Starfleet Jedi

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:04 am**

Reviewing the recent post on the ST-v-SW.net blog on the AT-ST, I was reminded that the AT-ST, maligned though it is, is not necessarily that bad of a vehicle overall. Some of this will probably work into the next update series somewhere.

With all due respect, therefore, let us review the AT-ST's true capabilities. Saxton cites blueprints as giving the AT-ST model a height of some 8.13m. From this and the blueprints, I estimate roughly that the AT-ST has a total volume of roughly 12 cubic meters; this is primarily concentrated in the box "head" (8), with a significant engine block (2) and fairly spindly legs (1 ea). Overall, this is a vehicle with a mass of no more than 20 tons fully loaded, and we may best guess it to be around 15 tons.

Check this figure: With two 1.3 m^2 feet, this gives us a pressure of 10 pounds per square inch while standing on both feet; pressure is fairly low. The AT-ST does not leave that much of a footprint.

The ST-v-SW.net estimate of log mass is, of course, a gross overestimate in some regards. The log measured in question is not 67.75 px in overall diameter (a deliberate overestimate), but the more modest 57.7 px, i.e., 1.27 instead of 1.49m. The length, being based on the very end-piece diameter (1.5m) is not so bad an estimate; the likely density is on the order of 800 rather than 1750, meaning that the log properly only has a mass on the order of 9.1 metric tons (10 imperial tons.) The fact that the projectile is moving so slowly means that ST-v-SW.net's generousity in declaring the log to be in effect a ~10 cm diameter projectile is justified.

Recall that a ~9.1 ton log moving at 12 m/s is sufficient to defeat - although not actually necessarily penetrate - the armor. The mode of failure is structural. I would say, however, that the armor supplies a level of protection on the order of the minimum required to stop this projectile. I would say the margin of error for impact protection is probably only 10% in either direction from this critical threshold

I estimated this off-hand (napkin-style calculation) to be possibly as much as 55-80mm RHA of side armoring. Nathan Okun, however, has detailed projectile models - which, although they are not intended to handle this particular case, provide a good estimation. The minimum degree of protection that can be penetrated by the projectile described above is ~47mm of homogenous steel, which is to say that we have 47+/-5mm RHA of protection on the sides. Traditional vehicle armoring doctrines would give us 2-3x as much on the front as on the sides, meaning that the AT-ST is armored as well as a WWII-era main battle tank (40 tons) or modern light/medium tank (25-30 tons).

This is actually quite heavy armoring for a light fighting vehicle. For reference, the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannon - a very destructive gun indeed - penetrates 69mm RHA at 500m and 38mm at 1000m - meaning that the AT-ST is actually somewhat resistant to 30mm fire, and - barring viewport shots - completely resistant to normal anti-material rifles, assault rifles, etc. You can stick your best elephant gun right up against the side at a perfect angle and fire - and it won't go through.

The legs are, of course, a poor target - both slender and essentially solid metal, which are basically only vulnerable to tripping. You're pretty much aiming at a car-sized box bobbing around on stilts.

Reality check: Blaster rifles, in Star Wars, have roughly the destructive power in the range of modern anti-elephant and anti-material rifles. The AT-ST is probably quite adequately armored against Star Wars infantry - especially considering that an "energy bolt" is likely to leave more energy behind in the armor.

AT-STs' main guns fire shots in a 1-10 megajoule range; by comparison, the M1 Abrams puts out a maximum of 6.9 megajoules per shot. AT-STs have firepower that is best classed as being somewhere in the range of modern MBTs - perhaps a bit weaker, but having two guns and a higher rate of fire makes up for that on the offense.

Further, the AT-ST only requires a crew of two to operate. Ammunition and fuel are probably essentially unlimited by modern standards - fusion engines plus blaster cannons are a wonderful combination.

All in all, leaving aside the great height that would make it an easy target to spot and the failure of its designers to slope the armor adequately, the AT-ST is a fine light fighting vehicle by modern standards.

It's not absolutely ridiculously primitive - perhaps not very impressive, true, and not designed to withstand phasers - but I could probably sell AT-STs like hotcakes to modern militaries for a million each or so.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:27 am**

You'd be better off selling the fusion reactor tech and units for a few billion $'s.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:28 pm**

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:You'd be better off selling the fusion reactor tech and units for a few billion $'s.

True, the above is assuming the AT-ST is mostly a "black box" to whoever I'm selling it to - just a walker with the performance and maintainence specifications indicated.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:43 pm**

Hmm. Using only the power of my imagination, i have difficulty seeing a modern tank shell doing as little damage as the blaster canons on the thing. And even more trouble picturing a modern tank crumbling when hit by the two logs we see in the movie.

Buteeh, i guess anything is possible.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:10 pm**

l33telboi wrote:Hmm. Using only the power of my imagination, i have difficulty seeing a modern tank shell doing as little damage as the blaster canons on the thing. And even more trouble picturing a modern tank crumbling when hit by the two logs we see in the movie.

Buteeh, i guess anything is possible.

A modern main battle tank would not, although it might get dented if you dropped them on it from above.

Anything in the AT-ST's weight class, however, probably would be totaled. We are talking about logs whose combined mass is roughly equal to the AT-ST itself.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:57 pm**

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
l33telboi wrote:Hmm. Using only the power of my imagination, i have difficulty seeing a modern tank shell doing as little damage as the blaster canons on the thing. And even more trouble picturing a modern tank crumbling when hit by the two logs we see in the movie.

Buteeh, i guess anything is possible.
A modern main battle tank would not, although it might get dented if you dropped them on it from above.

Anything in the AT-ST's weight class, however, probably would be totaled. We are talking about logs whose combined mass is roughly equal to the AT-ST itself.

Hardly. WW2 BT(11-14 tons) tanks could ram others at 70 km/h and survive (mostly). Also, it's completely impossible for even the above tank to be MANGLED by logs. Penetrating armos is one thing, but crushing it is virtually impossible.

Not to mention that a log trap hich forced another AT-ST to tip and fall would be of little problem to any tank.

Other problem is that the gun is significantly LOWER that the cabin top. And blasters, unlike modern artillery cannot shoot over horizon. Combined, this means AT-ST may be destroyed before he has a chance to shoot back at all.

The main advantage of AT-ST, though, is it's independence. Modern tanks often carry only 40 rounds (no more than 120, in any case), and only have fuel for 8-12 hours, whereas AT-ST has virtually unlimited reserve.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:22 pm**

SailorSaturn13 wrote:Hardly. WW2 BT(11-14 tons) tanks could ram others at 70 km/h and survive (mostly). Also, it's completely impossible for even the above tank to be MANGLED by logs. Penetrating armos is one thing, but crushing it is virtually impossible.

"Mostly." Ram into the side of one using a narrow ram instead of a broad front, and you would punch straight through. The main battle tanks of WWII were, incidentally, 40-50 tons typically, not 11-14 tons.

11-14 tons was a light tank in WWII. The logs seen would smash the side armor plates of any light tank just as thoroughly.

The AT-ST being crushed is mainly a structural problem, rather than a problem with the armor itself. Gross structural strength is clearly not one of the AT-ST's strengths, but it's actually fairly rare to see that tested on the modern battlefield.

I stand by the above figures, which demonstrate they would be practically immune (barring through-viewport shots) to anything short of (a) 30mm [or larger] cannon, which they retain some resistance to from forward and at long range, or (b) anti-armor weapons.

It's not that the AT-ST holds up against main battle tanks in terms of durability. I recommend the Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless as a premier infantry-used anti-armor weapon for killing AT-STs with infantry, although RPGs can probably also do the trick for those of you on a lower budget. For fixed vehicular guns, I would recommend 45mm for a wide range of penetration angles. Any tank gun 80mm or larger is probably sufficient to kill on any direct cabin hit.

Not to mention that a log trap hich forced another AT-ST to tip and fall would be of little problem to any tank.

Stability is also a potential problem.

Other problem is that the gun is significantly LOWER that the cabin top. And blasters, unlike modern artillery cannot shoot over horizon. Combined, this means AT-ST may be destroyed before he has a chance to shoot back at all.

The main guns, yes. The AT-ST is clearly not a main battle tank, and some elements of its design are... baffling.

The main advantage of AT-ST, though, is it's independence. Modern tanks often carry only 40 rounds (no more than 120, in any case), and only have fuel for 8-12 hours, whereas AT-ST has virtually unlimited reserve.

Agreed. Considering air transport and lostical support, you could probably field around 6 AT-STs for the same operational costs as one modern MBT, with much more strategic flexibility.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:55 pm**

Most of the problems come with the description they get from the novelisation.

Otherwise, it's clearly a light vehicle.

But let's not talk about imperial ingeniosity here. Hovertanks instead of walkers, a leveled area to raise a base instead of a forest with hazardous terrain...

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:51 am**

The AT-ST's head does seem good at dispersing the energy of an impact across the whole impact surface (too bad they didn't angle it). This is good for stopping small arms fire, but it means utter destruction when hit with sufficient energy or momentum rather than a through and through. It should definitely shrug off everything up to and maybe including a .50 cal sniper (12.7x99mm), though any heavy anti-tank rifle round like a 14.5x114mm and up should still penetrate.

The AT-ST's main guns are about as powerful as a few hand grenades. Chewie's AT-ST blowing up another AT-ST in one volley shows that explosives would be quite effective. Other than putting a sticky bomb on an ankle joint, rocket launchers and RPGs should be sufficent. Based on AT-ST guns vs. AT-ST armor, assuming 4 shots equivalent to 12 grenades each, 12kg of TNT is sufficient to completely destroy the vehicle's head.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:23 pm**

Chewie's AT-ST blowing up another AT-ST in one volley shows that explosives would be quite effective

I don't necessarily agree.
We know from TEsB that the main guns on an AT-AT have variable yields, which they toned down for infantry fighting, so I don't see any reasons to believe the main guns on the AT-ST are any different.
They all come from the same technology after all.

Of course, I'm not saying they're at the same power level, just that they can be adjusted as well.
I agree that the AT-ST doesn't seem any better than our modern small tanks, and that their armor doesn't seem to be what we would expect of an advanced civilisation, but it is still nothing to sneer at.
And as a light infantry weapon, they're quite effective.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:48 pm**

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:The AT-ST's head does seem good at dispersing the energy of an impact across the whole impact surface (too bad they didn't angle it). This is good for stopping small arms fire, but it means utter destruction when hit with sufficient energy or momentum rather than a through and through. It should definitely shrug off everything up to and maybe including a .50 cal sniper (12.7x99mm), though any heavy anti-tank rifle round like a 14.5x114mm and up should still penetrate.

"Anti-tank" 14.5mm rounds usually can't penetrate more than 40mm of steel, and I've estimated the equivalent to 47 +/-5 mm of steel. Even at point blank, this is only around a 30 kJ weapon.

If you shoot it at a wall, it'll leave a pretty similar crater as the blaster damage seen here, which is - logically speaking - the weapon AT-ST armor would be designed to defeat.

Accordingly, I'd call it pretty unlikely.

The AT-ST's main guns are about as powerful as a few hand grenades.

Standard hand grenade: ~700 kilojoules. "A few" fall in the 1-10 MJ range I'm talking about.

Chewie's AT-ST blowing up another AT-ST in one volley shows that explosives would be quite effective. Other than putting a sticky bomb on an ankle joint, rocket launchers and RPGs should be sufficent. Based on AT-ST guns vs. AT-ST armor, assuming 4 shots equivalent to 12 grenades each, 12kg of TNT is sufficient to completely destroy the vehicle's head.

12 kg TNT: 50 megajoules, i.e., much more than a modern tank gun.

Over 100 KJ gives you good chances of penetration with a ballistic projectile. Mind you, a super-hot or fast projectile doesn't penetrate armor as well per unit energy, as it transfers more energy to a given volume of armor.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:55 pm**

An AT-ST should be trivially taken out by a RPG-7. RPGs can have shaped charges specifically designed to stop tanks, which let's them punch through 300-600 mm of steel. The AT-ST specs discussed so far suggest they can't even come close to stopping that kind of firepower. Given that the AT-ST appears to have poor ability at long and medium range combat, you can easily get someone to sneak up to with 100m where the RPG-7 will have the best effectiveness. This is being very generous to the AT-ST, since RPGs in the real world are used against low-profile tanks, not massive upright targets like the AT-ST. RPGs are a major problem with existing anti-infantry vehicles, like the Bradley, which do suffer signficant losses from RPG. However, whereas the crew can escape in case their vehicle is crippled, you can't on a AT-ST and in fact the fall will likely be fatal. And moreover since a Bradley has a much better set of weapons, is faster and more maneuverable, and has a much more resilient design (well-established fact in mecha vs. tank debates), a Bradley has a far better ability to deal with RPGs and tanks than a AT-ST would.

Seeing how just about every third world army and militia has overflowing amounts of RPGs with proven ability to use them effectively, it should be clear that an AT-ST will be curbstomped by even the weakest of modern armies. So no, the AT-ST is a dismal idea and has next to no ability to effectively stop infantry beyond street gangs.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:25 pm**

I wonder if the slight variant deplyed at Hoth wouldn't be a bit sturdier.
Considering that we're talking about a full fledged ground assault against a fortress on an open field, not only the Endor AT-St would be trivial in terms of firepower, but it would not stand a chance at all.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:22 pm**

Nonamer wrote:An AT-ST should be trivially taken out by a RPG-7. RPGs can have shaped charges specifically designed to stop tanks, which let's them punch through 300-600 mm of steel. The AT-ST specs discussed so far suggest they can't even come close to stopping that kind of firepower.

Obviously.

Given that the AT-ST appears to have poor ability at long and medium range combat,

This actually seems dubious to me. While gunners in ROTJ (though not TESB) seem to be suffering from the famous "Stormtrooper Effect," there's nothing intrinsic preventing the design from being quite dangerous to anything within line of sight, i.e., medium ranges.

We can hope that it really does have something useful like grenade launchers on those little side mounts for indirect fire, but that might be too much to hope for.

you can easily get someone to sneak up to with 100m where the RPG-7 will have the best effectiveness. This is being very generous to the AT-ST, since RPGs in the real world are used against low-profile tanks, not massive upright targets like the AT-ST.

Point to consider: While more visible, the AT-ST presents a much smaller and more erratic target.

You're more likely to be spot an AT-ST from a long way off, or behind a 1 story building, but you're less likely to hit it if you spot it. Thanks to the AT-ST's stupidly unsloped armor, and judging by the thickness of the top hatch, the AT-ST isn't, as many fighting vehicles are, dramatically more vulnerable to attack from above.

RPGs are a major problem with existing anti-infantry vehicles, like the Bradley, which do suffer signficant losses from RPG. However, whereas the crew can escape in case their vehicle is crippled, you can't on a AT-ST and in fact the fall will likely be fatal. And moreover since a Bradley has a much better set of weapons, is faster and more maneuverable, and has a much more resilient design (well-established fact in mecha vs. tank debates), a Bradley has a far better ability to deal with RPGs and tanks than a AT-ST would.

A well-established fact that hasn't been explained on these boards. You are welcome to proceed on the topic of "Four wheels good, two legs bad" if you like.

The Bradley is pretty much what we should be comparing the AT-ST with, I would say.

Some stats:

Code: Select all

Compare: Bradley AT-ST
Crew:        3     2    
Passengers:  6     0  
Height:   3.0m   8.1m 
Length:   6.5m   3.9m 
Width:    3.1m   3.2m 
Mass:      25t    15t?
Road:      45mph   ?  
Off-road: Less   Same 
Target Profiles:
Side:    15.6sm  7.0sm
Front:    7.9sm  5.1sm
Top:     20.2sm  5.1sm
Armor (RHA equivalent protection)*
Glacis:   130mm  100mm?
Turret:   100mm   N/A  
Side:      60mm?  50mm 
Rear:      60mm?  50mm 
Range:    480km  Unlimited
Power:    600hp  Unknown, potentially extraordinarily high.
Weaponry:
           25mm  1-10 megajoule blaster cannons (2)
          TOWx2  Unknown blasters and/or grenade launchers
          7.62mm

*Milage may vary against particular types of projectiles. In general, front armor tends to be well over twice side and rear armor. The A2 and A3 upgrade models of the Bradley armor designed to resist 30mm fire, presumably on the front facing; estimates for frontal protection are readily available. Most IFVs, are designed to provide protection against (at best) 14.5x114 rounds, and many - e.g., the 19 ton Stryker, seem to have less front armor than the AT-ST's apparent side armor.

Consider the VS scenario of the two vehicles. In fighting an AT-ST, a Bradley's only winning tactic is to not be seen, find a good hiding place and sit still while it unloads its missile launcher, and shoot from concealment - i.e., the same as its strategy vs a heavier tank. Anything else spells fiery doom for the heavier Earth vehicle, whose 25mm gun can probably be stopped for a while (barely) by the AT-ST's armor... and which may even take some damage from grenade-like near-misses of the AT-ST's guns.

The AT-ST is as well armored as modern IFVs - however, it has a smaller target profile. It may be slower than some IFVs (although with a fusion engine, its horsepower is likely quite high, and it probably outsprints most humans, IIRC), but it is capable of handling a wider variety of terrain with equal ease, and is also less vulnerable to many conventional mines and improvised bombs.

Seeing how just about every third world army and militia has overflowing amounts of RPGs with proven ability to use them effectively, it should be clear that an AT-ST will be curbstomped by even the weakest of modern armies. So no, the AT-ST is a dismal idea and has next to no ability to effectively stop infantry beyond street gangs.

Curbstomped? Not really. The AT-ST is a vehicle - its performance in the field is generally comparable to other vehicles in its weight class, which aren't considered obsolete any more than main battle tanks are, and its logistic bonuses - thanks to its superior technology base - are vast.

Now... could the AT-ST be better designed? I think the clear answer is yes. Is it adequate for engaging infantry and other light vehicles? I think the clear answer is again yes. Can infantry hurt it? If they break out the anti-tank weaponry, yes.

Of course, if you don't have them - or if the stormtroopers, speederbikes, or AT-STs shoot the ones with rocket launchers before they can get a good shot off - the very height that makes the AT-ST vulnerable to tanks makes it a holy terror for regular infantry. The AT-ST can see you when a tank can't, the AT-ST doesn't worry about wasting its main gun ammunition on mere infantry, and it can go places a tank can't fit.

Its design flaws are, IMO, pretty well compensated for by its superior technological base.

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:16 pm**

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Nonamer wrote:An AT-ST should be trivially taken out by a RPG-7. RPGs can have shaped charges specifically designed to stop tanks, which let's them punch through 300-600 mm of steel. The AT-ST specs discussed so far suggest they can't even come close to stopping that kind of firepower.
Obviously.
Given that the AT-ST appears to have poor ability at long and medium range combat,
This actually seems dubious to me. While gunners in ROTJ (though not TESB) seem to be suffering from the famous "Stormtrooper Effect," there's nothing intrinsic preventing the design from being quite dangerous to anything within line of sight, i.e., medium ranges.

We can hope that it really does have something useful like grenade launchers on those little side mounts for indirect fire, but that might be too much to hope for.

Even so, it still must turn it's entire head in order to shoot. Turret based tanks and armored vehicles are easily superior at anti-infantry combat, especially if they are equiped with auto-cannons or machine guns. A combat group with RPGs will find an AT-ST a much easily target to fight against.

you can easily get someone to sneak up to with 100m where the RPG-7 will have the best effectiveness. This is being very generous to the AT-ST, since RPGs in the real world are used against low-profile tanks, not massive upright targets like the AT-ST.
Point to consider: While more visible, the AT-ST presents a much smaller and more erratic target.

You're more likely to be spot an AT-ST from a long way off, or behind a 1 story building, but you're less likely to hit it if you spot it. Thanks to the AT-ST's stupidly unsloped armor, and judging by the thickness of the top hatch, the AT-ST isn't, as many fighting vehicles are, dramatically more vulnerable to attack from above.

RPGs can be guided though. Perhaps it won't be a piece of cake, but still much easier to take out compared to real-world tanks and armored vehicles.

RPGs are a major problem with existing anti-infantry vehicles, like the Bradley, which do suffer signficant losses from RPG. However, whereas the crew can escape in case their vehicle is crippled, you can't on a AT-ST and in fact the fall will likely be fatal. And moreover since a Bradley has a much better set of weapons, is faster and more maneuverable, and has a much more resilient design (well-established fact in mecha vs. tank debates), a Bradley has a far better ability to deal with RPGs and tanks than a AT-ST would.
A well-established fact that hasn't been explained on these boards. You are welcome to proceed on the topic of "Four wheels good, two legs bad" if you like.

This is something that comes up very often at SB.com or SDN, whenever there's a discussion between mecha and tanks. The ultimate conclusions are these:

1) Wheeled vehicles are vastly more stable.
2) Wheeled vehicles have vastly less stress on the locomotive machinery (more reliable, less expensive, etc.)
3) Wheels vehicles are vastly more efficient. This can be proven by analyzing the thermodynamic cycles of both forms of locomotion.
4) Wheeled vehicles have much lower profiles.
5) Wheeled vehicles are vastly more simple to design and construct.

There may be some other issues that I've forgot, but the conclusion is clear: Given a similar level of technology, a wheeled or track vehicle will always be vastly superior than a walking vehicle, virtually without exception.

The Bradley is pretty much what we should be comparing the AT-ST with, I would say.

Some stats:
Code: Select all
Compare: Bradley AT-ST
Crew:        3     2    
Passengers:  6     0  
Height:   3.0m   8.1m 
Length:   6.5m   3.9m 
Width:    3.1m   3.2m 
Mass:      25t    15t?
Road:      45mph   ?  
Off-road: Less   Same 
Target Profiles:
Side:    15.6sm  7.0sm
Front:    7.9sm  5.1sm
Top:     20.2sm  5.1sm
Armor (RHA equivalent protection)*
Glacis:   130mm  100mm?
Turret:   100mm   N/A  
Side:      60mm?  50mm 
Rear:      60mm?  50mm 
Range:    480km  Unlimited
Power:    600hp  Unknown, potentially extraordinarily high.
Weaponry:
           25mm  1-10 megajoule blaster cannons (2)
          TOWx2  Unknown blasters and/or grenade launchers
          7.62mm
*Milage may vary against particular types of projectiles. In general, front armor tends to be well over twice side and rear armor. The A2 and A3 upgrade models of the Bradley armor designed to resist 30mm fire, presumably on the front facing; estimates for frontal protection are readily available. Most IFVs, are designed to provide protection against (at best) 14.5x114 rounds, and many - e.g., the 19 ton Stryker, seem to have less front armor than the AT-ST's apparent side armor.

Consider the VS scenario of the two vehicles. In fighting an AT-ST, a Bradley's only winning tactic is to not be seen, find a good hiding place and sit still while it unloads its missile launcher, and shoot from concealment - i.e., the same as its strategy vs a heavier tank. Anything else spells fiery doom for the heavier Earth vehicle, whose 25mm gun can probably be stopped for a while (barely) by the AT-ST's armor... and which may even take some damage from grenade-like near-misses of the AT-ST's guns.

Not even close! A Bradley's anti-tank missiles are good for 3.75km, and are vastly more powerful than any RPG. Source. Another source.
Plus they're guided, so there's little chance of a miss. A fight between a Bradley and an AT-ST will consist of the Bradley firely it's missile at long-range and winning with ease. In fact, more tanks where taken out this way in the Gulf War than actual tank vs. tank combat. Also, don't understimate that auto-cannon. Your numbers for the 30mm Avenger are at very long ranges (500m and 1000m). At short ranges (<300m) the 25mm autocannon will be very dangerous.

The AT-ST is as well armored as modern IFVs - however, it has a smaller target profile. It may be slower than some IFVs (although with a fusion engine, its horsepower is likely quite high, and it probably outsprints most humans, IIRC), but it is capable of handling a wider variety of terrain with equal ease, and is also less vulnerable to many conventional mines and improvised bombs.

That's another myth of walking vehicles. They can't reach more types of terrain! Any heavily forested or very rugged areas are just as impassible for a wheeled vehicle as it is for a walking vehicle. Where a wheeled vehicle can get stuck, a walking one can trip or slip. Plus it doesn't let you magically get pass tight spaces where you can't fit in the first place, or climb up a dangerously steep hill since it is your weight that keeps you from climbing it, not the wheels. In fact, since the wheels have so much more grip surfaces, you may be worse off going with legs.

Seeing how just about every third world army and militia has overflowing amounts of RPGs with proven ability to use them effectively, it should be clear that an AT-ST will be curbstomped by even the weakest of modern armies. So no, the AT-ST is a dismal idea and has next to no ability to effectively stop infantry beyond street gangs.
Curbstomped? Not really. The AT-ST is a vehicle - its performance in the field is generally comparable to other vehicles in its weight class, which aren't considered obsolete any more than main battle tanks are, and its logistic bonuses - thanks to its superior technology base - are vast.

Now... could the AT-ST be better designed? I think the clear answer is yes. Is it adequate for engaging infantry and other light vehicles? I think the clear answer is again yes. Can infantry hurt it? If they break out the anti-tank weaponry, yes.

Of course, if you don't have them - or if the stormtroopers, speederbikes, or AT-STs shoot the ones with rocket launchers before they can get a good shot off - the very height that makes the AT-ST vulnerable to tanks makes it a holy terror for regular infantry. The AT-ST can see you when a tank can't, the AT-ST doesn't worry about wasting its main gun ammunition on mere infantry, and it can go places a tank can't fit.

Its design flaws are, IMO, pretty well compensated for by its superior technological base.

Like I've mentioned, virtually none of these advantages are true. The height advantage is useless since no decent infantry is going to stand wide open just at the edge of your reach just to get shot at. They're be hiding, and likely never engage you without anti-tank weapontry, which are dirtcheap nowadays. It's only meaningful advantage is its range, until it actually runs into a meaningful fight at which point it's fucked.

Starfleet Jedi

Defending the AT-ST

Defending the AT-ST