xhonzi said:
You and Ady seem to agree that you don't think there is an onscreen contradiction, but you don't need to poo-poo the people that do.
You may not care about the EU and that's fine but there are many holes we can all poke in this battle and not everything needs to be explained...
This is true. It really is stupid to devise a walking tank that only shoots forward. It's even more stupid to attack that tank from the front. HigHurtenflurst is right, I guess it's best to just not overthink it.
Mmm... I just disagreed that the speeders carry bombs and they don't. This "poo poo" you mention, lol... So rigging a torpedo launcher on to the snowspeeder wouldn't confuse more people than would help? Cos if they had something of that type of ordinance on the snowspeeders, why not just use that from the start of the battle? Thus leading to me thinking it's adding something for the sake of adding something... If you're gonna make the suggestions then prepare to have flaws poked in the reasoning. I expect no less from my own suggestions to be scrutinized, aka this "poo poo". =D
Speaking of which: look at the footage from ESB there are two Rebel soldiers running toward the walker. Why? Other than fodder for AT-AT gunners what do the Rebel trench soliders do? Thus a shot from behind of a couple of Rebel solider firing a concussion missle or something similar at the downed walker while the snowspeeder makes it's attack run makes it more devastating and not just "too strong from blasters".
However, Ady's reasoning was even simpler: when the walker falls the neck gets breached and they aimed for that. I suppose when the walker hits maybe the neck could show a lil more damage. A spark or crack... That would be a simple add relatively...
Yeah... a tank with only a forward arc. Wonder if there could be a correction for this.