BaneBlade Vs AT-AT

admin

February 5th, 2009 at 4:06 am -

BaneBlade (Warhammer 40K) Vs AT-AT (Star Wars)

While the fanboy in me wants to give the AT-AT a chance, I don’t think it would last more than a few rounds against the Warhammer 40K Tank. Being soo tall has some advantages, but on the combat grounds, methinks it won’t help much.

Any hope for the walker?

Rate This Post:

23 Comments

Space marine
February 5, 2009
#1

Thanks for putting this up, Now Which Variation of BaneBlade will this one be?
I shall retrive my info.
GEOM
February 5, 2009
#2

I am of the mind that it doesn’t really matter which variation. The standard baneblade mega battle cannon is a stupidly powerful weapon and, for that matter, so is the demolisher cannon. In addition to that, it also has a smattering of 9 other weapons ranging from heavy lascannons to heavy bolters and and autocannons. Its armor is thicker than a land raider which, in a previous post, I argued would defeat the AT-AT. Yes, the walker is a powerful machine, but baneblades are ancient, awesome super tanks that have seen centuries of constant war. Death to the enemies of the Imperium.

-Imperator Victrix

Postscript – The AT-AT’s height may seem like an advantage, but in my experience, anything that would have such a slow movement speed and incredibly high profile would be much more a liability than a bonus, despite the fact that tank armor is, as a rule, weaker on top. It is vastly simpler to shoot a six story building than it is to hit a two story building. I promise; I know.
Matapiojo
February 5, 2009
#3

Yes, I agree that the AT-AT will fall in this match. As opposed to the Land Raider, the Baneblade has the right tools to not only deal with the towering Titan-like war machine, but to soak up the damage inflicted onto it as well.
Diana
February 5, 2009
#4

And of course due to fan support of w40k and lambasting the star wars
=[BF]=JimmieRox
February 6, 2009
#5

Baneblade, sorry, fanboy moment here:

ROFLMFAOCURBROFLSTOMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHH WOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANEBLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDEEEE!!!!!

Sorry, had to be done! Right to business, the optimal variant for this confrontation would be the Shadowsword however pretty much any variant would have very little trouble with the AT-AT. Not even with those turbolasers.
L-W
February 7, 2009
#6

Although I wouldn’t discount the AT-AT turbolaser from performing terrific levels of damage unto the hull of the Baneblade (Especially at the lightspeed ranges it can fire from); the thirteen mounted weapons of the Imerium Tank, including the Primarch sized shells equipped by the Hell-gun, would make short work of the AT-AT refractor shields.
=[BF]=JimmieRox
February 8, 2009
#7

Yes, but the Volcano Cannon, one shot and you’ve got yourself a dead AT-AT!
Space marine
February 16, 2009
#8

“Yes, but the Volcano Cannon, one shot and you’ve got yourself a dead AT-AT!”
Yes you do.
Eldernesh
March 4, 2009
#9

any baneblade even correct me ifim wrong some forge worlds dont have proper baneblade schmatics and make cheap copies and usaly have a blattle kanon instead of baneblade kannon or twin plasma kannons would just need to blow of a skinny little at at leg and down it goes it got killed by a cable talk about weak
lololol
March 5, 2009
#10

lol its basicly two gun vs like ten, and who cares how many stormtroopers come out, and boom one leg down the at at is like dead
Aegis030
March 5, 2009
#11

All Terrain Armored Transport vs. Tank.. something designed to transport men and material versus something designed to destroy.

Tank wins.
Albert Wikowonkavitz
March 13, 2009
#12

Is it that hard for the AT-AT to step on a tank?
Space marine
March 13, 2009
#13

If it gets Blown to a million pieces, Then yes.
guns_talk_louder
April 30, 2009
#14

there should be maurader bomber fights here

FIRE FIRE FIRE TILL NOTHINGS LEFT STANDING
Belisaurius
June 1, 2009
#15

y’see, when making an unstoppable engine of destruction, it’s often wiser to give it treads rather than legs.

That, and the AT-AT was only effective because it outclassed virtually everything else it went up against.

I’m pretty sure that rogue squadron took a few down easily with proton torpedos once.

On the other hand, baneblades can win entire battles single handedly.
Gus
July 13, 2009
#16

I believe the tank would win that duel. I don’t know much about the tank, however it would definatly beat the AT-AT. The tank is lower, and it’s probably much faster. It would probably play out a lot like WWII Sherman vs. Tiger. Shermans could flank the Tigers before the Tiger could turn its cannon. Like the AT-AT, the Tigers could engage the the Shermans at range. So if it where a ranged battle, the AT-AT would have a better chance. Still, I think the tank would come out on top again due to it’s high mobility.
Kenny C.
July 13, 2009
#17

Come on Admin…. give us a fair fight… what’s next?!

Leman Russ Tank vs China Cabinet?
CJ4short
July 22, 2009
#18

I agree. I have a feeling the only way the Baneblade would be destroyed would be the immense weight of an AT-AT foot coming down on top. And even then the AT-AT would likely topple and blow up.
i dunno
September 19, 2009
#19

if a few speeders can take down an at-at by tripping it up
a baneblade can rape it with a huge gun
Syncourt
October 13, 2009
#20

Wait…why haven’t the BaneBlade been given a Factpile Award yet?
Kenny C.
October 13, 2009
#21

Because Warhammer can’t be given the honor every time it wins or else it would rape every other genre in that category.
Kata
November 29, 2009
#22

As both a warhammer and star wars fan I would say the winner would be determined by how the AT-AT weapons were classified as. Lascannons then Baneblade no contest, TurboLaser Destructor then AT-AT if at range hands down. Considering Baneblades have problems hitting the broad side of a barn, let alone one several stories up.
evolvedreader
March 4, 2010
#23

no way some walking tank that can get put down by being TRIPED will be able to destroy a highly advanced tank that can destroy entire armies and has 11 barrells of hell.