tank-alignment-chart-v0-yus3nfu54oyb1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3De0038c6d52d311808eeade994727cf9ce91785d7
It’s closer to an IFV than a tank in our sense. It’s a troop transport that can stay in the fight.