This is the talk page for the article "All Terrain Tactical Enforcer/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.


All Terrain Tactical Enforcer is a former Good article. Please see this article's entry on the AgriCorps page for the reasons it was removed.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 5, 2006 Good article nomination Success
September 27, 2006 Good article
22 March 2009 Good article review Removed
26 April 2009 Former Good article
Current status: Former Good article

"Expanded Universe-material shows AT-TE transports to be a part of Imperial ground forces, twenty years after the Clone Wars." -- can we get a source? --SparqMan 22:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know the precise issue, but they were seen in Star Wars: Empire on the homeworld of the Amanin. JSarek 22:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to add that the Official Site seems to have added the AT-TE´s affiliation with the Empire last year (can´t remember that link being there before late summer 2004), so that´s been part of continuity for some time. The walker seen on the Amanin homeworld probably doesn´t qualify, since it was modified to be a transport walker. In fact, if a proper name is given to the transport walker in ROTS and its article is written, I´ll make sure to mention this vehicle, which seems to use a AT-TE chassis for the same purpose as that other walker. VT-16 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Empire: 16 to 18, and though the walker featured in the issues appears to be built on the same frame as the AT-TE, it is stripped of most of its heavy weapons, and serves and a C&C vehicle. Also featured in the issues are Juggernauts.--Eion 16:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yep, it definitly serves a different purpose, but they still refer to it as an AT-TE. If anything we could make a subsection on that variant. VT-16 11:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don´t cramp the articleEdit

Please do not do that again. I don´t care if the code looks strange with big holes inbetween paragraphs, the article looked better for it. Changing it back. VT-16 12:47, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Fixed the image problem. VT-16 12:58, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Anoymous comment #1: It's a bit unfair that the article's on edit lockdown. Will you please lift the lock? I've noticed a few gaps. Anoymous comment #2: Qhy don't the viewers vote on wheter or not there should be a lockdown or not? I'll bet that if you lifted the lockdown, you could be a bit more succesfull. Please decide within a month upon reading this.

Misprint or forgotten info?Edit

In my copy of the Complete Locations of Star Wars there's an interesting bit of trivia in the Index-section. Under the AT-TE it says page 142-143 in addition to the pages where it can be found. Now, page 142 and 143 talk about the Battle of Hoth, and there's no mention of the AT-TE there. I sent an email to DK Publishing's complaint department in an effort to find out if this was a misprint or if someone forgot to add the corresponding info. Have any of you with the CLOSW book noticed if the same Index-error occurs? Or if any additional info on the Hoth battle has been written, because it's not in my copy. VT-16 17:58, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

AT-TE SizeEdit

I don't the exact information on the AT-TE height and length but i'm pretty sure its wrong on this page. First thing's first, there's no way that the AT-TE is shorter than the AT-AP(listed at 10.97m tall). Secondly, given the picture on this page of an AT-TE with stormtroopers and assuming that the average stormtrooper is a little under two meters tall, the AT-TE is at the least eight meters tall and fifteen meters long. Is the AT-TE's height and length listed in the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels? If so, someone should point this out to the editors.=)

The Prequel Chronicles' gives the AT-TE length as 13.2m, and I came across this thread from the Tector-class Star Destroyer article. In it, Leland Chee says that Prequel Chronicles length is the correct length, but it is from 2006. I'm not a stickler for vessel measurements, so I don't know if there is a more recent work or statement that confirmed the current length listed in the article. I'm new at this, so I apologize if I formatted this query incorrectly or out of place. Starkar Mace 04:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

AT-TE speedEdit

This article states that the AT-TE's average speed is 60 kilometers per hour. I'm not very good at metrics, but I think that translates to about 40 mph, which is a little faster than a really speedy horse. From the scenes that show the AT-TE in Episode II, move much slower. Also,the clones in the movie could outrun the walkers pretty easily. I don't know very much about this, so I'm probably wrong, but I'm feeling confused. Any help/explanation? Darthstar Runner 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Turret gunEdit

What says the top turret was a mass driver? At least some of them shot blue blaster/laser bolts, the one that shot down Boga and Obi-Wan clearly did. — Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) NR Seal 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You see them arcing in mid-air, only projectiles would be affected by gravity like that, energy bolts go straight on. And the shells and their assembly inside an AT-TE were detailed in the AOTC:ICS. They most likely encase the shells in an energy field when firing, like the proton torpedoes in ANH and ROTJ, the proton grenades in ESB and the ST2 and HM-6 concussion missiles in ROTJ. It helps preserve the explosive inside the shell until after penetration of the target. You also see the same thing in ROTS, when the Providence internal gun batteries fire. They have giant mass-driver cannons being loaded from huge overhanging belts, and the shots come out like blue, glowing balls (which also arc in flight).
Also, for blasters and lasers, notice that their bolts are thin, almost like lines. Some have small periodical bulges, where there's a concentration of energy (the DS superlaser is like this). The projectiles that are incased in energy, however, always have a bulge up-front (because that's a shell or warhead) with energy trailing it. VT-16 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense. I thought it might be that. A lot of GAR blasters shoot blue. — Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) NR Seal 23:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Long-legged AT-TE"?Edit

How is the AT-TE in the fifth picture a "long-legged AT-TE"? It looks normal to me. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Because its legs are longer... Ugluk: Destroyer of RedlinksWhine Here 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's actually based on concept art from ROTS where they were supposed to show an intermediate between the AT-TE and the AT-AT that had long, thin legs. They copied one of the pieces (by Ryan Church) and modified it for the comic adaption, so it looked like a regular AT-TE with long, thin legs like the concept art (the original art was more a combination of UT-AT, AT-AP and AT-TE attributes). Similar to how they copied the pose of a two-man, open-top scout walker. concept art comic adaption versus the stock version VT-16 07:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • VT-16: Are you so sure about that? I've compared the images side-by-side, and they look like normal legs. Ugluk: You're the one that started the "war". I started this topic to have a discussion, not for you to constantly tell me I'm wrong without providing any evidence whatsoever. Then, you accuse me of trolling. And if you had enough, then why didn't you just leave this discussion? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The distance between the lower and upper joint on the front legs is bigger on the concept art and the rots comic. The middle legs are also thinner in the comic panel, like on the concept art (you can see it best on the right side of the walker). That's what happens in comic adaptions etc. they reuse some concepts that ultimately didn't make it in the films, because they don't get access to all the new material that the film crew has. VT-16 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm convinced it's a drawing error. Actually, it's not even an error, it's a minor variation in drawing style, or an attempt by the artist to draw a movie adaptation before the special effects are finalized, or something. Not enough evidence to support another variant, anyway. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It just looks like someone has drawn it a bit "off" to me to be honest. Much like how the comic drawings of Anakin Skywalker never look *exactly* the same as Hayden Christensen. I certainly don't think that it's supposed to be "another variant".... (Ulicus 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

  • That's not to say I'm ruling it out though... (Ulicus 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
    • Of course. Nonetheless, it should be removed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I object. In cases where familiar characters or vehicles or locations are drawn incorrect, it's easy to dismiss as an error. But when there's room for actual variation and in this case, the well-used LFL method of copying and/or modifying concept art (which is done for alot of things, most recently the MC30 frigate), it doesn't hurt to at least note it. Another part of the comic also had the open-top scout walker, which was another recycled concept art for ROTS, so there's a precedence. I've also read enough articles on armored vehicles to know militaries love to make modifications or cut corners by reusing the same vehicles for new purposes. Having longer legs on an AT-TE (which they explicitly planned in ROTS concept art) would make sense, in terms of clearing obstacles and improving line-of-sight. :) VT-16 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • But it's unsourced. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
          • What's unsourced? The information? That's true, but I would think that would be the main reasons for having longer legs on the walker to begin with. :) VT-16 21:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
            • What? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I asked "what was unsourced"? The artwork is reproduced by the artist, based on Ryan Church's original production art, but the info on why they would have such a model was just conjecture. ^^;;; VT-16 21:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Exactly. Therefore, we don't know whether it's a long-legged variant or not, but since none exist so far, we have to take it as a standard AT-TE. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The source is Ryan Church's artwork, which depicted a new generation of AT-TEs that had longer and thinner legs. This was even noted on the official site, and I reckon the Art of Episode III book as well. The exact same pose as this picture, the same thin legs, even the middle one, the longer section between the joints etc. And it's even on the same planet, Felucia. VT-16 01:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Did they specifically refer to those pictures as "new long-legged AT-TEs" or something like that? If you'd said that earlier, we wouldn't need the discussion. A statement like that would mean something similar to old drawings of Imperial Star Destroyers becoming Victory Star Destroyers in WEG sourcebooks. However, if all we have is a statement that Ryan Church's concept art had thinner legs than the ones eventually seen on screen, that wouldn't convince me it's anything more than a drawing variation (like the wildly different depictions of Z-95s which we're meant to pretend are all the same kind of ship.) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, they did comment on it on the official site. It was the same type of walker, but on a Mygeeto artwork [1]. And the other Church painting above was reproduced in the comic, minus the extra guns. "Seen on-screen"? It was never seen on-screen, it was reproduced in the ROTS comic adaption, same as the two-man open top scout walker. This isn't something new, artists reuse SW movie concepts all the time. The old ROTJ comic had bulky McQuarrie Mon Cal cruisers from rejected concept art alongside MC80s, and the same artist used them again in the Vandelhelm Mission. VT-16 08:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I know they do, but the fact that a comic showed a vehicle design variant similar to a piece of concept art was not enough evidence on its own, since it could just has easily have been a variation in the drawing. The link you provided, with the words "This exploration of the crystalline Mygeeto environment by Ryan Church includes a new generation of AT-TE walkers -- these ones features longer legs, like their AT-AT cousins" probably is, though (though I might want a brief note in the BtS clarifying the evidence anyway.) —Silly Dan (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I'll take care of it. Had this been presented a lot earlier, Ugluk wouldn't have gotten a chance to say anything, and a lot would have been avoided. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I thought most people knew about that production art. :(
It's common for SW artists to reuse exact frames and only change the context, I find it all the time both in old and new comics and guidebooks. Guess it's their way to incorporate more movie material and save time. :P VT-16 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

AT-AT predecesorsEdit

I´ve heard that these are predecesors(sp?)of Imperial AT-AT´s. Is this true? Hominid 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted the AT-TE lengthEdit

I've adjusted the length of the AT-TE from 12.4 meters to 13.2 meters, and added references to the Star Wars Chronicles: The Prequels book from which this length is derived, and a forum post by Leland Chee in which he states that book has the official length. Given that I'm new to Wookieepedia, if I've made a mistake in doing this, I would appreciate it if the person that corrects it informs me so I can be sure not to do so in the future. Thanks. Starkar Mace 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Soldier SlangEdit

Not that relevant, but is slang, or nicknames, never put on wiki? Example: Larty for LAAT/i. Source: Republic Commando series. 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AT-TE used by Rebellion?Edit

The box states that the Rebels used AT-TEs, but not mentioned in the article, and I can't find a source supporting that.--Governor Jerjerrod 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It was used by the rebels at the Second Battle of Jabiim. Might want to mention that in the History section--Governor Jerjerrod 03:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Provide the referenced source in place of the Fact template. Gethralkin 07:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Someone put Star Wars Empire: In the Shadows of Their Fathers as the source for the Rebel Alliance usage in the infobox. I don't know how to.--Governor Jerjerrod 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Internal compartment imageEdit

In The Clone Wars Liberty on Ryloth you have a scene where Mace Windu is within the troop compartment of a AT-TE, can anyone take an image of that? Darth Batrus 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Which do you mean? When Windu evacuates the first AT-TE during their charge along the cliffside path, or the holoconference with Skywalker, Palpatine, Yularen, Yoda and Orn Free Taa? (The holoconference doesn't define Windu as being in an AT-TE very well, so it wouldn't be the best of pictures.) --CC7567 20px-Rex.png talk 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the holoconference one but if its not a good picture then perhaps not :-/ isnt there another scene where the clone troopers are inside the walker when the Separatists bomb the Twi'lek village? I think from memory there was a shot of the walker from the inside but not sure. Darth Batrus 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, the problem with the interior pictures (all of them) is that you can't really tell that they're inside an AT-TE. However, the shot you mentioned shows more of the interior, as the holoconference scene focused on the conference itself rather than the AT-TE controls. Here it is: Ponds inside AT-TE. (I hope you plan to use it on the article, because it'll be deleted otherwise.) --CC7567 20px-Rex.png talk 23:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that, added it into the article :) Darth Batrus 11:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


The article states that there are 6 anti-personnel lasers and a main cannon, but I'm pretty sure that you can get a chain-gun position in Battlefront II. Should this be added? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are 4 anti-personnel lasers at the front and 2 at the back. You cannot trust SWBF2 as a reliable source, as it gives the ARC 170 only 1 mannable position, the V-wing shock cannons when it has twin laser cannons, and the much more notable changes that are only used for the optimization gameplay. --Kris159 19:02, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Adding to the Pilot?Edit

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+