Skip to main content

star wars - Is the AT-AT cockpit being a weak-point supported by canon?


In The Empire Strikes Back arcade game, AT-ATs can be destroyed by firing at their cockpits.


enter image description here


The AT-AT Wookieepedia page states that




The most vulnerable part of the walker was its flexible neck, which was susceptible to lighter blaster barrages. The legs were also somewhat unstable and could be tripped due to a high center of gravity, leaving the walker defenseless... The AT-AT also lacked armor covering on its underbelly, leaving the spot vulnerable to mounted guns or portable missile launchers.



There is no mention of a Rebel Snowspeeder being able to take out an AT-AT by aiming at the cockpit.


Is there any instance, canon or Legends, of this happening?



Answer



The first thing that I think is worth noting is that there is a deleted scene (an unfinished scene, to be more precise) for The Empire Strikes Back that features the AT-AT piloted by General Veers being destroyed by an errant snowspeeder (in case the time stamp on the video doesn't work, the relevant portion starts at 7:47):






As you can see in the video, the snowspeeder completely obliterated the entire "head" of the AT-AT in that animation. But that was from the speeder crashing directly into it - seemingly by accident - and not by using blasters, which undoubtedly would not deliver as much damage. Obviously, this contradicts what we see in the final cut of the movie, as the unfinished scene seems to show General Veers being killed, and his walker destroyed, before he could fire that fatal blast against the Rebels' shield generator. And Legends material indicate that Veers survived the Battle of Hoth. This is likely why the scene was never in any of the official cuts of the film; and the canonicity of deleted scenes pre-Disney was dependent on whether or not the content of those scenes conflicted with the film, according to the Holocron continuity database. If the respective deleted scenes were not in conflict, then they were considered to be G-Canon. Despite this, this does not mean that the viewport of an AT-AT wasn't a weak spot. We'll have to dig deeper into the lore to determine that.


So, on that note, it's worth pointing out that the viewports of AT-ATs, and other vehicles in the Star Wars universe (at least according to Legends), were made of "transparisteel," a transparent metal alloy that is stronger than normal glass. And, according to Canon, windows made from transparisteel could be made blaster-proof. However, the material is notably weaker than durasteel (the material that the rest of the AT-AT is made of, according to Legends). With that being said, it's entirely possible that it could be another weak spot in the walker's armor; but if so, it seems that it wasn't exploited very much, if ever at all (I could find no examples). It was likely too difficult to hit, and probably almost as ineffective, since the transparisteel was still strong enough to make it effectively blaster-proof (unless the blaster bolts came from heavier artillery, such as other AT-ATs).


Taking all of that into consideration, it makes sense that the viewport could potentially be exploited as a weak spot. But given the fact that this weakness was not exploited in The Empire Strikes Back, and the fact that I could not find any examples outside of the arcade game that you mentioned, I think it's fair to say that it probably was not exploited at all. In addition to that, it's unlikely that any of the characters involved in combat against an AT-AT would be unaware that transparisteel is weaker than durasteel; and the move to attempt to trip the AT-ATs was an act of improvisation on Luke's part, one that was still difficult to accomplish, and he wasn't even certain if it would work (as indicated here when he gave the order):



LUKE: Rogue Group, use your harpoons and tow cables. Go for the legs. It might be our only chance of stopping them. [emphasis added]



TL;DR My best guess as to why they neglected to strike specifically at the viewports in all of their runs would be that there was too great a risk of being shot down (as obtaining a clear and effective shot would require flying in straight at the AT-ATs head on, in full view of the walkers' high-powered cannons), and also an insignificant chance of successfully striking the viewport, let alone landing a sufficiently-damaging blow and taking the walker down that way.


UPDATE: This answer originally stated that General Veers is confirmed to have survived in both Canon and Legends. However, I have since discovered that the moment where the errant snowspeeder piloted by Derek Klivian (a.k.a. "Hobbie") crashed into and decapitated Veers' AT-AT Blizzard One is officially Canon (and featured in the now official novelization published since Disney's purchase of Star Wars). Despite this, it is technically not yet officially confirmed that Veers was killed during this incident, since this only happened in the novelization and not the film itself.


In fact, according to Wookieepedia's Canon entry on General Veers:




On October 2, 2017, during an interview with Ed Dolista for the Episode 256 of IndyCast, Julian Glover [the actor who portrayed Veers in The Empire Strikes Back] was asked by Dolista his opinion about Veers' fate. Glover stated that he thinks Veers may have survived since his apparent death happened offstage (although he is aware of Veers' fate in Glut's novelization) and that he could well be brought back if Lucasfilm wants.



This may seem strange, but it's actually not uncommon for future films to contradict the novelizations (even the film the novelization is adapted from will not always agree; this has happened since A New Hope was released). Pablo Hidalgo had a thread on Twitter that explained this:


https://imgur.com/a/w7ozc


Not to mention, retcons are not terribly uncommon either. For example, Boba Fett was not originally supposed to survive the sarlacc pit. George Lucas stated the following in the DVD commentary for Return of the Jedi:



In the case of Boba Fett's death, had I known he was gonna turn into such a popular character, I probably would've made it a little bit more exciting. Boba Fett was just another one of the minions, another one of the bounty hunters and bad guys. But, he became such a favorite of everybody's that, for having such a small part, uh he had a very large presence. And now that his history has been told in the first trilogy, y'know, it makes it even more of a misstep that we wouldn't make more out of the event of his defeat, because most people don't believe he died anyway. I'd contemplated putting in that extra shot where he climbs out of the hole, but y'know I figured that's . . . it doesn't quite fit, in the end.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir

the lord of the rings - Why is Gimli allowed to travel to Valinor?

Gimli was allowed to go to Valinor despite not being a ring bearer. Is this explained in detail or just with the one line "for his love for Galadriel"? Answer There's not much detail about this aside from what's said in Appendix A to Return of the King: We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Glóin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter. And Appendix B: Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf . And when that sh

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed.