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?
galorian on Castle Base (Halo) Vs Stargate Command (SG-1)
Inarto on Star Trek Vs Star WarsInarto on Star Trek Vs Star Wars
EMOboy on Star Trek Vs Star WarsEMOboy on Star Trek Vs Star Wars
Axalon on Star Trek Vs Star Warsgalorian on Cortana Vs Data
Matapiojo on Roland Deschain Vs Jon Shannowgalorian on UNSC Vs StarfleetInarto on Star Trek Vs Star Wars
Omega-88 on Star Trek Vs Star WarsOmega-88 on Star Trek Vs Star Wars
Jem on Bayonetta Vs DanteEMOboy on Star Trek Vs Star Wars
CRACKSHOT99 on Castle Base (Halo) Vs Stargate Command (SG-1)
Loading ...
February 5, 2009
#1
Thanks for putting this up, Now Which Variation of BaneBlade will this one be?
I shall retrive my info.
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.
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.
February 5, 2009
#4
And of course due to fan support of w40k and lambasting the star wars
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.
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.
February 8, 2009
#7
Yes, but the Volcano Cannon, one shot and you’ve got yourself a dead AT-AT!
February 16, 2009
#8
“Yes, but the Volcano Cannon, one shot and you’ve got yourself a dead AT-AT!”
Yes you do.
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
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
March 5, 2009
#11
All Terrain Armored Transport vs. Tank.. something designed to transport men and material versus something designed to destroy.
Tank wins.
March 13, 2009
#12
Is it that hard for the AT-AT to step on a tank?
March 13, 2009
#13
If it gets Blown to a million pieces, Then yes.
April 30, 2009
#14
there should be maurader bomber fights here
FIRE FIRE FIRE TILL NOTHINGS LEFT STANDING
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.
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.
July 13, 2009
#17
Come on Admin…. give us a fair fight… what’s next?!
Leman Russ Tank vs China Cabinet?
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.
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
October 13, 2009
#20
Wait…why haven’t the BaneBlade been given a Factpile Award yet?
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.
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.
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.
April 15, 2010
#24
At long reange AT AT would decimate baneblade in 1-3 hits
April 15, 2010
#25
At long range, the bane blade would cripple the AT-AT in one hit.
May 31, 2010
#26
I assume that Baneblade will win if it destroys one AT-AT ‘s leg which will cause it to fall.
May 31, 2010
#27
AT-AT fires faster. Kenny, don’t give me your “Outdated L-W statements say WH40k beat SW” defense.
July 17, 2010
#28
a AT AT can move at speeds of up to 60kph has armour 300’000 times sronger than steel weapons that can penertrate this level of armour and a range of several thousand kilometers
AT AT for the win at range
July 17, 2010
#29
Ok here is what a light warhammer tank can do with a simple autocannon.
“The KL5 fired and he felt rather than heard the cataclysm as sixt kilotonnes of kinetic energy split open thirty-centimetre rockrete
Emperor’s Mercy pg 122.
The bane blade uses an autocannon as a coaxial weapon while its main gun is the much more powerful mega battle cannon and a demolisher cannon attached to its hull. It also has tww las canno sponsors which are used for destroying armoured vehicles while an auto cannon is used mainly against light vehicles and heavy infantry. Does AT-AT firepower come anywhere near 60 kilotonnes?
July 17, 2010
#30
Edit the quite is supposed to say sixty
“The KL5 fired and he felt rather than heard the cataclysm as sixty kilotonnes of kinetic energy split open thirty-centimetre rockrete”
Emperor’s Mercy pg 122.
August 11, 2010
#31
yes allmost definatly more considering slave one fires 2 kiloton shots at a rate of 480 per minute, also its enough to destroye the rather large shield generator likely made of durasteel at hoth,
It states in imperial armou vol2 that 98mm of composite armour used on a land raider (the bet the imperium has, the same is used on titans) gives equivelent proyection of 300mm of steel meaning not as good as durasteel, by a long shot, so for IoM destroying that complex would prove in theory alot more difficult.
August 11, 2010
#32
i would confindently rangently say an AT AT is capable of killing a baneblade in one hit,
bigggest advantags RANGE ARMOUR POWER
dissavantegs FLANKING
August 11, 2010
#33
That excerpt from Imperial armour is pretty much proven wrong in just about every other piece of 40k fluff. If land raider armour was that weak then why would they need anti tank weapons in the kiloton range?
August 11, 2010
#34
perhaps one is more “cannon” than the other dunno dosnt add up
dpends
dont think modern anti tanks go any where near kilotons\?
August 11, 2010
#35
Also at ats can have turbolasere putting them at epic levels og power, also can be outfitted with shields giving them even more staying power