8

I believe in the movie itself we are only able to see perhaps five onscreen at the same time, and I'm also pretty sure there is a point after two have been destroyed during the battle where we still see at least three together on screen. So is five the best official number available?

  • 1
    Wookieepedia cites "at least 9" in a couple of places. The citations are direct from Episode V but it would be difficult to keep track of all the AT-ATs in all the shots. And that would just be a lower bound anyway. – Null Dec 19 '14 at 21:33
  • Hm, I wonder how that number is calculated, since there's definitely never a group shot with that many. – Joe M Dec 19 '14 at 21:34
  • 1
    It's not a canon figure. They seem to be basing it on one of the games and the fact that there's a throwaway line in the film about "blizzard-9". – Valorum Dec 19 '14 at 21:35
  • 1
    yeah i dont think you ever see more then 5 or 6 in a shot, and half the shots look like the same group (since they are the same props after all lol) – Himarm Dec 19 '14 at 21:38
  • 1
    @JoeM Exactly. You'd have to somehow keep track of which AT-AT was which as you cut from one shot to the next. The best bet to get a count would be the novelization. – Null Dec 19 '14 at 21:40
11

It depends which source you look at, but somewhere between five and twelve.

Novelisation

According to the official novelisation (by Donald Glut), there were at least 12.

Through the blizzard, the small dots seemed to be advancing at a slow yet steady pace, churning up clouds of snow as they moved toward the Rebel base.

The officer raised his electrobinoculars and focused on the approaching objects. There must have been a dozen of them resolutely advancing through the snow, looking like creatures out of some uncharted past. But they were machines, each of them stalking like enormous ungulates on four jointed legs.

Film

The single largest number seen on screen in ESB is the group of five making the direct assault on the base. As far as I can tell, two more walkers (one carrying the AT-AT commander) approach the shield generator from a different angle.

enter image description here

Taking into account the one destroyed by Luke's speeder, the one destroyed by Luke's grenade and a deleted scene in which one of the walkers was destroyed by blaster fire (see below) that means that there were at least five and possibly as many as seven in the battle.

enter image description here

Databank

The Star Wars Databank, considered a canon source of information about the Star Wars universe, contains this still image of the Battle of Hoth with six walkers visible.

enter image description here

This Galaxy of Adventures short film shows seven walkers in loose formation. Six are immediately visible and one is hidden behind the second from the left and is seen shortly afterward.

enter image description here

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    @JoeM - I'm just rummaging through the "making of" DVD to see if there's a model shot. – Valorum Dec 19 '14 at 22:16
  • If this tweet can be considered canon, we can say with certainty at least seven, as you can see that many briefly when the speeders make their initial attack run towards the AT-ATs. twitter.com/starwars/status/1263529996934471680 – Joe M May 22 at 18:03
  • @JoeM - I count six on that attack run at 0:20 – Valorum May 22 at 18:13
  • 1
    At 0:20 you can see six. But the second one from the left has another one directly behind it, which becomes visible in the next second. At 0:22 you can see it tiny and way in the back. – Joe M May 22 at 20:51
  • 1
    @JoeM - Ah yes, as the speeder goes under the walker you can see it become visible behind the second-from-left – Valorum May 22 at 21:02
-1

From The picture, it looks like there are six. I think that there are three though. In the fifth episode, when the general is looking through his macronoculars, he sees three walkers. I don't know where the other walkers came from though, but originally, there are three.

| improve this answer | |
  • Do you have any reason for thinking there were three? Answers need to have some basis in facts. – Mal Feb 21 '18 at 3:13
  • 1
    @Bellatrix Just from looking at SonOfFett's post history, I'm 99.99999% certain he's trolling. Either that or he's a 3 year old with a remarkably advanced writing ability. – Steve-O Feb 22 '18 at 13:48
  • Hey. I love Star Wars. Don't blame me for giving my response. geez. and I'm, not three. – SonOfFett Feb 22 '18 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.