[Weapons] SSD Broadside
Commander Thelea
(Eframepilot) wrote:
> Okay, so a SSD broadside is supposed to be like 2,000
> gigatons
> according to the SW side. This is clearly impossible, as in
> "Darksaber" the
> Knight Hammer bombarded Yavin IV without reducing the entire area
> surrounding
> the Great Temple into a molten sea of superheated magma. I
> quote(capitalization added):
> "Yes," Daala said. "We strike from orbit. ALL
> TURBOLASER BATTERIES, ***FULL STRENGTH***. Fire at will,
> targeting any structures in the jungle."
> And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in
> the jungle,
> completely unvaporized! The Millenium Falcon even lands safely
> amid the
> raining bolts of destruction from above. Not to mention, Yavin
> suffers no
> horrible destruction that would render it inhabitable. And more
> than 2
> teratons unleashed in every broadside upon one area of a planet
> would make it
> QUITE uninhabitable! Good-bye multi-gigaton turbolaser firepower.
> You won't be
> missed.
And you are clearly someone who did not put any thought into this
arguement. Canon evidence overrides official evidence. Canon
calculations state that the heaviest Turbolaser cannons are 2 gigaton
weapons. The Executor has 2,016 of these weapons according to canon
counts and extrapolations of the model seen in RotJ, and based on
knowledge of the construction of Star Wars ships and real warships, the
construction evidence on the nature of Imperial design styles coming
from dozens of official sources.
Therefore, Kevin J. Anderson and his inaccurate books which do not
even acknowledge the destruction of Endor's ecosystem are overriden by
Canon, and this arguement is killed before it began.
Incidently, If you continue reading there, you'll note that the stone
of those temples is made of a material exceptionally resistant,
possibly absorbant to Turbolaser fire, therefore making the arguement
irrelevant on the grounds that you were misrepresenting it, in addition
to using official evidence to attack movie-based canon evidence, which
shows that you have no respect for the CLEAR and DECLARED order of
Canon in Star Wars.
Even if the ship concentrated it's full firepower on the temples and
they were absorbing the bolts, there would be NO DAMAGE whatsoever to
the surrounding countryside, except by misses. Therefore, the ONLY
thing your arguement has of value is the fact that Star Wars gunnery is
incredibly accurate against ground targets. Thank you for adding a bit
more evidence in support of Star Wars having highly accurate targeting
systems.
By the way, I'm holding back on accusing you of being a Troll or
insulting you depending on your response. I believe in giving people
the benefit of the doubt.
Commander Mrith'hele'arana. "If where your enemy fights with intensity
he will survive, but if not he will perish, it is called 'Fatal
Terrain'. On Fatal Terrain, always engage in battle." - Sun-tzu,
Chinese military theoretician, from his essays "The Art of War".
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Commander Thelea
> mean
> anything personal in my arguments, unless I directly say so.
Quite alright. Overall firepower of an Executor broadside is not
particuarly devastating because of the nature of those guns. They're
mounted on huge, battleship style turrets that aren't the best for
firing against manuverable ships. I'm almost certain that the Very
Heavy and Heavy guns would be limited to Flak bursts against Federation
ships to hit them, giving the Feds a bit of an easier time, since not
all of the energy, maybe only around 10%, would strike the target with
Flak Bursts. It would still put up quite a devastating wall of plasma,
though.
Commander Mrith'hele'arana. "The general who advances without coveting
fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to
protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel
of the kingdom." - Sun-tzu, The Art of War.
Commander Thelea
(Eframepilot) wrote:
> In article <0cefcfc2...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com>,
> began to burn,
> so every hit was NOT hitting the temple and being absorbed.
> As for the "canon" calculations of 2 gigaton firepower, they are
> merely
> *extrapolations* from the energy used to vaporize asteroids. There
> is no
> evidence that turbolasers have firepower significantly greater
> than that
> shown directly on screen in ESB. The extrapolations made by Saxton
> and Wong
> are based purely on the size of the bolts. Simply because some
> turbolaser
> batteries are much larger than the ones *presumably* used to
> destroy the
> asteroids is not canon evidence that the heavy turbolaser
> batteries are
> hundreds or thousands of times more powerful. Canon may override
> official, but
> extrapolation is worth zilch if it is contradicted by anything. As
> Daala
> clearly ordered full fire upon Yavin, and the fire hit spots other
> than those
> that could completely absorb the energy, the surface should have
> been
> obliterated. This is especially significant as it is the best
> description of
> a full planetary bombardment ANYWHERE in the official SW EU.
> Throwing out the
> entire lump sum of Darksaber is a reaction to a false dilemma,
> which is easily
> solved by the rationalization that the extrapolations of heavy
> turbolaser
> impact are WRONG. Nothing gets thrown out, EXCEPT unofficial
> estimates by Wong
> and Saxton.
However, those estimates are supported by the Base Delta Zero
operation, which is mentioned in four different official sources,
making it 4 against 1 in favour of higher firepower, while not only is
the bombardment of Yavin one source, but it was also written by a
highly disreputable author. Not only that, but where is the evidence
that Turbolasers were specifically targeted at anything except stone
structures or stone inlaid landing fields, ect? They used Tie Bombers
to attack the forests, not Turbolasers.
Commander Mrith'hele'arana. "One who speaks deferentially but increases
his preparations will advance; One who speaks belligerently and
advances hastily will retreat." - Sun-tzu, The Art of War.
Eframepilot
Eframepilot
>In article <86e1g2$inc$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, jt...@cornell.edu
>(Eframepilot) wrote:
Eframepilot
Chris O'Farrell
Commander Thelea wrote in message
<0304c290...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com>...
>> Oh, by the way, thanks for the consideration of the doubt. I never
>> mean
>> anything personal in my arguments, unless I directly say so.
>
>
>
>particuarly devastating because of the nature of those guns. They're
>mounted on huge, battleship style turrets that aren't the best for
>firing against manuverable ships. I'm almost certain that the Very
>Heavy and Heavy guns would be limited to Flak bursts against Federation
>ships to hit them, giving the Feds a bit of an easier time, since not
>all of the energy, maybe only around 10%, would strike the target with
>Flak Bursts. It would still put up quite a devastating wall of plasma,
>though.
>
Just one thing (which is 3/4 unrelated to these posts).
Flack Bursts.
Is there a TM or something which tells about flack bursts and actualy tells
how they are made? Or is it all extrapolations.
>
> Commander Mrith'hele'arana. "The general who advances without coveting
>fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to
>protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel
>of the kingdom." - Sun-tzu, The Art of War.
Paul Cassidy
Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0304c290...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com...
> > Oh, by the way, thanks for the consideration of the doubt. I never
> > mean
> > anything personal in my arguments, unless I directly say so.
>
>
>
> Quite alright. Overall firepower of an Executor broadside is not
> particuarly devastating because of the nature of those guns. They're
> mounted on huge, battleship style turrets that aren't the best for
> firing against manuverable ships. I'm almost certain that the Very
> Heavy and Heavy guns would be limited to Flak bursts against Federation
> ships to hit them, giving the Feds a bit of an easier time, since not
> all of the energy, maybe only around 10%, would strike the target with
> Flak Bursts. It would still put up quite a devastating wall of plasma,
> though.
>
I agree that the large turrets that we see would find it hard to hit
fast/manoeuvrable targets. However, the lighter ones should be reasonable at
this, since they are used against fighters.
However, the big problem is that given the speed that we see turbolasers
travel, they would be nearly useless against a Federation ship. We have seen
a Federation ship successfully fire photons from a range of about 300,000km
(TNG:The Wounded), and the TMs say that their max effective range is
actually over 4 million km. The speed of the turbolasers on screen never
seems to exceed 1000kph (a guessimate!), so it would take a turbolaser bolt
about 12.5 days to reach a Fed ship sitting 300,000km away, and about 168
days to reach one sitting at max photon range. As you might imagine, that
would make them tactically useless, and even flak bursts would not help
then.
I also seem to remember something in the essential guide to weapons, that
says that heavy turbolasers can only fire a limited number of bolts, before
certain components have to be physically replaced. If so, that may also
preclude the idea of blanket firing. Can anyone confirm this?
Finally, in TNG "Survivors", we see that the E-D's shields are knocked down
by a single 400GW hit, but that the hull then withstands other 400GW hits,
with only superficial damage. Therefore, it is quite possible that not even
close flak bursts would be enough to destroy them.
SW Rulez!
:
>
>Commander Thelea wrote in message
><0304c290...@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com>...
>>> Oh, by the way, thanks for the consideration of the doubt. I never
>>> mean
>>> anything personal in my arguments, unless I directly say so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Quite alright. Overall firepower of an Executor broadside is not
>>particuarly devastating because of the nature of those guns. They're
>>mounted on huge, battleship style turrets that aren't the best for
>>firing against manuverable ships. I'm almost certain that the Very
>>Heavy and Heavy guns would be limited to Flak bursts against Federation
>>ships to hit them, giving the Feds a bit of an easier time, since not
>>all of the energy, maybe only around 10%, would strike the target with
>>Flak Bursts. It would still put up quite a devastating wall of plasma,
>>though.
>>
>
>Just one thing (which is 3/4 unrelated to these posts).
>Flack Bursts.
>Is there a TM or something which tells about flack bursts and actualy tells
>how they are made? Or is it all extrapolations.
>
We see flak bursts several times in ANH and ESB, where aparently near
misses detonates close to the ship.
---------
SW Rulez!
---------
Kynes
> Okay, so a SSD broadside is supposed to be like 2,000 gigatons
> according to the SW side. This is clearly impossible, as in "Darksaber"
[snip]
Darksaber is subordinate to ANH, the source that the SSD firepower is
derived from. Any points that they disagree on are automatically given to
ANH without debate.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"I am not much for fact to face meetings." - Anton Polinger
Kynes
> However, the big problem is that given the speed that we see turbolasers
> travel, they would be nearly useless against a Federation ship. We have seen
> a Federation ship successfully fire photons from a range of about 300,000km
> (TNG:The Wounded), and the TMs say that their max effective range is
> actually over 4 million km. The speed of the turbolasers on screen never
> seems to exceed 1000kph (a guessimate!), so it would take a turbolaser bolt
> about 12.5 days to reach a Fed ship sitting 300,000km away, and about 168
> days to reach one sitting at max photon range. As you might imagine, that
> would make them tactically useless, and even flak bursts would not help
> then.
Ignoring your complete guess about TL speeds, this argument has some serious
problems. Can Federation ships fire at those huge ranges? Certainly. In fact,
there's really no reason a photon torpedo shouldn't have unbounded range, as
it could simply coast forever once fired. The same is obviously true of TL
bolts and SW torpedoes of various sorts.
But let us look at the preponderance of examples of ST combat. Do we see battle
actually done at 300,000km? Very rarely -- in fact, perhaps only that one time!
Whenever combat comes, it's done at extremely short range. Witness First Contact.
Did the Federation stay at huge ranges and fire at the Borg cube from there?
No, they moved in within a few km, buzzing about the cube like flies and firing
at very-short range.
What could be the reason for this? Well, it's obvious. ST weapons fire is really
not much faster than SW weapons fire. Michael January showed that, based on FC,
ST phaser speed is only a few km/s -- much *slower*, in fact, than your number
for SW weapons fire. (As an aside, I have to ask whether you've incorporated the
ROTJ long-range fire seen from the DS2 in this estimate.)
So, I will state again what I believe to be the battle conditions if a Federation
fleet encountered an Imperial fleet. The Imperial Fleet would have a momentary
advantage as soon as they dropped out of hyperspace, as it would be wisest to do
so at maximum tactial range. They would commence firing on the Federation ships,
and before they could react, perhaps even destroy 20-30% of their fleet with
light and heavy TL fire alike.
The Federation ships would immediately move to engage the Imperials at close
range. Though the Imperials, with their superior sublight acceleration of at
least 30km/s^2 [ref: ROTJ] compared to 10km/s^2 at *best* for Federation vessels
[ref: TM and VOY "Fair Haven"], could easily stay at this distance from the
Federation vessels, they would allow the Federation ships to enter close range.
By this point, the Federation vessels would have perhaps sustained another 20%
losses, leaving them with about half of their fleet left.
At close range, the Federation ships would immediately open fire, scoring perhaps
a few irrelevant hits on the large Imperial vessels. The Imperials, however,
would be launching thousands of fighters at this point to engage the Federation
ships at close-range. This is the reason that the Imperials would allow the
Federation to move in close -- the chance to launch fighters. This obviously
should not be done for long-range combat, since fighters are short-range by their
very nature.
The fighters would begin to cause serious damage on the Federation vessels, as
even by the bottom-barrel limit of 60GJ per shot established by ANH (and I remind
you, that estimate is based on the DS1 being made of *iron*) only a few shots
would be necessary to down the Federation shields. With thousands of fighters
compared to only perhaps a few hundred Federation vessels (assuming that this is
an unusually huge Federation fleet), the fighters would of course become a
serious and immediate problem. Fire would be concentrated on the fighters, with
little effect.
Why little effect, you ask? This is a subject for another post, but it boils
down to the pitiful accuracy that we see from Federation weapons systems (see
the countless DS9 battles).
> I also seem to remember something in the essential guide to weapons, that
> says that heavy turbolasers can only fire a limited number of bolts, before
> certain components have to be physically replaced. If so, that may also
> preclude the idea of blanket firing. Can anyone confirm this?
I can't. Quote?
> Finally, in TNG "Survivors", we see that the E-D's shields are knocked down
> by a single 400GW hit, but that the hull then withstands other 400GW hits,
> with only superficial damage. Therefore, it is quite possible that not even
> close flak bursts would be enough to destroy them.
When do we see the hull withstand any 400GW plasma hits? I ask because this
weaponry seems to be the most detrimental to Federation vessels, and if you're
counting phaser hits, then it's not really a fair comparison. At the very least,
multiple hits on the characteristically weak and unstable warp nacelles would
accomplish the job of destroying the Federation ship quite nicely, even with
low-powered weapons.
Eframepilot
>"Eframepilot" <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:86e1g2$inc$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Okay, so a SSD broadside is supposed to be like 2,000 gigatons
>> according to the SW side. This is clearly impossible, as in "Darksaber"
>
>[snip]
>
>Darksaber is subordinate to ANH, the source that the SSD firepower is
>derived from. Any points that they disagree on are automatically given to
>ANH without debate.
The problem with this is that ANH calcs referred to are estimates that cannot
be given precedence over an official source. If official sources are to be
considered at all, they must not be tossed out simply because much higher
numbers *can* be derived from canon sources; in fact, the false dilemma of
"Darksaber" invalidates the ANH calcs.
Kynes
The ANH calcs are based on two things: the canon statement that the Imperial
starfleet has a twice-greater firepower than the Death Star's superlaser, and
the an estimate of Imperial fleet size. You are going to have to slide the
slider *WAY* up on #2 if you want to hold onto your KJA-calcs. *snicker*
A free hint, Eframe. Don't ever try to defend KJA to a die-hard Dune fan.
Canon be damned -- you are fighting a pissed-off force greater than you will
ever, ever understand. :)
Eframepilot
<snip>
> However, those estimates are supported by the Base Delta Zero
>operation, which is mentioned in four different official sources,
>making it 4 against 1 in favour of higher firepower, while not only is
>the bombardment of Yavin one source, but it was also written by a
>highly disreputable author. Not only that, but where is the evidence
>that Turbolasers were specifically targeted at anything except stone
>structures or stone inlaid landing fields, ect? They used Tie Bombers
>to attack the forests, not Turbolasers.
>
>
which is of higher officialness than the West End Games sourcebooks that
describe it as the complete melting of the surface of a planet, Base Delta
Zero is "merely" the complete eradication of life on a world. Han Solo
recognizes it as such when he first hears it mentioned by Admiral Greelanx,
and Captain Soontir Fel, a most unimpeachable source, considers the necessity
of leading ground troops to kill off any last stragglers after a Base Delta
Zero. If the entire surface of the world had been melted, the use of ground
troops would be both unnecessary and impossible! As "The Hutt Gambit" is of a
higher order of officialness than the West End material, Base Delta Zero is
therefore an operation to eliminate all life on a world and the description of
melting the entire surface is hyperbole.
Lord Protector Kayle Skolaris
here..... Lucasfilm and Paramount do. And Lucasfilm's policy is quite
clear on the subject. Movies beat everything else. Period. Darksaber is
trash not worth the paper it's printed on compared to the movies
themselves. Since it was written by KJA I personally think it's trash
anyway, but that's another story. Bottom line is that the movies take
precedence over the books at all times. This is not up for debate and
if you cannot accept this then there's the door. Don't let it hit ya
where the good lord split ya!
--
Any Technology Distinguishable From Magic
Is Insufficiently Advanced - Haughton's Corollary
to Clarke's Third Law
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>The Federation ships would immediately move to engage the Imperials at
close
>range. Though the Imperials, with their superior sublight acceleration of
at
>least 30km/s^2 [ref: ROTJ] compared to 10km/s^2 at *best* for Federation
vessels
>[ref: TM and VOY "Fair Haven"],
The TM is a historical reference to why impulse driver coils were
invented, and as such cannot be used to determine the acceleration of
current federation ships.
Here is the quote so you can see for yourself
"During the early definition phase of the Ambassador class, it was
determined the prototype NX-10521 could reach at least 3.71 million metric
tons. The propulsive force available from the highest specific-impulse
(Isp) fusion engines available or projected fell far short of being able
to achieve the 10km/s^2 acceleration required. This necessitated the
inclusion of a compact space-time driver coil, similar to those standard
in warp engine nacelles, that would perform a low-level continuum
distortion without driving the vehicle across the warp threshold. The
driver coil was already into computer simulation trials during the
ambassador class engineering phase and it was determined that a fusion
driven engine could move a larger mass than would normally be possible by
reaction thrust alone, even with exhaust products accelerated to near
lightspeed".
As you can see, this quote does not claim a limit of 10km/s/s for ST ship
acceleration - infact, this is the minimum acceptable maximum acceleration
when the Ambassador was designed. Given the tech advances of IDCs and the
mass reduction effects of these assemblies it is obvious that
accelerations greatly in excess of those required became possible.
This invalidates your first source for the acceleration of Trek ships.
In the Fair Haven threads on this group and others (an episode I have not
yet seen - the new series of Voyager does not begin until April in the UK)
it has been stated that the shock wave prevented the stable continuum
distortions of the warp field from being formed. As the above TM quote
shows, Impulse utilises a variation of the Warp field to achieve greater
accelerations than should be possible. If this low level warp field cannot
be formed the acceleration will be far lower than usual. In Fair Haven
this low level warp field could not be formed, so the logical conclusion
is that the acceleration value gained from that episode is far lower than
usual.
This invalidates your second source for the acceleration of Trek ships.
Both of the above have been stated in this group previously, by myself and
others in the case of the first, and by Matthew Hyde and Will in the case
of the second. I can only assume you missed these posts, as I am sure you
would not purposely provide an argument you knew to be false.
Now, to provide an alternative possibility for acceleration.
This is taken from the Voyager episode "The Swarm". The ship has to cross
a sensor net, travelling a distance of 500,000km (stated by Paris) as
quickly as possible. They begin stationary. From when Paris first engages
the impulse drives to when Kim says they are safely through the net takes
a total of 15 seconds. Once they are safely through the net they go to
warp.
This indicates the acceleration of Voyager when their warp fields are not
affected is of the order of 4000km/s/s, which is presumably full impulse
acceleration, though this was not stated (incidentally, their velocity
after this time would have been 0.22c)
If you wish to provide alternative sources to support your claim of low
accelerations please feel free to do so. However, to be able to compare
them with modern vessels they would have to be after the introduction of
impulse driver coils, which means TNG, DS9 or Voyager.
If you accept this challenge, please provide the episode name, a brief
description of the scene (including any mitigating circumstances such as
lack of stable warp fields), and your calculations.
Eframepilot
<snip>
>The ANH calcs are based on two things: the canon statement that the Imperial
>starfleet has a twice-greater firepower than the Death Star's superlaser, and
>the an estimate of Imperial fleet size. You are going to have to slide the
>slider *WAY* up on #2 if you want to hold onto your KJA-calcs. *snicker*
>
>A free hint, Eframe. Don't ever try to defend KJA to a die-hard Dune fan.
>Canon be damned -- you are fighting a pissed-off force greater than you will
>ever, ever understand. :)
Well, the debate about what exactly Dodonna was talking about aside, there's
an easy way to make the statement compatible with Darksaber. The Death Star
carries a firepower "greater than half the Starfleet." How much greater? A
little greater? Twice as great? Millions of times greater? We MUST interpret
this statement in a way compatible with Darksaber as to throw it out is a
false dilemma. As Dodonna didn't specify how much greater the Death Star's
firepower was than the Imp. Starfleet, his statement isn't a valid basis for
calculation.
As for defending KJA, well, I don't really like his JA trilogy,
either, but at least he broke up Luke and Callista in Darksaber.
Eframepilot
>You just don't get it, do you, chum? YOU do not set the rules around
>here..... Lucasfilm and Paramount do. And Lucasfilm's policy is quite
>clear on the subject. Movies beat everything else. Period. Darksaber is
>trash not worth the paper it's printed on compared to the movies
>themselves. Since it was written by KJA I personally think it's trash
>anyway, but that's another story. Bottom line is that the movies take
>precedence over the books at all times. This is not up for debate and
>if you cannot accept this then there's the door. Don't let it hit ya
>where the good lord split ya!
movies... and a single line that can easily be interpreted in a different way
isn't a direct contradiction. This is the same argument used to justify the
validity of the Tales of the Jedi comics; though according to TPM
novelization, the Sith have only been around a couple thousand years, it's
argued that they're a kind of neo-Sith based upon the original Sith of the
Tales of the Jedi. Assuming a slightly different meaning for Dodonna's comment
is a MUCH smaller stretch than that.
Commander Thelea
< snip >
> I said it was a guess, I'm not trying to carve the figure in
> stone. However,
> the speed does appear to be very low. What would your guestimate
> be from the
> on screen evidence? 1000kph was a guess, but I think it's fair to
> say that
> it was certainly less than 10,000kph. That still means they are
> taking
> nearly 17 days to travel the official max photon range, and 30
> hours to the
> canon confirmed minimum photon range.
I was thinking 10% of lightspeed, actually. However, we can say what
we think all day long and have no proof. Someone needs to calculate the
speed of the fastest TL bolts.
> As for the Federation weapons, as I said, we have seen them use
> weapons at
> long range, and the TM confirms this. The difference is, that in
> "The
> Wounded" example, the torpedo takes just 2 or 3 seconds to cover
> the
> 300,000km distance (which fits quite nicely with the figures in
> the TM), so
> they don't have the slow speed problem that turbolasers seem to
> have.
But the Feds will have to close to Imperial optimal combat range if
they want their photon torpedoes to hit. Not because they're
inaccurate, but because Imperial ships have the most brilliant
invention ever conceived: The point defence cannon! At long ranges, you
give them enough time to track, predict, and shoot down any incoming
torpedoes. So you have to go to close range to fire your torpedoes and
keep them from getting blown apart, and thereby putting yourself in the
risk of getting blown apart. Also, Imperial torpedoes travel at
incredible relativistic velocities (0.9c+). We know this because it was
said that Wedge's X-wing was traveling at barely sublight speeds in the
escape from the DS II, and that Proton torpedoes are much faster than
X-wings (Dozens of references), and very easy to shoot down for
Imperial point-defence cannons. (Vision of the Future.) Therefore, at
long range there can be a torpedo duel, yes, but because of Imperial
point defence cannons, they WILL win it.
Commander Mrith'hele'arana
Chuck
Eframepilot <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:86fkfo$cu1$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> Well, the debate about what exactly Dodonna was talking about aside,
there's
> an easy way to make the statement compatible with Darksaber. The Death
Star
> carries a firepower "greater than half the Starfleet." How much greater? A
> little greater? Twice as great? Millions of times greater? We MUST
interpret
> this statement in a way compatible with Darksaber as to throw it out is a
> false dilemma. As Dodonna didn't specify how much greater the Death Star's
> firepower was than the Imp. Starfleet, his statement isn't a valid basis
for
> calculation.
Most likely it's somewhere between one half and all, or else he would've
simply said "carries a firepower greater than the starfleet".
--
We don't serve their kind here.
We do not serve them here or there,
We do not serve them anywhere.
We do not like gold droids like tham.
We do not like them, Obi-wam.
Chuck
Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:KmQi4.13111$k25.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> KJA is a bastard shitsucker who does nothing but muck around in other
people's
> valid universes. His absolute farce known as "Dune: House Atreides," is,
> without question, the worst piece of literature ever produced in the
entire
> history of human kind.
>
Hmm, I think he's deserving of a list of attrocities.
Dune
Star Wars
War of the Worlds
Others?
--
"Oh, pardon me for being unfair to HITLER"
Matt Hyde to Anton Pollinger
Wayne Poe
Ugh. How many times must this fallacial crap be disputed?
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
> Okay, so a SSD broadside is supposed to be like 2,000 gigatons
> according to the SW side. This is clearly impossible, as in
> "Darksaber" the Knight Hammer bombarded Yavin IV without reducing the
> entire area surrounding the Great Temple into a molten sea of
> superheated magma. I quote(capitalization added):
> "Yes," Daala said. "We strike from orbit. ALL
> TURBOLASER BATTERIES, ***FULL STRENGTH***. Fire at will,
> targeting any structures in the jungle."
> And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in the jungle,
> completely unvaporized!
And yet, you can't even read what you quoted! They were targeting
STRUCTURES. Hi strawman! Refutation of your first point.
> The Millenium Falcon even lands safely amid the raining bolts of
> destruction from above.
If you read the novel CAREFULLY, there were no "raining bolts of
destruction" when the Falcon made its landing. TIEs were following
it in, AND, ground forces began convering on the Great Temple. Refutation
of your second point.
> Not to mention, Yavin suffers no horrible destruction that would
> render it inhabitable. And more than 2 teratons unleashed in every
> broadside upon one area of a planet would make it QUITE uninhabitable!
> Good-bye multi-gigaton turbolaser firepower. You won't be missed.
Please prove that Daala meant to make Yavin 4 uninhabiable? Please prove
that she rained down enough firepower to make the planet inhabitable?
Please explain why she would deploy ground troops if she indeed unleased
full broadside after full broadside into the planet, instead of orbital
bombardments at key locations? Refutation of your last point.
"Ah right. God that bloke is thick sometimes."
----Lord Edam de Fromage commenting on Anton Polinger
Wayne Poe
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
> Actually, dialogue in the book clearly states that the forests began to burn,
> so every hit was NOT hitting the temple and being absorbed.
Hey! You got something right!
> As for the "canon" calculations of 2 gigaton firepower, they are merely
> *extrapolations* from the energy used to vaporize asteroids.
No, they are *calculations* based on an observed canon event in TESB.
> There is no evidence that turbolasers have firepower significantly
> greater than that shown directly on screen in ESB. The extrapolations
> made by Saxton and Wong are based purely on the size of the bolts.
And confirmed by Brian Young and onscreen evidence.
> Simply because some turbolaser batteries are much larger than the ones
> *presumably* used to destroy the asteroids
This is not a "presumption." The heavy TL cannons were NOT used. Watch the
movie.
> is not canon evidence that the heavy turbolaser batteries are hundreds
> or thousands of times more powerful.
There is plenty of official evidence to back up this claim, as well as the
very fact that one wouldn't build a bigger gun if it just pumped out the
exact same energy as the smaller guns. And I don't remember anyone,
Saxton, Wong, or Young claming their conclusion were CANON. Do you?
> Canon may override official, but extrapolation is worth zilch if it is
> contradicted by anything. As Daala clearly ordered full fire upon
> Yavin, and the fire hit spots other than those that could completely
> absorb the energy, the surface should have been obliterated.
Again, you are misrepresenting the whole arguement. You are comparing full
broadsides Commander Thelea talked about to orbital bombardments made on
Yavin 4 that certainly were not the same duration or multiple firings of a
"full broadside" since Daala had ground troops dispatched on Yavin 4 at
the time.
> This is especially significant as it is the best description of a full
> planetary bombardment ANYWHERE in the official SW EU.
But not of a "full broadside" which Thelea was talking about, and which
you were apparently trying to refute.
> Throwing out the entire lump sum of Darksaber is a reaction to a false
> dilemma,
Comparing the orbital bombardment of Darksaber to a full broadside
discussion is a strawman fallacy.
> which is easily solved by the rationalization that the extrapolations
> of heavy turbolaser impact are WRONG.
No, they comparisons you tried to make are WRONG.
> Nothing gets thrown out, EXCEPT unofficial estimates by Wong and
> Saxton.
Sorry, but the estimates made by Saxton, Wong, and Young are based on
canon and official observations, which were carefully READ and UNDERSTOOD
before they made their conclusions. Look into that practice in the future.
"Don't ask me... I am completely confused."
----Anton Polinger
Wayne Poe
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
> The Base Delta Zero operation is in fact misinterpreted. In "The Hutt
> Gambit," which is of higher officialness than the West End Games
> sourcebooks that describe it as the complete melting of the surface of
> a planet, Base Delta Zero is "merely" the complete eradication of life
> on a world.
Refuted earlier last week. Those were not ISDs performing a BDZ. The
official SW website supports the WEG version of what an ISD can do to the
surface of a world, as well as the BtM CD.
"Where does Graham get his information, anyway? He's not an official
source--he's a Paul Jacques with a web page."
----Eric
Paul Cassidy
I said it was a guess, I'm not trying to carve the figure in stone. However,
the speed does appear to be very low. What would your guestimate be from the
on screen evidence? 1000kph was a guess, but I think it's fair to say that
it was certainly less than 10,000kph. That still means they are taking
nearly 17 days to travel the official max photon range, and 30 hours to the
canon confirmed minimum photon range.
As for the Federation weapons, as I said, we have seen them use weapons at
long range, and the TM confirms this. The difference is, that in "The
Wounded" example, the torpedo takes just 2 or 3 seconds to cover the
300,000km distance (which fits quite nicely with the figures in the TM), so
they don't have the slow speed problem that turbolasers seem to have.
> But let us look at the preponderance of examples of ST combat. Do we see
battle
> actually done at 300,000km? Very rarely -- in fact, perhaps only that one
time!
> Whenever combat comes, it's done at extremely short range. Witness First
Contact.
> Did the Federation stay at huge ranges and fire at the Borg cube from
there?
> No, they moved in within a few km, buzzing about the cube like flies and
firing
> at very-short range.
>
No, there are other examples of long range combat. TOS "Balance of Terror"
and DS9 WotW spring to mind immedietly. However, I grant you that in
general, engagements are at short range. However, that doesn't matter. If
they have the capability, and they have used it, then it is admissible.
> What could be the reason for this? Well, it's obvious. ST weapons fire is
really
> not much faster than SW weapons fire. Michael January showed that, based
on FC,
> ST phaser speed is only a few km/s -- much *slower*, in fact, than your
number
> for SW weapons fire. (As an aside, I have to ask whether you've
incorporated the
> ROTJ long-range fire seen from the DS2 in this estimate.)
>
Phasers are another story. Like TL, they do not seem to be LS weapons,
though there is some evidence that once the beam is firing, the energy
tavels at LS (no bending of the beam when it moves). Certainly the initial
beam travels slowly, and the rest travels much faster.. However, let's leave
that aside and concentrate just on photons, since they are capable of much
faster speeds.
> So, I will state again what I believe to be the battle conditions if a
Federation
> fleet encountered an Imperial fleet. The Imperial Fleet would have a
momentary
> advantage as soon as they dropped out of hyperspace, as it would be wisest
to do
> so at maximum tactial range. They would commence firing on the Federation
ships,
> and before they could react, perhaps even destroy 20-30% of their fleet
with
> light and heavy TL fire alike.
>
Fair enough, but this assumes that the ST ships don't react to the incoming
hyper ships and go to warp.
> The Federation ships would immediately move to engage the Imperials at
close
> range. Though the Imperials, with their superior sublight acceleration of
at
> least 30km/s^2 [ref: ROTJ] compared to 10km/s^2 at *best* for Federation
vessels
> [ref: TM and VOY "Fair Haven"], could easily stay at this distance from
the
> Federation vessels, they would allow the Federation ships to enter close
range.
> By this point, the Federation vessels would have perhaps sustained another
20%
> losses, leaving them with about half of their fleet left.
>
It's probably fair that the first engagement between a SW and ST ship would
be fought at close range, probably with the SW ship firing first. The SW
ship would probably also win. However, in later engagements, you would
expect captains to fight to the strengths of their ship, not their enemies.
Then the effective weapon ranges come into play.
> At close range, the Federation ships would immediately open fire, scoring
perhaps
> a few irrelevant hits on the large Imperial vessels. The Imperials,
however,
> would be launching thousands of fighters at this point to engage the
Federation
> ships at close-range. This is the reason that the Imperials would allow
the
> Federation to move in close -- the chance to launch fighters. This
obviously
> should not be done for long-range combat, since fighters are short-range
by their
> very nature.
>
See above
> The fighters would begin to cause serious damage on the Federation
vessels, as
> even by the bottom-barrel limit of 60GJ per shot established by ANH (and I
remind
> you, that estimate is based on the DS1 being made of *iron*) only a few
shots
> would be necessary to down the Federation shields. With thousands of
fighters
> compared to only perhaps a few hundred Federation vessels (assuming that
this is
> an unusually huge Federation fleet), the fighters would of course become a
> serious and immediate problem. Fire would be concentrated on the fighters,
with
> little effect.
>
unlikely that the first enagement would be between fleets. Once there was a
fleet battle, both sides would know a little about each other, and it would
play out quite differently.
> Why little effect, you ask? This is a subject for another post, but it
boils
> down to the pitiful accuracy that we see from Federation weapons systems
(see
> the countless DS9 battles).
>
Torpedoes rarely miss. Phasers miss all the time. However, since I'm
argueing for long range shots, that probably means torps anyway. :)
> > I also seem to remember something in the essential guide to weapons,
that
> > says that heavy turbolasers can only fire a limited number of bolts,
before
> > certain components have to be physically replaced. If so, that may also
> > preclude the idea of blanket firing. Can anyone confirm this?
>
> I can't. Quote?
>
I'll see if I can get a copy.
> > Finally, in TNG "Survivors", we see that the E-D's shields are knocked
down
> > by a single 400GW hit, but that the hull then withstands other 400GW
hits,
> > with only superficial damage. Therefore, it is quite possible that not
even
> > close flak bursts would be enough to destroy them.
>
> When do we see the hull withstand any 400GW plasma hits? I ask because
this
> weaponry seems to be the most detrimental to Federation vessels, and if
you're
> counting phaser hits, then it's not really a fair comparison. At the very
least,
> multiple hits on the characteristically weak and unstable warp nacelles
would
> accomplish the job of destroying the Federation ship quite nicely, even
with
> low-powered weapons.
> --
This is the quote from the script shown on the ST companion CD......
STAR TREK: "The Survivors"
46 INCLUDE MAIN VIEWER (OPTICAL)
As the warship lets fly with an awesome barrage of
electro-magnetic and particle death. The Enterprise
rocks. The bridge lights flicker. It's a heavy hit --
WORF
(continuing)
Shields down! Captain, they hit
us with four hundred gigawatts
of particle energy!
PICARD
Damage?
WORF
Superficial -- but I am having
trouble reassembling the shields!
The warship fires again. The Enterprise rocks again.
WORF
(continuing)
Shields down! There is thermal
damage to the hull!
DATA
The warship is in possession of
enormous energy reserves. It is
capable of striking us with
far more powerful bursts.
WESLEY
They're maneuvering to come
between the Enterprise and Rana
Four.
PICARD
Number One, we have been exemplary
in our patience.
RIKER
(with pleasure)
Lieutenant Worf, fire phasers on
full with a simultaneous spread
of torpedoes.
47 EXT. SPACE - THE ENTERPRISE AND WARSHIP (OPTICAL)
The Enterprise lets fly. The warship is hit -- but it
might as well have been with a feather pillow.
48 INT. MAIN BRIDGE (OPTICAL)
DATA
The vessel appears undamaged.
Its defenses are apparently able
to absorb incoming matter and
energy.
RIKER
Commence rapid fire with all
weapons on full!
The Enterprise lets loose with everything it's got in a
sustained barrage. The warship is unaffected. It
fires back with one awesome burst. The Enterprise is
knocked head over heels (so to speak). The entire
bridge crew is knocked down. There is damage to the
bridge -- and injuries to one of the supernumeraries.
WORF
Shields are down! There is
internal damage -- weapon systems
control has been lost!
RIKER
Riker to Sickbay. Medical
assistance to the bridge!
PICARD
Mister Crusher, move the
Enterprise out of range of the
attacking vessel!
Kynes
> <snip>
> >The ANH calcs are based on two things: the canon statement that the Imperial
> >starfleet has a twice-greater firepower than the Death Star's superlaser, and
> >the an estimate of Imperial fleet size. You are going to have to slide the
> >slider *WAY* up on #2 if you want to hold onto your KJA-calcs. *snicker*
> >
> >A free hint, Eframe. Don't ever try to defend KJA to a die-hard Dune fan.
> >Canon be damned -- you are fighting a pissed-off force greater than you will
> >ever, ever understand. :)
>
There is no debate about what he was talking about. BTM makes it quite clear
that he was discussing superlaser firepower; any attempt to divert the discussion
here is an implicit admission of defeat, as a refusal to accept official
sources.
>, there's
> an easy way to make the statement compatible with Darksaber. The Death Star
> carries a firepower "greater than half the Starfleet." How much greater? A
> little greater? Twice as great? Millions of times greater? We MUST interpret
> this statement in a way compatible with Darksaber as to throw it out is a
> false dilemma.
Wrong. If it was greater than the entire Starfleet, then he would have said
"greater than the entire Starfleet." He didn't, so it wasn't. If it was
greater than three-fourths of the Starfleet, he would have said "greater
than three-fourths of the Starfleet." He did, so it wasn't. This reasoning
can be taken to its logical end to deduce that the Death Star was less than
one ship's firepower greater than the entirety of the Starfleet. EOF. This
has been debated and lost by greater ST fanatics than you, I'm afraid.
> As for defending KJA, well, I don't really like his JA trilogy,
> either, but at least he broke up Luke and Callista in Darksaber.
KJA is a bastard shitsucker who does nothing but muck around in other people's
valid universes. His absolute farce known as "Dune: House Atreides," is,
without question, the worst piece of literature ever produced in the entire
history of human kind.
He is the Antieris.
Kynes
> > Ignoring your complete guess about TL speeds, this argument has some
> serious
> > problems. Can Federation ships fire at those huge ranges? Certainly. In
> fact,
> > there's really no reason a photon torpedo shouldn't have unbounded range,
> as
> > it could simply coast forever once fired. The same is obviously true of TL
> > bolts and SW torpedoes of various sorts.
> >
>
> I said it was a guess, I'm not trying to carve the figure in stone. However,
> the speed does appear to be very low. What would your guestimate be from the
> on screen evidence? 1000kph was a guess, but I think it's fair to say that
> it was certainly less than 10,000kph. That still means they are taking
> nearly 17 days to travel the official max photon range, and 30 hours to the
> canon confirmed minimum photon range.
TL speed appears to be about that of phaser speed. As for this nonsense about
firing regularly from 300,000km, see below. I said I wasn't really disputing
your number -- the fact that ST vessels do *not* regularly engage at long
range makes weapons speed a fairly moot point.
> As for the Federation weapons, as I said, we have seen them use weapons at
> long range, and the TM confirms this. The difference is, that in "The
> Wounded" example, the torpedo takes just 2 or 3 seconds to cover the
> 300,000km distance (which fits quite nicely with the figures in the TM), so
> they don't have the slow speed problem that turbolasers seem to have.
That's all fine and well. I wasn't disputing any of this. The FAQ makes it
quite permissible and fine for me to advance the *known* behaviour of
Federation captains as evidence. In this case, for reasons perhaps unknown,
they prefer to engage at very-short range, and will do so in almost all cases.
The Dominion War in particular shows that in large fleet engagements, long-range
combat is never used at all.
> > But let us look at the preponderance of examples of ST combat. Do we see
> battle
> > actually done at 300,000km? Very rarely -- in fact, perhaps only that one
> time!
> > Whenever combat comes, it's done at extremely short range. Witness First
> Contact.
> > Did the Federation stay at huge ranges and fire at the Borg cube from
> there?
> > No, they moved in within a few km, buzzing about the cube like flies and
> firing
> > at very-short range.
> >
>
> No, there are other examples of long range combat. TOS "Balance of Terror"
> and DS9 WotW spring to mind immedietly. However, I grant you that in
> general, engagements are at short range. However, that doesn't matter. If
> they have the capability, and they have used it, then it is admissible.
Oh, it's admissible, but that's not really the issue. I already said that
they can obviously fire torpedoes at great, even infinite ranges -- the
question is, will they? Will they use this apparent range advantage? The answer,
drawing from all canon, is obviously no.
> > What could be the reason for this? Well, it's obvious. ST weapons fire is
> really
> > not much faster than SW weapons fire. Michael January showed that, based
> on FC,
> > ST phaser speed is only a few km/s -- much *slower*, in fact, than your
> number
> > for SW weapons fire. (As an aside, I have to ask whether you've
> incorporated the
> > ROTJ long-range fire seen from the DS2 in this estimate.)
> >
>
> Phasers are another story. Like TL, they do not seem to be LS weapons,
> though there is some evidence that once the beam is firing, the energy
> tavels at LS (no bending of the beam when it moves). Certainly the initial
> beam travels slowly, and the rest travels much faster..
Which is an interesting curiosity and a good find on your part, but matters
absolutely zero in warfare. :) If the initial beam takes a long time to get
there, then for all intents and purposes, that's how fast the weapon travels.
Who cares if, once you're firing, you can stop on a dime?
> However, let's leave
> that aside and concentrate just on photons, since they are capable of much
> faster speeds.
Faster speeds, sure, but see above; in large fleet engagements, even if the
Federation ships are capable of great range, they will not use it.
> > So, I will state again what I believe to be the battle conditions if a
> Federation
> > fleet encountered an Imperial fleet. The Imperial Fleet would have a
> momentary
> > advantage as soon as they dropped out of hyperspace, as it would be wisest
> to do
> > so at maximum tactial range. They would commence firing on the Federation
> ships,
> > and before they could react, perhaps even destroy 20-30% of their fleet
> with
> > light and heavy TL fire alike.
> >
>
> Fair enough, but this assumes that the ST ships don't react to the incoming
> hyper ships and go to warp.
No, I factored that in; think about it. The Imperials have standing orders to
fire on the Federation ships as they drop out of hyperspace. But the Federation
fleet has no idea that the Imperials will be arriving. They're blind to
hyperspace.
So the ensign will detect the Imperials dropping out of hyperspace. He'll tell
the Captain. The captain, being a Starfleet officer, will want to know whether
they're hostile. The ensign will say yes, they're already firing on us. The
captain will give the order to warp to their position and engage, and the
ensign will key this in and POWPOWPOW -- there goes half of the fleet. :)
> It's probably fair that the first engagement between a SW and ST ship would
> be fought at close range, probably with the SW ship firing first. The SW
> ship would probably also win. However, in later engagements, you would
> expect captains to fight to the strengths of their ship, not their enemies.
> Then the effective weapon ranges come into play.
Indeed; and, as we see, when a Federation fleet attacks another fleet, they
invariably do so at close range.
> > The fighters would begin to cause serious damage on the Federation
> vessels, as
> > even by the bottom-barrel limit of 60GJ per shot established by ANH (and I
> remind
> > you, that estimate is based on the DS1 being made of *iron*) only a few
> shots
> > would be necessary to down the Federation shields. With thousands of
> fighters
> > compared to only perhaps a few hundred Federation vessels (assuming that
> this is
> > an unusually huge Federation fleet), the fighters would of course become a
> > serious and immediate problem. Fire would be concentrated on the fighters,
> with
> > little effect.
> >
>
> unlikely that the first enagement would be between fleets. Once there was a
> fleet battle, both sides would know a little about each other, and it would
> play out quite differently.
I don't think so. The encounter I described assumed a large-scale attack by
the Empire on a Federation who knew that such an attack would be coming.
A first encounter would just be a slaughter for the Empire.
I also notice you've totally ignored my point about fighters.
> > Why little effect, you ask? This is a subject for another post, but it
> boils
> > down to the pitiful accuracy that we see from Federation weapons systems
> (see
> > the countless DS9 battles).
> >
>
> Torpedoes rarely miss. Phasers miss all the time. However, since I'm
> argueing for long range shots, that probably means torps anyway. :)
Torpedoes rarely miss at short range, given; but there's not enough evidence
to clear the Federation of their reputation for abhorrently bad targeting
systems yet, especially at long range when firing is *harder*.
> > > I also seem to remember something in the essential guide to weapons,
> that
> > > says that heavy turbolasers can only fire a limited number of bolts,
> before
> > > certain components have to be physically replaced. If so, that may also
> > > preclude the idea of blanket firing. Can anyone confirm this?
> >
> > I can't. Quote?
> >
>
> I'll see if I can get a copy.
It's really fairly immaterial; heavy cannons would be overkill. A point
defense cannon is more than enough to destroy a Federation vessel in a couple
of shots.
> > > Finally, in TNG "Survivors", we see that the E-D's shields are knocked
> down
> > > by a single 400GW hit, but that the hull then withstands other 400GW
> hits,
> > > with only superficial damage. Therefore, it is quite possible that not
> even
> > > close flak bursts would be enough to destroy them.
> >
> > When do we see the hull withstand any 400GW plasma hits? I ask because
> this
> > weaponry seems to be the most detrimental to Federation vessels, and if
> you're
> > counting phaser hits, then it's not really a fair comparison. At the very
> least,
> > multiple hits on the characteristically weak and unstable warp nacelles
> would
> > accomplish the job of destroying the Federation ship quite nicely, even
> with
> > low-powered weapons.
> > --
>
> This is the quote from the script shown on the ST companion CD......
[snip quote]
Interesting. So the ship lost shields after one 400GW volley, and was in
serious danger after two or three more? Imagine how they'll deal with the
multi-terawatt cannons of an ISD. Not well, I should say.
Kynes
>
> > KJA is a bastard shitsucker who does nothing but muck around in other
> people's
> > valid universes. His absolute farce known as "Dune: House Atreides," is,
> > without question, the worst piece of literature ever produced in the
> entire
> > history of human kind.
> >
> Dune
> Star Wars
> War of the Worlds
He wrote a series of horrific X-Files novels as well, I believe.
Eframepilot
>"Eframepilot" <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:86fkfo$cu1$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>> In article <vzHi4.12396$k25.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Kynes"
> <ky...@choam.org> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >The ANH calcs are based on two things: the canon statement that the Imperial
>> >starfleet has a twice-greater firepower than the Death Star's superlaser,
> and
>> >the an estimate of Imperial fleet size. You are going to have to slide the
>> >slider *WAY* up on #2 if you want to hold onto your KJA-calcs. *snicker*
>> >
>> >A free hint, Eframe. Don't ever try to defend KJA to a die-hard Dune fan.
>> >Canon be damned -- you are fighting a pissed-off force greater than you will
>> >ever, ever understand. :)
>>
>> Well, the debate about what exactly Dodonna was talking about aside
>
>There is no debate about what he was talking about. BTM makes it quite clear
>that he was discussing superlaser firepower; any attempt to divert the
> discussion
>here is an implicit admission of defeat, as a refusal to accept official
>sources.
>
>>, there's
>> an easy way to make the statement compatible with Darksaber. The Death Star
>> carries a firepower "greater than half the Starfleet." How much greater? A
>> little greater? Twice as great? Millions of times greater? We MUST interpret
>> this statement in a way compatible with Darksaber as to throw it out is a
>> false dilemma.
>
>Wrong. If it was greater than the entire Starfleet, then he would have said
>"greater than the entire Starfleet." He didn't, so it wasn't. If it was
>greater than three-fourths of the Starfleet, he would have said "greater
>than three-fourths of the Starfleet." He did, so it wasn't. This reasoning
>can be taken to its logical end to deduce that the Death Star was less than
>one ship's firepower greater than the entirety of the Starfleet. EOF. This
>has been debated and lost by greater ST fanatics than you, I'm afraid.
>
linguistic custom in SW to refer to things as halfway. "They could be
*halfway* across the galaxy by now." This is, of course, speculation, but it
validates an official source that would otherwise be contradicted. The
authorship is irrelevant, as the SW books are to be regarded as transcriptions
of documentaries.
<snip>
Kynes
> >There is no debate about what he was talking about. BTM makes it quite clear
> >that he was discussing superlaser firepower; any attempt to divert the
> > discussion
> >here is an implicit admission of defeat, as a refusal to accept official
> >sources.
> >
> Refusal to accept official sources? Where else have we seen that, I wonder?
You're avoiding the argument. This is how it is. I'm sorry that it spells
doom for your pet franchise.
> >>, there's
> >> an easy way to make the statement compatible with Darksaber. The Death Star
> >> carries a firepower "greater than half the Starfleet." How much greater? A
> >> little greater? Twice as great? Millions of times greater? We MUST interpret
> >> this statement in a way compatible with Darksaber as to throw it out is a
> >> false dilemma.
> >
> >Wrong. If it was greater than the entire Starfleet, then he would have said
> >"greater than the entire Starfleet." He didn't, so it wasn't. If it was
> >greater than three-fourths of the Starfleet, he would have said "greater
> >than three-fourths of the Starfleet." He did, so it wasn't. This reasoning
> >can be taken to its logical end to deduce that the Death Star was less than
> >one ship's firepower greater than the entirety of the Starfleet. EOF. This
> >has been debated and lost by greater ST fanatics than you, I'm afraid.
> >
> How can we know what or why Dodonna would say anything?
[baseless speculation snipped]
Find some evidence for the supposition and you'll have the admiration of
every ST weenie west of Greenwich. However, you don't have any such thing,
so it's invalid. The FAQ, and all of that.
It's a fact that the SW galaxy is *not* speaking English -- they speak another
language called Basic. We're merely hearing it in English. So it's STANDARD
English, complete with verbal nuances and eccentricities. Thus, interpreting
Dodonna's statement as I would interpret any other is totally valid unless you
can find DIRECT evidence to the contrary.
Eframepilot
>
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
>
>
>> so every hit was NOT hitting the temple and being absorbed.
>
>Hey! You got something right!
>
>> As for the "canon" calculations of 2 gigaton firepower, they are merely
>> *extrapolations* from the energy used to vaporize asteroids.
>
>No, they are *calculations* based on an observed canon event in TESB.
>
>> There is no evidence that turbolasers have firepower significantly
>> greater than that shown directly on screen in ESB. The extrapolations
>> made by Saxton and Wong are based purely on the size of the bolts.
>
>And confirmed by Brian Young and onscreen evidence.
>
>> Simply because some turbolaser batteries are much larger than the ones
>> *presumably* used to destroy the asteroids
>
>This is not a "presumption." The heavy TL cannons were NOT used. Watch the
>movie.
>
were, as you said, NOT used. How much more powerful would they be? Completely
unknown.
>> is not canon evidence that the heavy turbolaser batteries are hundreds
>> or thousands of times more powerful.
>
>There is plenty of official evidence to back up this claim, as well as the
>very fact that one wouldn't build a bigger gun if it just pumped out the
>exact same energy as the smaller guns.
But what if it pumped out two or three times as much energy, instead of the
two or three thousand times as much assumed?
And I don't remember anyone,
>Saxton, Wong, or Young claming their conclusion were CANON. Do you?
>
I believe Curtis Saxton's interpretation of the infamous bridge tower domes as
sensor clusters contradicts a vast array of official sources. And there is no
direct canon evidence that the domes were, in fact, sensor domes. Indeed,
there is no specific canon evidence one way or the other. Clearly, the domes
MUST be shield generators by the rules of ASVS, UNLESS Saxton's claim is given
canon weight.
>> Canon may override official, but extrapolation is worth zilch if it is
>> contradicted by anything. As Daala clearly ordered full fire upon
>> Yavin, and the fire hit spots other than those that could completely
>> absorb the energy, the surface should have been obliterated.
>
>Again, you are misrepresenting the whole arguement. You are comparing full
>broadsides Commander Thelea talked about to orbital bombardments made on
>Yavin 4 that certainly were not the same duration or multiple firings of a
>"full broadside" since Daala had ground troops dispatched on Yavin 4 at
>the time.
>
Nooo she didn't! Pellaeon may have left behind wounded and crippled forces
before his little Force jump, but Daala chose to launch no ground forces until
after (and during) her full bombardment.
>> This is especially significant as it is the best description of a full
>> planetary bombardment ANYWHERE in the official SW EU.
>
>But not of a "full broadside" which Thelea was talking about, and which
>you were apparently trying to refute.
>
>> Throwing out the entire lump sum of Darksaber is a reaction to a false
>> dilemma,
>
>Comparing the orbital bombardment of Darksaber to a full broadside
>discussion is a strawman fallacy.
>
Here is Daala's direct order, given upon the immediate arrival of the Knight
Hammer at a time when NO ground forces were present. "We strike from orbit.
All turbolaser batteries, full strength. Fire at will." I'm sorry, I must have
completely misinterpreted this, that sounds absolutely nothing like a
broadside at all.
>> which is easily solved by the rationalization that the extrapolations
>> of heavy turbolaser impact are WRONG.
>
>No, they comparisons you tried to make are WRONG.
>
No, they are RIGHT. Daala clearly ordered a full bombardment with all
available weapons. This computes to a full broadside if a SSD is even capable
of firing all its cannons at once. If not, the entire broadside debate is
irrelevant.
>> Nothing gets thrown out, EXCEPT unofficial estimates by Wong and
>> Saxton.
>
<snip>
Paul Cassidy
Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> < snip >
>
> > I said it was a guess, I'm not trying to carve the figure in
> > stone. However,
> > the speed does appear to be very low. What would your guestimate
> > be from the
> > on screen evidence? 1000kph was a guess, but I think it's fair to
> > say that
> > it was certainly less than 10,000kph. That still means they are
> > taking
> > nearly 17 days to travel the official max photon range, and 30
> > hours to the
> > canon confirmed minimum photon range.
>
> we think all day long and have no proof. Someone needs to calculate the
> speed of the fastest TL bolts.
>
10% light speed is around 3000 km PER SECOND! There is no way they were
travelling anywhere near that speed. Look at it this way, you can, with the
unaided eye, track them as they cross the screen. That severely limits their
speed. You cannot for instance track a bullet, and they travel far less
than my stated 10,000 kilometers PER HOUR.
> > As for the Federation weapons, as I said, we have seen them use
> > weapons at
> > long range, and the TM confirms this. The difference is, that in
> > "The
> > Wounded" example, the torpedo takes just 2 or 3 seconds to cover
> > the
> > 300,000km distance (which fits quite nicely with the figures in
> > the TM), so
> > they don't have the slow speed problem that turbolasers seem to
> > have.
>
> But the Feds will have to close to Imperial optimal combat range if
> they want their photon torpedoes to hit. Not because they're
> inaccurate, but because Imperial ships have the most brilliant
> invention ever conceived: The point defence cannon! At long ranges, you
> give them enough time to track, predict, and shoot down any incoming
> torpedoes. So you have to go to close range to fire your torpedoes and
> keep them from getting blown apart, and thereby putting yourself in the
> risk of getting blown apart. Also, Imperial torpedoes travel at
> incredible relativistic velocities (0.9c+). We know this because it was
> said that Wedge's X-wing was traveling at barely sublight speeds in the
> escape from the DS II, and that Proton torpedoes are much faster than
> X-wings (Dozens of references), and very easy to shoot down for
> Imperial point-defence cannons. (Vision of the Future.) Therefore, at
> long range there can be a torpedo duel, yes, but because of Imperial
> point defence cannons, they WILL win it.
>
Ok, the Imps do have point defence, but think about this. If we use the
example from The Wounded, we see that the torpedo flight time over a
distance of 300,000km, is just 2 seconds. That means that the torps are
travelling at about 0.5c. Remember, that is the time from the torpedo
exiting the launcher, to hitting the target. If the speed of the launching
ship is higher, then so will the torpedo. There simply is not enough time
for a human to register the launch, order the weapons to lock on and launch
them before the torpedo has hit. Also, we know that photons have threat
countermeasures.
As for basing the X-wing speed on the quote from the RotJ novel, sorry, but
that has been shot down many times in this newsgroup and most SW supporters
accept that now. The film clearly shows that the X-wing was not travelling
anywhere near lightspeed when it exited the DSII. Films override the books,
so we ingore that quote. In fact, in combat, fighters also rarely show high
speeds. They must be capable of high speeds, but it is not necessarily
useful in combat since we have never seen then travel fast when fighting.
Commander Thelea
> they were
> travelling anywhere near that speed. Look at it this way, you can,
> with the
> unaided eye, track them as they cross the screen. That severely
> limits their
> speed. You cannot for instance track a bullet, and they travel
> far less
> than my stated 10,000 kilometers PER HOUR.
Excuse me. I should have said 100% of the speed of light. As suggested
at Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries, there is visual, canon proof
that one of the asteroids melted before the main part of the bolt hit,
vapourizing the melted asteroid. Though I will concede that the visual,
plasma part of the bolt travels at a speed of around 10,000-30,000
kilometers per hour, the non-visual part of the bolt, which may be the
laser that superheats the main plasma part of the bolt, quite likely
travels at lightspeed. This explains why Star Wars ships always fight
at point blank range; It allows them to bring maximum firepower into
combat. Therefore, with a standard medium turbolaser shot, 30
terajoules of energy will be traveling at the speed of light, while 220
terajoules of the energy will be plasma traveling at 10,000-30,000
kilometers per hour, combining to produce the 250 terajoules needed to
vapourize the asteroids in ESB.
Therefore, though this does provide proof that Turbolasers can hit
targets at a range of 300,000km easily, I do concede that their
firepower would be reduced from 1/8th to 1/9th that it is at close
range, as the laser will rapidly outpace the plasma component of the
shot as the range increases. And please, by the gods please, don't even
dare suggest that 30 terajoules of laser energy is just going to bounce
off a Federation starship's navigational deflectors without causing any
damage.
< snip >
> Ok, the Imps do have point defence, but think about this. If we
> use the
> example from The Wounded, we see that the torpedo flight time over
> a
> distance of 300,000km, is just 2 seconds. That means that the
> torps are
> travelling at about 0.5c. Remember, that is the time from the
> torpedo
> exiting the launcher, to hitting the target. If the speed of the
> launching
> ship is higher, then so will the torpedo. There simply is not
> enough time
> for a human to register the launch, order the weapons to lock on
> and launch
> them before the torpedo has hit. Also, we know that photons have
> threat
> countermeasures.
But Imperial warships don't function like Federation starships. On the
bridge of an Imperial warship, the Captain does not give the order to
fire every time a weapon is fired. He gives the order to commence
firing, or go "Weapons free" in a combat situation.
There is proof that Imperial heavy weapons have gunners who use
computer aided targeting, and couldn't track photon torpedoes. However,
there has never been any claim one way or another as to if Imperial
point-defence cannons are fully computerized. Therefore, we can't say
if they are crew-controlled or computerized. However, if they are
computerized, linked to Imperial Subspace sensors with an instant
scanning range of 7 lightyears, they can undoubtably shoot down any
sublight torpedo fired from long range, and have a fair chance of
predicting the course of a supralight firing and destroying it, as well.
Allow me to provide some evidence about the capabilities of pirate
point-defence weaponry against Proton torpedoes, and the estimated
acceleration of Ties. Since we know that torpedoes are faster than
fighters, we can use the acceleration of a Tie fighter to determine
Proton torpedo acceleration, and based on some official quotes, come up
with a good idea of Imperial point-defence capabilities.
"We're not going to have much chance of hitting them with proton
torpedoes, if that's what you're thinking," Ardiff warned. "In close,
their angular speed is too high for the torpedoes to track; and at any
real distance, they'll have all the time they need to target and
destroy them."
From the Captain of any Imperator class Star Destroyer, a professional
in the Imperial navy, quoted above from page 340 of SotP, that's a
quite clear and concise statement about the capabilities of the
tracking equipment on an outdated battlecruiser in the hands of pirates.
Just what is the acceleration capabilities of a Proton torpedo, though?
Well, we know they're faster than Tie Fighters, so, to be conservative,
we'll use the maximum calculated acceleration ability of a Tie Fighter.
Now, we know that the Imperial ships at Endor had to de-accelerate at
4,000gs to swing into position for the entrapment of the Rebel fleet.
It can safely be assumed that acceleration and de-acceleration
capabilities are equal when using the main engines for either one;
indeed, it's the only possible assumption. The slowest ship of the
bunch was the Executor, with a WEG speed of "4". Therefore, one WEG
speed is equal to 1,000gs of acceleration. A Tie fighter has a WEG
Speed of 10, or 10,000gs of acceleration. This means that Proton
torpedoes accelerate continuously at 10,000gs+, and the Captain of an
ISD was sure that 100% of any Proton torpedoes fired at long range,
with an acceleration of 10,000gs, would be shot down by those
point-defence weapons.
Now, here's an assignment for you to calculate the effectiveness of
point-defence weaponry against Federation Photon torpedoes. Calculate
how many Gs of acceleration are necessary for a Photon torpedo to
travel 300,000km in 2 seconds. Knowing that 10,000gs of acceleration is
100% effectiveness against torpedoes for Star Wars point-defence
weaponry, once you have the acceleration of Gs for photon torpedoes,
you can then calculate the effectiveness in percent of Star Wars
point-defence weaponry against Photon torpedoes. Once you do so, post
that here, and we'll see how well Imperial ships can defend themselves
against long-range Federation torpedo attacks.
Oh.. I'm getting a very high opinion of you as a debater. You make me
think scientifically, instead of just quoting something or flaming, and
that speaks highly of your intelligence.
Commander Mrith'hele'arana. "The general who advances without coveting
fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to
protect this country and do good service for his sovereign, is the
jewel of the kingdom." - Sun-tzu, The Art of War.
Chris O'Farrell
SW Rulez! wrote in message <388b0ef8...@news.iafrica.com>...
Apparently. But is there proof???????????. For all we know , that could just
be the bolts striking the defectors. I didn’t think TIE's could fire flack
bursts. And in ANH, solo comments about 'angling the deflector shields'
several times. This COULD be taken to mean that the deflectors were
positioned out and away in the direct lines of fire, as to intercept as far
out from the hull as possible I.E. Shields being impacted by the TL bolts.
When he Blasts out of Mos-Eisley, the pursuing ISD's have perfectly clear
shots at him. no evasion, no reason to fire 'flack bursts' when you can just
pump the turbo shots straight into it? In the novels, the shields are
described as spheres, not just hull hanging things. In some of the novels,
(can't remember which offhand but I can find it) the shields are most
defiantly spheres which slowly contract and then implode under fire. I think
there was an example in Isards revenge with Admiral Ackabar vrs Imp Star
dest and more then a few other books which would explain what people have
taken to be plasma exploding of the ship could be turbos hitting the
shields. I don’t recall any SW novels ever mentioning 'flack bursts' or
anything like them. If I am wrong and there is a TM or Sbook which tells
otherwise, I REALY want to know.
>
>---------
>SW Rulez!
>---------
Commander Thelea
< snip >
> Apparently. But is there proof???????????. For all we know , that
> could just
> be the bolts striking the defectors. I didn’t think TIE's could
> fire flack
> bursts.
There's no direct evidence of a bolt from a Tie turning into a flak
burst, true.
And in ANH, solo comments about 'angling the deflector
> shields'
> several times. This COULD be taken to mean that the deflectors were
> positioned out and away in the direct lines of fire, as to
> intercept as far
> out from the hull as possible I.E. Shields being impacted by the
> TL bolts.
We had this debate on Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentary message
boards a while ago. It was concluded that there would be no reason for
this; What's the point of wasting shield energy to detonate those bolts
when you could have the deflector shields against the hull and they'd
miss entirely because of the smaller cross section?
> When he Blasts out of Mos-Eisley, the pursuing ISD's have
> perfectly clear
> shots at him. no evasion, no reason to fire 'flack bursts' when
> you can just
> pump the turbo shots straight into it?
To keep the Millenium Falcon on that straight course. The main
turbolasers with their limited accuracy do more damage, and they could
fire down a straight path, while the other, less powerful turbolasers
fire flak bursts around the ship to "englobe" it, forcing it to stay on
that course or get hit by many flak bursts.
In the novels, the shields
> are
> described as spheres, not just hull hanging things. In some of the
> novels,
> (can't remember which offhand but I can find it) the shields are
> most
> defiantly spheres which slowly contract and then implode under
> fire. I think
First of all, all Canon evidence indicates they're hull-conformal.
Canon overrides official sources.
> there was an example in Isards revenge with Admiral Ackabar vrs
> Imp Star
> dest and more then a few other books which would explain what
> people have
The example in one of the X-wing books is of a bubble shield
protecting a ground base, not the shields of a capital starship.
> taken to be plasma exploding of the ship could be turbos hitting
> the
> shields. I don’t recall any SW novels ever mentioning 'flack
> bursts' or
> anything like them. If I am wrong and there is a TM or Sbook which
> tells
> otherwise, I REALY want to know.
There isn't, as far as I know. However, in RotJ, there is one
turbolaser bolt that explodes into a flak burst with no ship within the
remote vicinity.
Commander Mrith'hele'arana. "The general who advances without coveting
fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to
protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel
Wayne Poe
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
[snip]
>>> As for the "canon" calculations of 2 gigaton firepower, they are merely
>>> *extrapolations* from the energy used to vaporize asteroids.
>> No, they are *calculations* based on an observed canon event in TESB.
> No, they're extrapolations from *calculations* based on an observed canon
> event in TESB.
Nope, from there you'd have logical CONCLUSIONS based on observed canon
events.
>>> There is no evidence that turbolasers have firepower significantly
>>> greater than that shown directly on screen in ESB. The extrapolations
>>> made by Saxton and Wong are based purely on the size of the bolts.
>> And confirmed by Brian Young and onscreen evidence.
> Specify, please. How exactly is it confirmed?
The size of the bolts are confirmed on Young's page in picture evidence
from the movie and onscreen observations.
>>> Simply because some turbolaser batteries are much larger than the ones
>>> *presumably* used to destroy the asteroids
>> This is not a "presumption." The heavy TL cannons were NOT used. Watch
>> the movie.
> And is there any certain way to determine the output of said cannons.
Yes. All the official evidence of BDZ ops, the gigaton level stress
bracing of said guns, and the flash vaporization of bodies of water ALL
lead to that conclusion. These examples, as you well know, are on Saxton
and Wong's respective sites.
> They were, as you said, NOT used. How much more powerful would they
> be? Completely unknown.
Wrong. Official evidence, as stated above gives us higher firepower stats
for those guns to be included.
>>> is not canon evidence that the heavy turbolaser batteries are hundreds
>>> or thousands of times more powerful.
>> There is plenty of official evidence to back up this claim, as well as
>> the very fact that one wouldn't build a bigger gun if it just pumped
>> out the exact same energy as the smaller guns.
> But what if it pumped out two or three times as much energy, instead
> of the two or three thousand times as much assumed?
Dude, are you REALLY going to fein ignorance of the examples Saxton and
Wong used, when you and I both know you have read their pages completely
and are as intimate with the details contained in them as I am?
>> And I don't remember anyone,
>> Saxton, Wong, or Young claming their conclusion were CANON. Do you?
> I believe Curtis Saxton's interpretation of the infamous bridge tower
> domes as sensor clusters contradicts a vast array of official sources.
Why, oh why are you tossing this Red Herring into the mix? This isn't a
discussion on sensor domes. This has nothing to do with the argument
above, concerning Saxton and Wong's firepower estimates being CANON from
the official materials.
>>> Canon may override official, but extrapolation is worth zilch if it is
>>> contradicted by anything. As Daala clearly ordered full fire upon
>>> Yavin, and the fire hit spots other than those that could completely
>>> absorb the energy, the surface should have been obliterated.
>> Again, you are misrepresenting the whole arguement. You are comparing
>> full broadsides Commander Thelea talked about to orbital bombardments
>> made on Yavin 4 that certainly were not the same duration or multiple
>> firings of a "full broadside" since Daala had ground troops dispatched
>> on Yavin 4 at the time.
> Nooo she didn't! Pellaeon may have left behind wounded and crippled
> forces before his little Force jump, but Daala chose to launch no
> ground forces until after (and during) her full bombardment.
Eh...didn't have any ground troops until after (and during) her full
bombardment? Are you trying to be the new Elim? BTW, if those were
Pellaeon's troops, WHO is in charge of them once Daala is on the scene?
>>> This is especially significant as it is the best description of a full
>>> planetary bombardment ANYWHERE in the official SW EU.
[snip]
>> Comparing the orbital bombardment of Darksaber to a full broadside
>> discussion is a strawman fallacy.
> Here is Daala's direct order, given upon the immediate arrival of the
> Knight Hammer at a time when NO ground forces were present. "We strike
> from orbit. All turbolaser batteries, full strength. Fire at will."
> I'm sorry, I must have completely misinterpreted this, that sounds
> absolutely nothing like a broadside at all.
Yes, you're right. You did completely misinterpret it. You also
contradicted yourself. Above, you said "Pellaeon's troops" were dispatched
to the ground, but above you say Daala began her bombardment when there
were NO ground troops present.
>>> which is easily solved by the rationalization that the extrapolations
>>> of heavy turbolaser impact are WRONG.
>> No, they comparisons you tried to make are WRONG.
> No, they are RIGHT. Daala clearly ordered a full bombardment with all
> available weapons. This computes to a full broadside if a SSD is even
> capable of firing all its cannons at once. If not, the entire
> broadside debate is irrelevant.
How is a BROADSIDE the SAME as an ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT? They are NOT.
Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.
wrote:
>>No, they are *calculations* based on an observed canon event in TESB.
>>
>No, they're extrapolations from *calculations* based on an observed canon
>event in TESB.
Chuck
Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:pRQi4.13141$k25.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> "Chuck" <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:86gk40$2abg$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
> > news:KmQi4.13111$k25.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> >
> > > KJA is a bastard shitsucker who does nothing but muck around in other
> > people's
> > > valid universes. His absolute farce known as "Dune: House Atreides,"
is,
> > > without question, the worst piece of literature ever produced in the
> > entire
> > > history of human kind.
> > >
> > Hmm, I think he's deserving of a list of attrocities.
> > Dune
> > Star Wars
> > War of the Worlds
>
> He wrote a series of horrific X-Files novels as well, I believe.
Ugh.
KJA: And my next novel will be an original story about a future where the
Earth is ruled by damn dirty apes.
SW Rulez!
>"Chuck" <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:86gk40$2abg$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>> Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
>> news:KmQi4.13111$k25.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>>
>> > KJA is a bastard shitsucker who does nothing but muck around in other
>> people's
>> > valid universes. His absolute farce known as "Dune: House Atreides," is,
>> > without question, the worst piece of literature ever produced in the
>> entire
>> > history of human kind.
>> >
>> Hmm, I think he's deserving of a list of attrocities.
>> Dune
>> Star Wars
>> War of the Worlds
>
>He wrote a series of horrific X-Files novels as well, I believe.
>--
Geez, is there a Universe this guy didn't muck around in?
---------
SW Rulez!
---------
PAUL JACQUES H.JR
: In article <86e1g2$inc$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, jt...@cornell.edu
: (Eframepilot) wrote:
: > Okay, so a SSD broadside is supposed to be like 2,000
: > gigatons
: > according to the SW side. This is clearly impossible, as in
: > "Darksaber" the
: > Knight Hammer bombarded Yavin IV without reducing the entire area
: > surrounding
: > the Great Temple into a molten sea of superheated magma. I
: > quote(capitalization added):
: > "Yes," Daala said. "We strike from orbit. ALL
: > TURBOLASER BATTERIES, ***FULL STRENGTH***. Fire at will,
: > targeting any structures in the jungle."
: > And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in
: > the jungle,
: > amid the
: > raining bolts of destruction from above. Not to mention, Yavin
: > suffers no
: > horrible destruction that would render it inhabitable. And more
: > than 2
: > teratons unleashed in every broadside upon one area of a planet
: > would make it
: > QUITE uninhabitable! Good-bye multi-gigaton turbolaser firepower.
: > You won't be
: > missed.
: And you are clearly someone who did not put any thought into this
: arguement. Canon evidence overrides official evidence. Canon
: calculations state that the heaviest Turbolaser cannons are 2 gigaton
: weapons.
Not true! Wong calculated the *POSSIBLE* power of the most powerfull
Turbolaser an ISD would have. He stated *CLEARLY* that based on size
it should have 2.8 million terawatts, *BUT* it is *UNSUBSTANTIATED*.
See his webpage.
: The Executor has 2,016 of these weapons according to canon
: counts and extrapolations of the model seen in RotJ, and based on
: knowledge of the construction of Star Wars ships and real warships, the
: construction evidence on the nature of Imperial design styles coming
: from dozens of official sources.
: Therefore, Kevin J. Anderson and his inaccurate books which do not
: even acknowledge the destruction of Endor's ecosystem are overriden by
: Canon, and this arguement is killed before it began.
: Incidently, If you continue reading there, you'll note that the stone
: of those temples is made of a material exceptionally resistant,
: possibly absorbant to Turbolaser fire, therefore making the arguement
: irrelevant on the grounds that you were misrepresenting it, in addition
: to using official evidence to attack movie-based canon evidence, which
: shows that you have no respect for the CLEAR and DECLARED order of
: Canon in Star Wars.
The only *CANON* evidence from *MOVIES* about the power of TL is in
TESB. The calcs made on that is at best 1997 TJ of power. That is
all. The rest is speculation.
: Even if the ship concentrated it's full firepower on the temples and
: they were absorbing the bolts, there would be NO DAMAGE whatsoever to
: the surrounding countryside, except by misses. Therefore, the ONLY
: thing your arguement has of value is the fact that Star Wars gunnery is
: incredibly accurate against ground targets. Thank you for adding a bit
: more evidence in support of Star Wars having highly accurate targeting
: systems.
If the guns are so accurate then how come it missed the millinium falcon
in TESB several times? How come it missed the asteroid responsible
for the destruction of one ISD in TESB?
: By the way, I'm holding back on accusing you of being a Troll or
: insulting you depending on your response. I believe in giving people
: the benefit of the doubt.
You are in no position to judge! Remember what you did to Elim.
Lord Edam de Fromage
> Excuse me. I should have said 100% of the speed of light. As suggested
>at Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries, there is visual, canon proof
>that one of the asteroids melted before the main part of the bolt hit,
>vapourizing the melted asteroid.
However, to observe this you have to go through the film frame-by-frame.
The time difference between the asteroid glowing and the bolt striking is
very short. Given the range of that asteroid from the ISD(a few
kilometres) the asteroid should have started glowing before the visible
portion of the bolt even left the barrel. That is not what we saw.
Rather than the inference you draw from this scene I believe this could
indicate that the destructive part of the TL bolt is radiated thermal
energy from the visible bolt - it would affect the target before the bolt
arrives but (1/r^2 and all that) not until the bolt was quite close to the
target.
Paul Cassidy
Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > 10% light speed is around 3000 km PER SECOND! There is no way
> > they were
> > travelling anywhere near that speed. Look at it this way, you can,
> > with the
> > unaided eye, track them as they cross the screen. That severely
> > limits their
> > speed. You cannot for instance track a bullet, and they travel
> > far less
> > than my stated 10,000 kilometers PER HOUR.
>
> Excuse me. I should have said 100% of the speed of light. As suggested
> at Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries, there is visual, canon proof
> that one of the asteroids melted before the main part of the bolt hit,
> vapourizing the melted asteroid. Though I will concede that the visual,
> plasma part of the bolt travels at a speed of around 10,000-30,000
> kilometers per hour, the non-visual part of the bolt, which may be the
> laser that superheats the main plasma part of the bolt, quite likely
> travels at lightspeed. This explains why Star Wars ships always fight
> at point blank range; It allows them to bring maximum firepower into
> combat. Therefore, with a standard medium turbolaser shot, 30
> terajoules of energy will be traveling at the speed of light, while 220
> terajoules of the energy will be plasma traveling at 10,000-30,000
> kilometers per hour, combining to produce the 250 terajoules needed to
> vapourize the asteroids in ESB.
A nice idea, but with a couple of problems.
Firstly, the difference between the visible bolt and the invisible one, does
not seem that great. In the example stated, the visible part is only just
behind the invisible part (ie when the asteroid starts to explode). Also, in
the scene, we actually see three asteroids destroyed, but only the first one
shows any sign of destruction before the visible bolt hits. This can mean
one of two things (since we are not allowed to state that it was a FX screw
up!). Firstly, the invisible bit was some kind aberation for that shot that
is not seen normally, or secondly, that the visible part is not much slower
than the invisible bit. Either of these options does not really help your
cause I'm afraid. There is other evidence however for an invisible bolt. The
effect is similar to blasters. Wayne Poe's site has a great picture of
Luke's hand melting before the visible blaster bolt hits, but the visibile
part is in hte same frame as the hand melting, so again, it is not much
slower. However, let's ignore that, since blasters are not turbolasers.
At this point I'm going to quote from the turbolaser commentry website
regarding which part of the bolt actually does the most damage.....
"There is no way heat from the bolt traveled to the asteroid at a rate
faster than the speed of light. A possibility exists that the bolt was
traveling slower than lightspeed. If this is true, TLs cannot be lasers. A
possibility also exists that a TL is a multiple-stage weapon, and only one
stage is visible to the naked eye. The asteroid's changes before the bolt
hit strongly indicate this. The bolt may have been traveling slower than
lightspeed; or another stage of the bolt may travel faster than lightspeed.
Another possibility is that (considering EGW&T explanation) the laser, used
to initiate the reactions that produce the TL bolt, is released toward a
target as well. Perhaps this laser is powerful enough to cause this initial
heating in the asteroid? In any event, MOST of the destructive effects of
turbolasers are caused by the VISIBLE portion of the bolt."
The figure of 10,000kph that I stated was the extreme upper end of what I
believed the speed to be. Since we see easily see the bolt tracking across
the screen, it cannot really be travelling at anything like that kind of
speed. A bullet travels at around 1000kph (I believe, perhaps someone could
confirm), and we don't see that. I therefore used that figure as a very
generous figure for the SW side. Any higher speed than that (ie 30,000kph)
will require some significant proof I think. Given that we see that the
invisible bolt is only slightly faster that the visible bolt (therefore in
the same order of speed magnitude), we can actually ignore the difference
and base our calcs on the visible one (then double the speed for the
invisible on if you wish).
> Therefore, though this does provide proof that Turbolasers can hit
> targets at a range of 300,000km easily, I do concede that their
> firepower would be reduced from 1/8th to 1/9th that it is at close
> range, as the laser will rapidly outpace the plasma component of the
> shot as the range increases. And please, by the gods please, don't even
> dare suggest that 30 terajoules of laser energy is just going to bounce
> off a Federation starship's navigational deflectors without causing any
> damage.
>
I'll leave that to the others. :)
However, it is clear that the invisible bolt does NOT travel at lightspeed,
so the point is moot.
>
> < snip >
>
> > Ok, the Imps do have point defence, but think about this. If we
> > use the
> > example from The Wounded, we see that the torpedo flight time over
> > a
> > distance of 300,000km, is just 2 seconds. That means that the
> > torps are
> > travelling at about 0.5c. Remember, that is the time from the
> > torpedo
> > exiting the launcher, to hitting the target. If the speed of the
> > launching
> > ship is higher, then so will the torpedo. There simply is not
> > enough time
> > for a human to register the launch, order the weapons to lock on
> > and launch
> > them before the torpedo has hit. Also, we know that photons have
> > threat
> > countermeasures.
>
>
> But Imperial warships don't function like Federation starships. On the
> bridge of an Imperial warship, the Captain does not give the order to
> fire every time a weapon is fired. He gives the order to commence
> firing, or go "Weapons free" in a combat situation.
(note, my maths is horrible so there could be inaccuracies below, please
feel free to check).
Okay, but they still have to recover sensor data, relay the data from the
sensors to the gunner, the gunner has to register the data and the threat,
decide to act, aim the weapon and physically press the fire button. The bolt
then has to intercept the torp. Think about this. if the ST ship fires at
50,000km range, whilst travelling at 0.5c, the torp will impact just 0.2
seconds after launch. However, the return fire will take at 1.6 hours
(assuming your high 30,000kph figure) to get to the starship. It will be
long gone. However, in 0.2 seconds, the point defence turbolaser will only
be able to travel 8.3km. Remember, this is only if the point defence fires
at the same time as the torp is launch. That is clearly impossible, since
they would have no way to know. However, let's assume they only take 0.1
seconds. Assuming a successful hit, the torp will be destroyed at a range of
no more than 4150m from the ISD. That is well within the range of a photons
blast radius (TM says 15,000m).
Of course 0.1 seconds is not enough time for biological reflexs of the
people abord the ISD to react. We haven't seen automated point defences in
SW, in fact the only guns we have seen are large turrets that are phsically
manned. These cannot react fast enough.
> There is proof that Imperial heavy weapons have gunners who use
> computer aided targeting, and couldn't track photon torpedoes. However,
> there has never been any claim one way or another as to if Imperial
> point-defence cannons are fully computerized. Therefore, we can't say
> if they are crew-controlled or computerized. However, if they are
> computerized, linked to Imperial Subspace sensors with an instant
> scanning range of 7 lightyears, they can undoubtably shoot down any
> sublight torpedo fired from long range, and have a fair chance of
> predicting the course of a supralight firing and destroying it, as well.
I find that doubtful, since the Empire have NEVER seen anything travel at
FTL speeds in real space. The ISD missed the MF quite a few times, even when
it was clear that the speed of the MF was never that fast relative to them.
This does not bode well for their chances of shooting down a torpedo that
can arrive at relative speeds up to 0.9c (or above if you accept warp
strafing).
> Allow me to provide some evidence about the capabilities of pirate
> point-defence weaponry against Proton torpedoes, and the estimated
> acceleration of Ties. Since we know that torpedoes are faster than
> fighters, we can use the acceleration of a Tie fighter to determine
> Proton torpedo acceleration, and based on some official quotes, come up
> with a good idea of Imperial point-defence capabilities.
>
Ok. :)
>
> "We're not going to have much chance of hitting them with proton
> torpedoes, if that's what you're thinking," Ardiff warned. "In close,
> their angular speed is too high for the torpedoes to track; and at any
> real distance, they'll have all the time they need to target and
> destroy them."
>
Okay, fair enough. However, when we saw the protons in ANH, they were not
travelling at anything like light speed. Again, we could track them fire
with the unaided eye, so that severely limits their canon speed.
> From the Captain of any Imperator class Star Destroyer, a professional
> in the Imperial navy, quoted above from page 340 of SotP, that's a
> quite clear and concise statement about the capabilities of the
> tracking equipment on an outdated battlecruiser in the hands of pirates.
> Just what is the acceleration capabilities of a Proton torpedo, though?
> Well, we know they're faster than Tie Fighters, so, to be conservative,
> we'll use the maximum calculated acceleration ability of a Tie Fighter.
> Now, we know that the Imperial ships at Endor had to de-accelerate at
> 4,000gs to swing into position for the entrapment of the Rebel fleet.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you explain?
> It can safely be assumed that acceleration and de-acceleration
> capabilities are equal when using the main engines for either one;
> indeed, it's the only possible assumption. The slowest ship of the
> bunch was the Executor, with a WEG speed of "4". Therefore, one WEG
> speed is equal to 1,000gs of acceleration. A Tie fighter has a WEG
> Speed of 10, or 10,000gs of acceleration. This means that Proton
> torpedoes accelerate continuously at 10,000gs+, and the Captain of an
> ISD was sure that 100% of any Proton torpedoes fired at long range,
> with an acceleration of 10,000gs, would be shot down by those
> point-defence weapons.
The problem is that we have never seen TIEs pull anything like this on film.
We know the protons travel STL, but we also know they can pull very tight
turns (the turn into the shaft). No fighter has shown anything like that
kind of ability to turn.
> Now, here's an assignment for you to calculate the effectiveness of
> point-defence weaponry against Federation Photon torpedoes. Calculate
> how many Gs of acceleration are necessary for a Photon torpedo to
> travel 300,000km in 2 seconds. Knowing that 10,000gs of acceleration is
> 100% effectiveness against torpedoes for Star Wars point-defence
> weaponry, once you have the acceleration of Gs for photon torpedoes,
> you can then calculate the effectiveness in percent of Star Wars
> point-defence weaponry against Photon torpedoes. Once you do so, post
> that here, and we'll see how well Imperial ships can defend themselves
> against long-range Federation torpedo attacks.
>
> Oh.. I'm getting a very high opinion of you as a debater. You make me
> think scientifically, instead of just quoting something or flaming, and
> that speaks highly of your intelligence.
>
Thanks. I've been here a while now. You can ask anyone, and I'm sure they'll
tell you that I NEVER insult anyone. If people insult me, I simply stop
debating. It's far easier in the long run. I might be wrong from time to
time, but I do admit that too.....sometimes....with little grace. :)
I think that ST ships would win a one on one battle, but that SW would win a
war. That gives me a different perspective to most peole here.
Paul Cassidy
From on screen evidence you might be right. I would say phasers are a bit
faster, but the difference is not great enough to argue.
In The Wounded, the reason given for the long range is to position
themselves outside the enemy ship's range. This is therefore canon proof
that Fed captains will modify their tactics for each foe. Therefore the
range question is certainly not moot. In most occasions, I suspect that the
ranges would be the same for both sides, so advantages of long range battles
would disappear. In that case, a short range intense fight, where both sides
could make precision strikes (ie on engines or weapons arrays) would be more
attractive.
> > As for the Federation weapons, as I said, we have seen them use weapons
at
> > long range, and the TM confirms this. The difference is, that in "The
> > Wounded" example, the torpedo takes just 2 or 3 seconds to cover the
> > 300,000km distance (which fits quite nicely with the figures in the TM),
so
> > they don't have the slow speed problem that turbolasers seem to have.
>
> That's all fine and well. I wasn't disputing any of this. The FAQ makes it
> quite permissible and fine for me to advance the *known* behaviour of
> Federation captains as evidence. In this case, for reasons perhaps
unknown,
> they prefer to engage at very-short range, and will do so in almost all
cases.
> The Dominion War in particular shows that in large fleet engagements,
long-range
> combat is never used at all.
>
See above.
Again, see above. The Wounded clearly shows that this was exactly the reason
they went to a long range attack. In battles where both sides have broadly
the same range, it wouldn't matter. Therefore, in the one example that we
know of, where a Fed ship had a range advantage, they did use it.
> > > What could be the reason for this? Well, it's obvious. ST weapons fire
is
> > really
> > > not much faster than SW weapons fire. Michael January showed that,
based
> > on FC,
> > > ST phaser speed is only a few km/s -- much *slower*, in fact, than
your
> > number
> > > for SW weapons fire. (As an aside, I have to ask whether you've
> > incorporated the
> > > ROTJ long-range fire seen from the DS2 in this estimate.)
> > >
> >
> > Phasers are another story. Like TL, they do not seem to be LS weapons,
> > though there is some evidence that once the beam is firing, the energy
> > tavels at LS (no bending of the beam when it moves). Certainly the
initial
> > beam travels slowly, and the rest travels much faster..
>
> Which is an interesting curiosity and a good find on your part, but
matters
> absolutely zero in warfare. :) If the initial beam takes a long time to
get
> there, then for all intents and purposes, that's how fast the weapon
travels.
> Who cares if, once you're firing, you can stop on a dime?
>
Agreed. However we don't know if the initial beam has to reach the target
before the main beam fires. It could be that the first half second of firing
fires a slower beam, then the rest travels at LS and overtake the first
beam. This would then match the TM description of the phasers "effective"
range and speed. However, there is no direct evidence of that yet. I'll keep
looking! :)
> > However, let's leave
> > that aside and concentrate just on photons, since they are capable of
much
> > faster speeds.
>
> Faster speeds, sure, but see above; in large fleet engagements, even if
the
> Federation ships are capable of great range, they will not use it.
>
See above.
> > > So, I will state again what I believe to be the battle conditions if a
> > Federation
> > > fleet encountered an Imperial fleet. The Imperial Fleet would have a
> > momentary
> > > advantage as soon as they dropped out of hyperspace, as it would be
wisest
> > to do
> > > so at maximum tactial range. They would commence firing on the
Federation
> > ships,
> > > and before they could react, perhaps even destroy 20-30% of their
fleet
> > with
> > > light and heavy TL fire alike.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough, but this assumes that the ST ships don't react to the
incoming
> > hyper ships and go to warp.
>
> No, I factored that in; think about it. The Imperials have standing orders
to
> fire on the Federation ships as they drop out of hyperspace. But the
Federation
> fleet has no idea that the Imperials will be arriving. They're blind to
> hyperspace.
>
How do we know this? They can detect a wide range of events, (including
transwarp which may be faster than hyperspace). Also, why are they just
sitting there? If they are moving (especially if at warp), then the
hyperspace jump would not bring the SW ships out on top of them, since they
would have movedsince the calcs were performed.
> So the ensign will detect the Imperials dropping out of hyperspace. He'll
tell
> the Captain. The captain, being a Starfleet officer, will want to know
whether
> they're hostile. The ensign will say yes, they're already firing on us.
The
> captain will give the order to warp to their position and engage, and the
> ensign will key this in and POWPOWPOW -- there goes half of the fleet. :)
>
Alternatively.
...the SW fleet exits hyperspace, and opens fire on the reported position of
the Fed fleet. But there's noting there. The calcs are old, and the Fed
fleet has moved. Suddenly, they get confused reports of multiple contacts,
travelling at impossible speeds in real space. Before they can react, the
Fed fleet has opened the range to 50,000 km, and each has fired a full torp
spread at a single ISD. Assume a fleet of 100 ships (similar to DS9), each
fires an average of 5 torps (some fire more some less). Less than a second
later, 500 torpedos arrive at 0.7c, each striking with a force of about 48MT
(not 100% efficient). Ten seconds later, another 500 arive....then
another...etc. POWPOWPOW -- there goes half of the fleet. :)
> > It's probably fair that the first engagement between a SW and ST ship
would
> > be fought at close range, probably with the SW ship firing first. The SW
> > ship would probably also win. However, in later engagements, you would
> > expect captains to fight to the strengths of their ship, not their
enemies.
> > Then the effective weapon ranges come into play.
>
> Indeed; and, as we see, when a Federation fleet attacks another fleet,
they
> invariably do so at close range.
>
See above.
Actually I think that Sw would win a war, but I think you've stacked the
deck a bit in this scenario by giving all the advantages to the Imps. :)
> I also notice you've totally ignored my point about fighters.
>
Sorry, oversight, you know I don't normally ignore points.
However, I think the same applies to them regarding inaccurate/out of date
hyper jumps. They take time to launch and time to fly to and lock onto the
target. If the jump is inaccurate, that takes even longer. By the time they
do, the Feds will have gone to warp, and the fighters have no chance of
catching them.
> > > Why little effect, you ask? This is a subject for another post, but it
> > boils
> > > down to the pitiful accuracy that we see from Federation weapons
systems
> > (see
> > > the countless DS9 battles).
> > >
> >
> > Torpedoes rarely miss. Phasers miss all the time. However, since I'm
> > argueing for long range shots, that probably means torps anyway. :)
>
> Torpedoes rarely miss at short range, given; but there's not enough
evidence
> to clear the Federation of their reputation for abhorrently bad targeting
> systems yet, especially at long range when firing is *harder*.
>
Actually, since we haven't seen a long range miss, we can't really conclude
anything.
> > > > I also seem to remember something in the essential guide to weapons,
> > that
> > > > says that heavy turbolasers can only fire a limited number of bolts,
> > before
> > > > certain components have to be physically replaced. If so, that may
also
> > > > preclude the idea of blanket firing. Can anyone confirm this?
> > >
> > > I can't. Quote?
> > >
> >
> > I'll see if I can get a copy.
>
> It's really fairly immaterial; heavy cannons would be overkill. A point
> defense cannon is more than enough to destroy a Federation vessel in a
couple
> of shots.
>
Except I don't think they would actually get a hit.
The original point was regarding flak bursts. The E-D here survived a direct
400GW hit, with just scorch marks. Given spherical bursts, how close would a
TL have to get to do significant damage? What are the chances of getting a
hit, when the bolt has to travel for over 100 days just to reach the ship?
Aron Kerkhof
Rulez!) wrote:
>sub-space transmission from "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org> :
>
>>"Chuck" <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:86gk40$2abg$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
>>> news:KmQi4.13111$k25.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>>>
>>> > KJA is a bastard shitsucker who does nothing but muck around in other
>>> people's
>>> > valid universes. His absolute farce known as "Dune: House Atreides," is,
>>> > without question, the worst piece of literature ever produced in the
>>> entire
>>> > history of human kind.
>>> >
>>> Hmm, I think he's deserving of a list of attrocities.
>>> Dune
>>> Star Wars
>>> War of the Worlds
>>
>>He wrote a series of horrific X-Files novels as well, I believe.
>>--
>
>Geez, is there a Universe this guy didn't muck around in?
Yeah, I read his X-Files books. They're pretty bad. Didn't he also
do an X-Men crossover or something? Of course, you really can't rape
or pervert the X-Men worse than Marvel itself, so I guess the point is
moot.
Aron Kerkhof
galactec.com/neolith
Eframepilot
Eframepilot
>
>[snip]
>
>>>> As for the "canon" calculations of 2 gigaton firepower, they are merely
>>>> *extrapolations* from the energy used to vaporize asteroids.
>
>>> No, they are *calculations* based on an observed canon event in TESB.
>
>> No, they're extrapolations from *calculations* based on an observed canon
>> event in TESB.
>
>Nope, from there you'd have logical CONCLUSIONS based on observed canon
>events.
>
>>>> There is no evidence that turbolasers have firepower significantly
>>>> greater than that shown directly on screen in ESB. The extrapolations
>>>> made by Saxton and Wong are based purely on the size of the bolts.
>
>>> And confirmed by Brian Young and onscreen evidence.
>
>> Specify, please. How exactly is it confirmed?
>
>The size of the bolts are confirmed on Young's page in picture evidence
>from the movie and onscreen observations.
>
between the size of the bolts and the energy of the bolts. Even if such
correlation exists, it is impossible to determine what said correlation is.
official source (original ISD blueprints) has been given priority on ASVS over
dozens of more recent official sources' direct statements to the contrary.
>>>> Canon may override official, but extrapolation is worth zilch if it is
>>>> contradicted by anything. As Daala clearly ordered full fire upon
>>>> Yavin, and the fire hit spots other than those that could completely
>>>> absorb the energy, the surface should have been obliterated.
>
>>> Again, you are misrepresenting the whole arguement. You are comparing
>>> full broadsides Commander Thelea talked about to orbital bombardments
>>> made on Yavin 4 that certainly were not the same duration or multiple
>>> firings of a "full broadside" since Daala had ground troops dispatched
>>> on Yavin 4 at the time.
>
>> Nooo she didn't! Pellaeon may have left behind wounded and crippled
>> forces before his little Force jump, but Daala chose to launch no
>> ground forces until after (and during) her full bombardment.
>
>Eh...didn't have any ground troops until after (and during) her full
>bombardment? Are you trying to be the new Elim? BTW, if those were
>Pellaeon's troops, WHO is in charge of them once Daala is on the scene?
>
just given him a big kick out of the system. No significant Imp forces were
left on the ground when Daala arrived.
>>>> This is especially significant as it is the best description of a full
>>>> planetary bombardment ANYWHERE in the official SW EU.
>
>[snip]
>
>>> Comparing the orbital bombardment of Darksaber to a full broadside
>>> discussion is a strawman fallacy.
>
>> Here is Daala's direct order, given upon the immediate arrival of the
>> Knight Hammer at a time when NO ground forces were present. "We strike
>> from orbit. All turbolaser batteries, full strength. Fire at will."
>> I'm sorry, I must have completely misinterpreted this, that sounds
>> absolutely nothing like a broadside at all.
>
>Yes, you're right. You did completely misinterpret it. You also
>contradicted yourself. Above, you said "Pellaeon's troops" were dispatched
>to the ground, but above you say Daala began her bombardment when there
>were NO ground troops present.
>
quite clear, but this is a minor technical point that anyone who has read
"Darksaber" shouldn't be bothering to point out.
>>>> which is easily solved by the rationalization that the extrapolations
>>>> of heavy turbolaser impact are WRONG.
>
>>> No, they comparisons you tried to make are WRONG.
>
>> No, they are RIGHT. Daala clearly ordered a full bombardment with all
>> available weapons. This computes to a full broadside if a SSD is even
>> capable of firing all its cannons at once. If not, the entire
>> broadside debate is irrelevant.
>
>How is a BROADSIDE the SAME as an ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT? They are NOT.
>
AT WILL.
Chuck
Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:KmQi4.13111$k25.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> KJA is a bastard shitsucker who does nothing but muck around in other
people's
> valid universes. His absolute farce known as "Dune: House Atreides," is,
> without question, the worst piece of literature ever produced in the
entire
> history of human kind.
>
> He is the Antieris.
"Maybe its the fact that I hold Dune to be the best novel I've ever read,
maybe its Brian Herbert's different writing style. I don't know, but what I
do know is that this book stunk. I forced myself to finish it. My first
thought was that this book read like a star trek/star wars novel. And what
do you know? It was co-authored by a novelist who has in the past written
those kinds of books! It held none of the magic that the original Dune
series. None. Not a drop. I'd only recommend this book to those of you who
actually read the ENTIRE Dune series, but please..buy the paperback..it's
not worth 25 dead presidents. Word to the wise, continuations of a series
after the original author has died are bad ideas. (just look at the
continuing 'Foundation' books by the 'estate' of Isaac Asimov) Now if you'll
excuse me, I have to go hurl this book into the open desert and collect my
water-debt from Brian Herbert's hide. "
"I never expected another Frank Herbert but neither did I suspect that the
creative vibrance of his Dune legacy could be trivialized to such
mind-numbingly boring dullness. There is no plot, never mind plots within
plots within plots. The characters are one-dimensional, at best. What is
with the constant need to explain everything over and over again? Dune
demanded that we think and in ignoring its roots, House Atreides consigns
its readers to ... well, vermillion hells."
"HA is not just a poor attempt at a prequel - it is obviously a sickeningly
commercial dollar-driven exercise marketed to stimulate a long-dormant
interest in the Dune franchise. What's next, a film remake with a
teenybopper cast?...
HA, on the other hand, is drivel written obviously for the best-seller
market. The subtle & delicate trademark literary style of Frank Herbert is
summarily bludgeoned as the authors went for in-your-face, no-brainer pulp
writing. The multi-faceted characters, some of which we know & cherish so
well like old friends, now become cartoonish, one-dimensional & almost
laughable. The fine balance of galactic feudal politics, economics,
religious zealotism & social engineering is replaced by a poorly &
pretentiously cloaked good-versus-evil moral theme, peppered by shallow &
irritatingly obvious issues."
Rob Dalton
>
> in article 097f46d3...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com, Commander Thelea at
> Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 11:17 am:
>
> >> In the novels, the shields are described as spheres, not just hull hanging
> >> things. In some of the novels, (can't remember which offhand but I can find
> >> it) the shields are most defiantly spheres which slowly contract and then
> >> implode under fire. I think
>
> > First of all, all Canon evidence indicates they're hull-conformal.
> > Canon overrides official sources.
>
>
> >> there was an example in Isards revenge with Admiral Ackabar vrs Imp Star dest
> >> and more then a few other books which would explain what people have
>
> > The example in one of the X-wing books is of a bubble shield
> > protecting a ground base, not the shields of a capital starship.
>
>
CoPL?...well, in TPM they sure ain't.
--
Dalton
It is not enough to know; you must also know how to -apply- what you
know.
AIM: RobPDalton
ICQ: 50342303
Chuck
Jonathan Boyd <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B4B26584.1FED%jona...@jboyd.co.uk...
> in article FdRi4.13149$k25.9...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com, Kynes at
> ky...@choam.org wrote on 24/1/00 5:15 am:
>
> > It's a fact that the SW galaxy is *not* speaking English -- they speak
another
> > language called Basic. We're merely hearing it in English. So it's
STANDARD
> > English, complete with verbal nuances and eccentricities. Thus,
interpreting
> > Dodonna's statement as I would interpret any other is totally valid
unless you
> > can find DIRECT evidence to the contrary.
>
> Huh? Since we're not hearing it in its original language surely it _loses_
> its nuances and eccentricities.
Regardless, the remark doesn't make logical sense if it means more than the
whole fleet. For example, if my paycheck is $1000, and my wife asks what
the hospital bill is (it's $1500), I wouldn't say more than half my
paycheck, I'd say more than my paycheck. Also, the BTM confirms that
Dodanna meant half the starfleet.
--
We don't serve their kind here.
We do not serve them here or there,
We do not serve them anywhere.
We do not like gold droids like tham.
We do not like them, Obi-wam.
Chuck
Jonathan Boyd <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B4B26CF9.1FF0%jona...@jboyd.co.uk...
> in article 097f46d3...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com, Commander Thelea
at
> Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 11:17 am:
>
> >> In the novels, the shields are described as spheres, not just hull
hanging
> >> things. In some of the novels, (can't remember which offhand but I can
find
> >> it) the shields are most defiantly spheres which slowly contract and
then
> >> implode under fire. I think
>
> > First of all, all Canon evidence indicates they're hull-conformal.
> > Canon overrides official sources.
>
> I'm curious, what sources?
Anakin's Naboo fighter had a hull-conforming shield. Can't think of any
others off the top of my head.
Commander Thelea
< snip >
I agree completely. However, 30 terajoules of the energy of the Medium
turbolaser bolt comes from invisible source. The other two asteroids, I
believe, were vapourized by point-defence cannons, which, since they're
designed for short-range work only, quite possibly are purely blasters
with no laser component. Next, the 30 terajoules do not need to be
delivered continuously. They can be delivered over a period of possibly
even ten seconds; We don't see the far face of the asteroid. Part of it
could be glowing where the beam hits, and then once enough energy has
hit the asteroid, it flash-melts. Therefore, the invisible component
can travel at lightspeed; However, your points do make things even more
in Star Trek's favour there, as 30 terajoules over ten seconds would be
only 3 terawatts. Still, an ISD CAN hit and damage a Federation
starship at long range. The availible evidence, as I have pointed out,
does not contradict this. Especially at such a close range; The flight
time of the bolt wasn't more than two seconds. If the laser was hitting
the target for those two seconds, 15 terawatts would have been
delivered, and the asteroid would only fully melt when the necessary
energy was delivered, IE, all 30 terajoules. Because of the angle of
the shot, this is quite possible.
> The figure of 10,000kph that I stated was the extreme upper end of
> what I
> believed the speed to be. Since we see easily see the bolt
> tracking across
> the screen, it cannot really be travelling at anything like that
> kind of
> speed. A bullet travels at around 1000kph (I believe, perhaps
> someone could
> confirm), and we don't see that.
Bullets are also not 2-200 meters long, and you CAN see tracer
bullets, which glow a certain colour. Incidently, the bullet from a
30-06 rifle travels at 750 meters a second, and many bullets are infact
subsonic.
Next, a Turbolaser bolt fired at a speed of 30,000 kph would traverse
the length of an ISD in 0.4 seconds, comparable with the speed of some
bolts we have seen on screen. To accurate measure speed, you have to do
it by freeze-frame, otherwise the flash of the turbolaser bolt going
past will "burn" into your retina and you will see for it longer than
it's actually there.
I therefore used that figure as a
> very
> generous figure for the SW side. Any higher speed than that (ie
> 30,000kph)
> will require some significant proof I think. Given that we see
> that the
> invisible bolt is only slightly faster that the visible bolt
> (therefore in
> the same order of speed magnitude), we can actually ignore the
> difference
> and base our calcs on the visible one (then double the speed for
> the
> invisible on if you wish).
I disagree, as I've stated above. The energy doesn't NEED to be
delivered all at once. The laser could be a continuous beam lasting two
seconds, which accounts for the minor lag only at close range.
< snip >
> However, it is clear that the invisible bolt does NOT travel at
> lightspeed,
> so the point is moot.
Again, please note above for an explaination of that.
< snip >
> (note, my maths is horrible so there could be inaccuracies below,
> please
> feel free to check).
> Okay, but they still have to recover sensor data, relay the data
> from the
> sensors to the gunner, the gunner has to register the data and the
> threat,
> decide to act, aim the weapon and physically press the fire
> button. The bolt
> then has to intercept the torp. Think about this. if the ST ship
> fires at
> 50,000km range, whilst travelling at 0.5c, the torp will impact
> just 0.2
> seconds after launch. However, the return fire will take at 1.6
> hours
> (assuming your high 30,000kph figure) to get to the starship. It
> will be
> long gone. However, in 0.2 seconds, the point defence turbolaser
> will only
> be able to travel 8.3km. Remember, this is only if the point
> defence fires
> at the same time as the torp is launch. That is clearly
> impossible, since
> they would have no way to know.
Yes they would. Star Wars has instant supralight sensor range of 7
lightyears. Real time. Instant.
However, let's assume they only
> take 0.1
> seconds. Assuming a successful hit, the torp will be destroyed at
> a range of
> no more than 4150m from the ISD. That is well within the range of
> a photons
> blast radius (TM says 15,000m).
Yes, but MUCH better than a direct impact against the shields. Only
about 5% of the blast would hit the shields that far out, depending on
which ship it was.
> Of course 0.1 seconds is not enough time for biological reflexs of
> the
> people abord the ISD to react. We haven't seen automated point
> defences in
> SW, in fact the only guns we have seen are large turrets that are
> phsically
> manned. These cannot react fast enough.
Agreed, but there is no evidence either way for the point-defence
cannons, and since the point-defence cannons onboard modern naval
warships are computer controlled, unless you're proposing the US Navy
is more advanced than the Galactic Empire, it must be assumed that they
have computer controlled point-defence guns.
< snip >
> as well.
> I find that doubtful, since the Empire have NEVER seen anything
> travel at
> FTL speeds in real space. The ISD missed the MF quite a few times,
> even when
> it was clear that the speed of the MF was never that fast relative
> to them.
The Millenium Falcon is heavily modified. I'll check the availible
references to see if it has a jamming system onboard. I believe it can
jam communications; since they're subspace as well, it reasons that it
can also jam targeting sensors to a certain extent. Next, they wanted
the Falcon intact. They were shooting to disable it, which is very
tricky, and means you ALWAYS err on the side of caution.
> This does not bode well for their chances of shooting down a
> torpedo that
> can arrive at relative speeds up to 0.9c (or above if you accept
> warp
> strafing).
As I've said above, there's no reason why it should not bode well;
There isn't any evidence to prove those point defence cannons are not
computer controlled, and until I find some, I'm going to assume that
the Galactic Empire is advanced as the US Navy and has computers
running their point-defence guns.
< snip >
> Okay, fair enough. However, when we saw the protons in ANH, they
> were not
> travelling at anything like light speed. Again, we could track
> them fire
> with the unaided eye, so that severely limits their canon speed.
No, it doesn't. You're thinking like they're Turbolasers, and you're
thinking like this is an atmosphere. Proton torpedoes have engines, of
course, and therefore they CONTINUOUSLY accelerate. I was not putting a
maximum speed on Proton torpedoes, I was putting a maximum
acceleration. Depending on how long their engines can burn before their
fuel runs out, Proton torpedoes could reach speeds of 0.9c+, and yet
our ISD Captain still believes any long-range Proton torpedo shot would
be easily taken down by that Battlecruiser's point defence guns.
< Snip >
> The problem is that we have never seen TIEs pull anything like
> this on film.
True, but we know the minimum acceleration of X-wings based on the
attack on the DS I, and we know that the Executor can make 4,000gs of
acceleration. Are you proposing that Tie Fighters are slower than the
Executor? Remember, there's canon evidence for both, based on fleet,
planet, and DS positions in the movies.
> We know the protons travel STL, but we also know they can pull
> very tight
> turns (the turn into the shaft). No fighter has shown anything
> like that
> kind of ability to turn.
Fighters are also larger, bulkier, ect.
> Thanks. I've been here a while now. You can ask anyone, and I'm
> sure they'll
> tell you that I NEVER insult anyone. If people insult me, I simply
> stop
> debating. It's far easier in the long run. I might be wrong from
> time to
> time, but I do admit that too.....sometimes....with little grace.
> :)
> I think that ST ships would win a one on one battle, but that SW
> would win a
> war. That gives me a different perspective to most peole here.
It's nice to hear what you think, but are you planning on calculating
the interception percentage of Photon torpedoes? Even if you disagree
with it, it would be valuable to point out to some fanatical warsie
that there is a maximum effectiveness against Photon torpedoes for
point-defence guns, if they don't accept your other arguements. The
instructions for how to calculate it are up there.. And you probably
have a better head for calculation than I do.. Or I can find someone
else to. I'll probably end up taking a stab at it myself.
Commander Mrith'hele'arana. "One who is able to change and transform
in accord with the enemy and wrest victory is termed spiritual!"
Commander Thelea
< snip >
> KJA has never touched Star Trek! Woo-hoo!
::starts snickering madly:: Saying that is like saying TOWNMNBS' name.
Next week there will be an announcement that Kevin J. Anderson is doing
a seven book Star Trek series that Paramount will consider canon and
require all further Star Trek movies, TV series, and novels to adhere
to. The Star Trek franchise will go for the "revolting" level to the
"Please, I'd rather be put in a deathcamp than watch/read that!" level.
Chuck
Kynes <ky...@choam.org> wrote in message
news:5v6j4.13853$k25.1...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> "Chuck" <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:86ip0n$3dda$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> >
>
> [snip KJA matters]
>
> All excellent quotes. Where'd you find them -- alt.fan.dune? I swear, some
> of them were strikingly familiar. But then, perhaps it's because I've said
> them all myself (with more swearing, though).
Amazon.com. Pretty much agreement by those who hated it that it's a mere
shadow of what Dune is, and those who "liked" it didn't really compare to
the original very much.
Jonathan Boyd
Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 12:19 am:
> I was thinking 10% of lightspeed, actually. However, we can say what
> we think all day long and have no proof. Someone needs to calculate the
> speed of the fastest TL bolts.
From RotJ, the scene where the Executor is engaging a Neb-B (with pitifully
few guns I might add), I calculated the speed to be less than 2km/s as an
upper limit. I could dig the post out. Works out as less than 10,000 km/hr.
>> As for the Federation weapons, as I said, we have seen them use weapons at
>> long range, and the TM confirms this. The difference is, that in "The
>> Wounded" example, the torpedo takes just 2 or 3 seconds to cover the
>> 300,000km distance (which fits quite nicely with the figures in the TM), so
>> they don't have the slow speed problem that turbolasers seem to have.
> But the Feds will have to close to Imperial optimal combat range if
> they want their photon torpedoes to hit. Not because they're
> inaccurate, but because Imperial ships have the most brilliant
> invention ever conceived: The point defence cannon! At long ranges, you
> give them enough time to track, predict, and shoot down any incoming
> torpedoes. So you have to go to close range to fire your torpedoes and
> keep them from getting blown apart, and thereby putting yourself in the
> risk of getting blown apart. Also, Imperial torpedoes travel at
> incredible relativistic velocities (0.9c+). We know this because it was
> said that Wedge's X-wing was traveling at barely sublight speeds in the
> escape from the DS II, and that Proton torpedoes are much faster than
> X-wings (Dozens of references)
Overridden by the canon RotJ film. Also, acceleration is more important than
speed. A torp can probably accelerate faster than a fighter.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Carpe Aptenodytes!
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 24/1/00 4:16 am:
>> , there's
>> an easy way to make the statement compatible with Darksaber. The Death Star
>> carries a firepower "greater than half the Starfleet." How much greater? A
>> little greater? Twice as great? Millions of times greater? We MUST interpret
>> this statement in a way compatible with Darksaber as to throw it out is a
>> false dilemma.
>
> Wrong. If it was greater than the entire Starfleet, then he would have said
> "greater than the entire Starfleet." He didn't, so it wasn't. If it was
> greater than three-fourths of the Starfleet, he would have said "greater
> than three-fourths of the Starfleet." He did, so it wasn't. This reasoning
> can be taken to its logical end to deduce that the Death Star was less than
> one ship's firepower greater than the entirety of the Starfleet. EOF. This
> has been debated and lost by greater ST fanatics than you, I'm afraid.
And he didn't say greater than 5/8 of the starfleet, or 9/16 or 17/32 or
33/64... ad naseum
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 24/1/00 5:15 am:
> It's a fact that the SW galaxy is *not* speaking English -- they speak another
> language called Basic. We're merely hearing it in English. So it's STANDARD
> English, complete with verbal nuances and eccentricities. Thus, interpreting
> Dodonna's statement as I would interpret any other is totally valid unless you
> can find DIRECT evidence to the contrary.
Huh? Since we're not hearing it in its original language surely it _loses_
its nuances and eccentricities.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
Jonathan Boyd
lo...@h4h.com wrote on 24/1/00 6:12 am:
>
> Ugh. How many times must this fallacial crap be disputed?
>
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
>
>> Okay, so a SSD broadside is supposed to be like 2,000 gigatons
>> according to the SW side. This is clearly impossible, as in
>> "Darksaber" the Knight Hammer bombarded Yavin IV without reducing the
>> entire area surrounding the Great Temple into a molten sea of
>> superheated magma. I quote(capitalization added):
>> "Yes," Daala said. "We strike from orbit. ALL
>> TURBOLASER BATTERIES, ***FULL STRENGTH***. Fire at will,
>> targeting any structures in the jungle."
>
>> And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in the jungle,
>> completely unvaporized!
>
> And yet, you can't even read what you quoted! They were targeting
> STRUCTURES. Hi strawman! Refutation of your first point.
Actually on the same page it says "she could already see the forests
starting to burn so bolts were obviously hitting the trees. Full power
bolts. I'm not going to debate firepower here, however it does raise the
question of accuracy. If weapons are that inaccurate then I think we have a
reason why SW ships engage at such short ranges.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Carpe Aptenodytes!
Jonathan Boyd
Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 10:29 am:
> "We're not going to have much chance of hitting them with proton
> torpedoes, if that's what you're thinking," Ardiff warned. "In close,
> their angular speed is too high for the torpedoes to track; and at any
> real distance, they'll have all the time they need to target and
> destroy them."
<snip>
All very nice, but it involves a lot of speculation. And we know that on
many occasions torps have been used with 100% effectiveness against ISDs.
Perhaps the old battlecruisers were much better at point defence than the
ISDs.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.
Jonathan Boyd
Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 11:17 am:
>> In the novels, the shields are described as spheres, not just hull hanging
>> things. In some of the novels, (can't remember which offhand but I can find
>> it) the shields are most defiantly spheres which slowly contract and then
>> implode under fire. I think
> First of all, all Canon evidence indicates they're hull-conformal.
> Canon overrides official sources.
I'm curious, what sources?
>> there was an example in Isards revenge with Admiral Ackabar vrs Imp Star dest
>> and more then a few other books which would explain what people have
> The example in one of the X-wing books is of a bubble shield
> protecting a ground base, not the shields of a capital starship.
In CoPL shields are described as being spherical.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million
keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare would
be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Kynes
> > TL speed appears to be about that of phaser speed. As for this nonsense
> about
> > firing regularly from 300,000km, see below. I said I wasn't really
> disputing
> > your number -- the fact that ST vessels do *not* regularly engage at long
> > range makes weapons speed a fairly moot point.
> >
>
> From on screen evidence you might be right. I would say phasers are a bit
> faster, but the difference is not great enough to argue.
>
> In The Wounded, the reason given for the long range is to position
> themselves outside the enemy ship's range. This is therefore canon proof
> that Fed captains will modify their tactics for each foe. Therefore the
> range question is certainly not moot. In most occasions, I suspect that the
> ranges would be the same for both sides, so advantages of long range battles
> would disappear. In that case, a short range intense fight, where both sides
> could make precision strikes (ie on engines or weapons arrays) would be more
> attractive.
What about the Dominion? According to on-screen evidence, their range is very
short; we've seen them engage exclusively within visual range. The Federation,
then, has an obvious advantage over them in range; yet they didn't use it!
Why not? Because the Federation doesn't do that sort of thing, apparently. Name
one fleet engagement where the Federation exploited their range advantage over
the Dominion and you'll have proven your point. (But don't look too hard --
none exist.)
Sorry, Paul. I know this would really help your dying cause, but this is simply
a closed point. Effective tactical range aside, we know where Federation captains
*prefer* to engage -- point-blank range, which will put them right in the laps
of the Imperial warships.
> > Oh, it's admissible, but that's not really the issue. I already said that
> > they can obviously fire torpedoes at great, even infinite ranges -- the
> > question is, will they? Will they use this apparent range advantage? The
> answer,
> > drawing from all canon, is obviously no.
> >
>
> Again, see above. The Wounded clearly shows that this was exactly the reason
> they went to a long range attack. In battles where both sides have broadly
> the same range, it wouldn't matter. Therefore, in the one example that we
> know of, where a Fed ship had a range advantage, they did use it.
One example? What about countless DS9 examples? The Dominion has no such great
range -- all we ever see them do is attack at close range, giving them a very
short range, according to all the canon we've got. The Federation never exploited
this. Same with the Borg.
> > Which is an interesting curiosity and a good find on your part, but
> matters
> > absolutely zero in warfare. :) If the initial beam takes a long time to
> get
> > there, then for all intents and purposes, that's how fast the weapon
> travels.
> > Who cares if, once you're firing, you can stop on a dime?
> >
>
> Agreed. However we don't know if the initial beam has to reach the target
> before the main beam fires. It could be that the first half second of firing
> fires a slower beam, then the rest travels at LS and overtake the first
> beam. This would then match the TM description of the phasers "effective"
> range and speed. However, there is no direct evidence of that yet. I'll keep
> looking! :)
Um, fine. :)
> > No, I factored that in; think about it. The Imperials have standing orders
> to
> > fire on the Federation ships as they drop out of hyperspace. But the
> Federation
> > fleet has no idea that the Imperials will be arriving. They're blind to
> > hyperspace.
> >
>
> How do we know this? They can detect a wide range of events, (including
> transwarp which may be faster than hyperspace).
Because their sensor pings are too slow, firstly; secondly, because the Feds
have no idea that hyperspace even exists! If they did, perhaps they wouldn't
be putting around at a few thousand times the speed of light. Don't force this
issue; there is no way you'll be able to come up with the requisite proof for
this. TOWNMNBS tried to force this for years and never did anything except
make himself look foolish. :)
> Also, why are they just
> sitting there? If they are moving (especially if at warp), then the
> hyperspace jump would not bring the SW ships out on top of them, since they
> would have movedsince the calcs were performed.
The Federation will be in a position where they will have to have many
standing fleets in orbit around their planets. They'll have no time to actually
be on the offensive; the Imperials will have been making hit-and-fade attacks
on every planet that they leave bare and so they'll have no choice but to
spread themselves thin.
So, assuming they will NOT be at warp while in standard orbit, it'll be pretty
easy for the Imperials to spot them. And I'm not saying that they'd come out
of hyperspace guns blazing -- I'm saying that they'd look for them and fire
immediately, at ranges we saw in ROTJ (i.e. further than the Feds like to
engage at). The Federation ships will slog through the flurry of incoming TL
fire, losing about a third of their fleet while doing it, and finally get into
the Federation captain "comfort zone" where they'll begin firing slow volleys --
see all the Dominion battles.
> > So the ensign will detect the Imperials dropping out of hyperspace. He'll
> tell
> > the Captain. The captain, being a Starfleet officer, will want to know
> whether
> > they're hostile. The ensign will say yes, they're already firing on us.
> The
> > captain will give the order to warp to their position and engage, and the
> > ensign will key this in and POWPOWPOW -- there goes half of the fleet. :)
> >
>
> Alternatively.
>
> ...the SW fleet exits hyperspace, and opens fire on the reported position of
> the Fed fleet. But there's noting there. The calcs are old, and the Fed
> fleet has moved. Suddenly, they get confused reports of multiple contacts,
> travelling at impossible speeds in real space. Before they can react, the
> Fed fleet has opened the range to 50,000 km, and each has fired a full torp
> spread at a single ISD.
Invalid, I'm afraid. The Federation captains just aren't willing to engage at
this range, and on the rare occasions that they did, they fired just a single
torpedo, wasn't it? Obviously, the captains of the Federation vessels have
some psychological issues with combat; luckily, the FAQ makes it perfectly legal
for me to advance this.
> Assume a fleet of 100 ships (similar to DS9), each
> fires an average of 5 torps (some fire more some less). Less than a second
> later, 500 torpedos arrive at 0.7c, each striking with a force of about 48MT
> (not 100% efficient).
48MT, half of which is radiated into space. 24MT. And, if the torpedoes do
not score direct hits (and detonate in proximity) they'll only be about an
8MT charge, which of course will be even smaller because the energy will be
radiated over a greater area.
I don't even think you'd wake up an Imperial captain like this.
> > I don't think so. The encounter I described assumed a large-scale attack
> by
> > the Empire on a Federation who knew that such an attack would be coming.
> > A first encounter would just be a slaughter for the Empire.
> >
>
> Actually I think that Sw would win a war, but I think you've stacked the
> deck a bit in this scenario by giving all the advantages to the Imps. :)
The Imperials *DO* have all the advantages! They have more ships. They're
faster. They're more accustomed to war. They've got no planets to defend.
Their ships are vastly more powerful. This ends the discussion, frankly --
no one can beat those odds.
> > I also notice you've totally ignored my point about fighters.
> >
> However, I think the same applies to them regarding inaccurate/out of date
> hyper jumps.
As I said -- the Federation fleets will be forced into holding positions over
defended planets. They won't be off, galavanting at warp. They even had to
do this with the Dominion (remember all the comments about never being on the
offensive?) and they were nowhere NEAR this bad.
> They take time to launch and time to fly to and lock onto the
> target. If the jump is inaccurate, that takes even longer. By the time they
> do, the Feds will have gone to warp, and the fighters have no chance of
> catching them.
The Federation uses warp combat now? I must have missed the episode. Source,
please?
> > Torpedoes rarely miss at short range, given; but there's not enough
> evidence
> > to clear the Federation of their reputation for abhorrently bad targeting
> > systems yet, especially at long range when firing is *harder*.
> >
>
> Actually, since we haven't seen a long range miss, we can't really conclude
> anything.
It's obvious that it's harder to target at longer ranges.
> > It's really fairly immaterial; heavy cannons would be overkill. A point
> > defense cannon is more than enough to destroy a Federation vessel in a
> couple
> > of shots.
> >
>
> Except I don't think they would actually get a hit.
Won't get a hit at the 5km range the Feds like to engage at? Think again.
The fighters will be even worse -- it won't take long for the Imperials
to notice all the holes in Federation shielding (remember, the one Ensign
Ro got in?) and fly their fighters INSIDE Federation shield bubbles; not
that this will be necessary, since I doubt any Federation ship that's not
intentionally captured will live very long.
> > Interesting. So the ship lost shields after one 400GW volley, and was in
> > serious danger after two or three more? Imagine how they'll deal with the
> > multi-terawatt cannons of an ISD. Not well, I should say.
> > --
>
> The original point was regarding flak bursts. The E-D here survived a direct
> 400GW hit, with just scorch marks.
"Scorch marks?" The ship was in serious danger. Picard ordered it to move
away.
> Given spherical bursts, how close would a
> TL have to get to do significant damage? What are the chances of getting a
> hit, when the bolt has to travel for over 100 days just to reach the ship?
A non-issue. The bolts will travel a fraction of a second.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"I am not much for fact to face meetings." - Anton Polinger
Kynes
>
[snip KJA matters]
All excellent quotes. Where'd you find them -- alt.fan.dune? I swear, some
of them were strikingly familiar. But then, perhaps it's because I've said
them all myself (with more swearing, though).
Kynes
> KJA has never touched Star Trek! Woo-hoo!
Yes, it would be such a shame to ruin all of that quality literature.
Kynes
Precisely. So it had to be greater than half the Starfleet, but not greater
than (half the Starfleet + 1 ship).
Strowbridge
> > Ugh. How many times must this fallacial crap be disputed?
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, so a SSD broadside is supposed to be like 2,000 gigatons
> >> according to the SW side. This is clearly impossible, as in
> >> "Darksaber" the Knight Hammer bombarded Yavin IV without reducing
> >> the entire area surrounding the Great Temple into a molten sea of
> >> superheated magma. I quote(capitalization added):
> >> "Yes," Daala said. "We strike from orbit. ALL
> >> TURBOLASER BATTERIES, ***FULL STRENGTH***. Fire at will,
> >> targeting any structures in the jungle."
> >
> >> And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in the
> >> jungle, completely unvaporized!
> >
> > And yet, you can't even read what you quoted! They were targeting
> > STRUCTURES. Hi strawman! Refutation of your first point.
>
> Actually on the same page it says "she could already see the forests
> starting to burn so bolts were obviously hitting the trees. Full power
> bolts. I'm not going to debate firepower here, however it does raise
> the question of accuracy. If weapons are that inaccurate then I think
> we have a reason why SW ships engage at such short ranges.
If they are hitting the structures of course some of the jungle is going
to burn. This doesn't have any effect of accuracy or firepower.
C.S.Strowbridge
Chris O'Farrell
Commander Thelea wrote in message
>
> < snip >
>
>
>> Apparently. But is there proof???????????. For all we know , that
>> could just
>> be the bolts striking the defectors. I didn’t think TIE's could
>> fire flack
>> bursts.
>
> There's no direct evidence of a bolt from a Tie turning into a flak
>burst, true.
Yeah but the white explosions u see when the Falcon is blasting away from
cloud city (the sceen just before Leia says 'I'll be back' to Luke)into it's
shields are exactly like the flack bursts u see in ANH. Same white flash
from direct hits. Ths could be what was happaning in ANH.
>
>
>And in ANH, solo comments about 'angling the deflector
>> shields'
>> several times. This COULD be taken to mean that the deflectors were
>> positioned out and away in the direct lines of fire, as to
>> intercept as far
>> out from the hull as possible I.E. Shields being impacted by the
>> TL bolts.
>
> We had this debate on Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentary message
>boards a while ago. It was concluded that there would be no reason for
>this; What's the point of wasting shield energy to detonate those bolts
>when you could have the deflector shields against the hull and they'd
>miss entirely because of the smaller cross section?
>
Very good point.
>> When he Blasts out of Mos-Eisley, the pursuing ISD's have
>> perfectly clear
>> shots at him. no evasion, no reason to fire 'flack bursts' when
>> you can just
>> pump the turbo shots straight into it?
>
> To keep the Millenium Falcon on that straight course. The main
>turbolasers with their limited accuracy do more damage, and they could
>fire down a straight path, while the other, less powerful turbolasers
>fire flak bursts around the ship to "englobe" it, forcing it to stay on
>that course or get hit by many flak bursts.
>
This does not make much sense to me. The pursuing Destroyers had the Falcon
right in their sights, not junking not evading. it looked like only one
battery was firing, not multiple ones to box it in. These were shooting
RIGHT AT IT, not missing, 100% accurate (I watched it again to be sure). If
I have an M-16 and am trying to stop someone getting away (hyperspace) I can
either shoot them down as they are running in a straight line towards
hyperspace or shoot all around them to keep them on a course to hyperspace.
The Falcon withstands many hits, it stays fine for a while before the
shields start to fail. If they were heavy batteries, would not they be dead?
If they were lighter more accurate medium or point defence batteries then
why the need for flack bursts?
>
>In the novels, the shields
>> are
>> described as spheres, not just hull hanging things. In some of the
>> novels,
>> (can't remember which offhand but I can find it) the shields are
>> most
>> defiantly spheres which slowly contract and then implode under
>> fire. I think
>
> First of all, all Canon evidence indicates they're hull-conformal.
>Canon overrides official sources.
>
Given
>> there was an example in Isards revenge with Admiral Ackabar vrs
>> Imp Star
>> dest and more then a few other books which would explain what
>> people have
>
> The example in one of the X-wing books is of a bubble shield
>protecting a ground base, not the shields of a capital starship.
No actually it was his cal vrs an ISD II but I'll still give the point that
it is lower then cannon and therefore overruled.
>
>> taken to be plasma exploding of the ship could be turbos hitting
>> the
>> shields. I donâ��™t recall any SW novels ever mentioning 'flack
>> bursts' or
>> anything like them. If I am wrong and there is a TM or Sbook which
>> tells
>> otherwise, I REALY want to know.
>
> There isn't, as far as I know. However, in RotJ, there is one
>turbolaser bolt that explodes into a flak burst with no ship within the
>remote vicinity.
>
I hope flak bursts are real, (they would be kinda useful against feds) but
until an official source actually confirms the existence of them, then I am
going to treat it as speculation.
>
> Commander Mrith'hele'arana. "The general who advances without coveting
>fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to
>protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel
>of the kingdom." - Sun-tzu, The Art of War.
Aron Kerkhof
>> > First of all, all Canon evidence indicates they're hull-conformal.
>> > Canon overrides official sources.
>>
>> I'm curious, what sources?
>Anakin's Naboo fighter had a hull-conforming shield. Can't think of any
>others off the top of my head.
Can anyone tell me how to shoot screenshots of .asf files in windows
media player. I could answer so many of these types of questions if
only I knew how to do so!
Aron Kerkhof
galactec.com/neolith
Graeme Dice
Can't you pause it and then use paintshop or something?
Graeme Dice
--
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!'
Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
Aron Kerkhof
Eh... I could go so far as up to greater than 3/4 the starfleet. He
wasn't being THAT precise.
Aron Kerkhof
galactec.com/neolith
Aron Kerkhof
>Aron Kerkhof wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:22:04 -0600, "Chuck" <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > First of all, all Canon evidence indicates they're hull-conformal.
>> >> > Canon overrides official sources.
>> >>
>> >> I'm curious, what sources?
>> >Anakin's Naboo fighter had a hull-conforming shield. Can't think of any
>> >others off the top of my head.
>>
>> Can anyone tell me how to shoot screenshots of .asf files in windows
>> media player. I could answer so many of these types of questions if
>> only I knew how to do so!
>
>Can't you pause it and then use paintshop or something?
You'd think. However, when I paste into the adobe file, or windows
paint for that matter, the player, my window's background, open
applications, all print normally.. EXCEPT the friggin media player's
window is BLACK! Very wierd... no other file format does this...
perhaps its something to do with the streaming content.
Aron Kerkhof
galactec.com/neolith
Ashen-Shugar
>The figure of 10,000kph that I stated was the extreme upper end of what I
>believed the speed to be. Since we see easily see the bolt tracking across
>the screen, it cannot really be travelling at anything like that kind of
>speed. A bullet travels at around 1000kph (I believe, perhaps someone could
>confirm), and we don't see that. I therefore used that figure as a very
>generous figure for the SW side.
The speed of a bullet is irrelevant, since a bullet is generally very
small and not very bright, so can't be seen at any significant
distance anyway. However, fire a few tracer rounds in the night sky
and you see them very easily, in fact.
------------------
Ashen-Shugar
------------------
Last of the Dragon Lords,
Greatest of the Valheru.
Paul Cassidy
Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:06284168...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com...
How do you know this?
>The other two asteroids, I
> believe, were vapourized by point-defence cannons, which, since they're
> designed for short-range work only, quite possibly are purely blasters
> with no laser component.
Nope, all three bolts looked exactly the same.
>Next, the 30 terajoules do not need to be
> delivered continuously. They can be delivered over a period of possibly
> even ten seconds; We don't see the far face of the asteroid. Part of it
> could be glowing where the beam hits, and then once enough energy has
> hit the asteroid, it flash-melts. Therefore, the invisible component
> can travel at lightspeed;
The problem is, only the first asteroid explodes early. It only starts to
explode just before the visible beam hits. If the invisible bit was travels
at LS, the asteroid would explode before we see the visible bolt leave the
ISD. This does not happen. we know that the visibile bolt is nowhere near
LS, so neither is the invisible bolt.
> However, your points do make things even more
> in Star Trek's favour there, as 30 terajoules over ten seconds would be
> only 3 terawatts. Still, an ISD CAN hit and damage a Federation
> starship at long range. The availible evidence, as I have pointed out,
> does not contradict this.
How do you conclude this if the flight time of the bolt is measured in days?
> Especially at such a close range; The flight
> time of the bolt wasn't more than two seconds. If the laser was hitting
> the target for those two seconds, 15 terawatts would have been
> delivered, and the asteroid would only fully melt when the necessary
> energy was delivered, IE, all 30 terajoules. Because of the angle of
> the shot, this is quite possible.
>
I agree about the flight time (it may have been slightly less). If we are
talking a bolt flight time of 2 seconds, and a speed of 30,000km, then we
are talking about a distance of 16.6km. Does this fit with the size of the
ISD on the screen? It looked a little big to me, so I would say that the
range to the asteroid was less than 16.6km. However, this would reduce the
speed of the bolt further. Thoughts?
> > The figure of 10,000kph that I stated was the extreme upper end of
> > what I
> > believed the speed to be. Since we see easily see the bolt
> > tracking across
> > the screen, it cannot really be travelling at anything like that
> > kind of
> > speed. A bullet travels at around 1000kph (I believe, perhaps
> > someone could
> > confirm), and we don't see that.
>
> Bullets are also not 2-200 meters long, and you CAN see tracer
> bullets, which glow a certain colour. Incidently, the bullet from a
> 30-06 rifle travels at 750 meters a second, and many bullets are infact
> subsonic.
Good points.
> Next, a Turbolaser bolt fired at a speed of 30,000 kph would traverse
> the length of an ISD in 0.4 seconds, comparable with the speed of some
> bolts we have seen on screen. To accurate measure speed, you have to do
> it by freeze-frame, otherwise the flash of the turbolaser bolt going
> past will "burn" into your retina and you will see for it longer than
> it's actually there.
>
Ok. We can confirm that with the distance to the asteroid as stated above.
>
> I therefore used that figure as a
> > very
> > generous figure for the SW side. Any higher speed than that (ie
> > 30,000kph)
> > will require some significant proof I think. Given that we see
> > that the
> > invisible bolt is only slightly faster that the visible bolt
> > (therefore in
> > the same order of speed magnitude), we can actually ignore the
> > difference
> > and base our calcs on the visible one (then double the speed for
> > the
> > invisible on if you wish).
>
>
> I disagree, as I've stated above. The energy doesn't NEED to be
> delivered all at once. The laser could be a continuous beam lasting two
> seconds, which accounts for the minor lag only at close range.
>
Could be, but since the asteroid didn't explode until just before the
visible bolt hit, it seems unlikely.
>
> < snip >
>
> > However, it is clear that the invisible bolt does NOT travel at
> > lightspeed,
> > so the point is moot.
>
> Again, please note above for an explaination of that.
>
Ditto. :)
Agreed, but they cannot know the torpedo has been fired before it physically
is fired. Therefore, they cannot react the same instant. Actually, it gets
worse than that. We know from the TM that torps can be told to fly different
routes to target. Therefore, until the torp is actually on it's flight plan,
no intercept solution would be possible. With that in mind, the intercept
time drops dramatically.
> However, let's assume they only
> > take 0.1
> > seconds. Assuming a successful hit, the torp will be destroyed at
> > a range of
> > no more than 4150m from the ISD. That is well within the range of
> > a photons
> > blast radius (TM says 15,000m).
>
>
> Yes, but MUCH better than a direct impact against the shields. Only
> about 5% of the blast would hit the shields that far out, depending on
> which ship it was.
>
Agreed, but that was a best case. The chances of actually intercepting them
is close to zero. Any lucky intercepts probably would be much closer than
that.
> > Of course 0.1 seconds is not enough time for biological reflexs of
> > the
> > people abord the ISD to react. We haven't seen automated point
> > defences in
> > SW, in fact the only guns we have seen are large turrets that are
> > phsically
> > manned. These cannot react fast enough.
>
>
> Agreed, but there is no evidence either way for the point-defence
> cannons, and since the point-defence cannons onboard modern naval
> warships are computer controlled, unless you're proposing the US Navy
> is more advanced than the Galactic Empire, it must be assumed that they
> have computer controlled point-defence guns.
>
I don't think we can say so. Until we see them, we have no evidence.
However, I can tell you that the US navy cannot intercept a missile
travelling at near light speed when they have less that half a second
warning. I very much doubt they could intercept a subsonic missile with 0.2
seconds warning.
>
> < snip >
>
> > as well.
> > I find that doubtful, since the Empire have NEVER seen anything
> > travel at
> > FTL speeds in real space. The ISD missed the MF quite a few times,
> > even when
> > it was clear that the speed of the MF was never that fast relative
> > to them.
>
> The Millenium Falcon is heavily modified. I'll check the availible
> references to see if it has a jamming system onboard. I believe it can
> jam communications; since they're subspace as well, it reasons that it
> can also jam targeting sensors to a certain extent. Next, they wanted
> the Falcon intact. They were shooting to disable it, which is very
> tricky, and means you ALWAYS err on the side of caution.
>
Ion cannons. they weren't hitting with them either.
>
> > This does not bode well for their chances of shooting down a
> > torpedo that
> > can arrive at relative speeds up to 0.9c (or above if you accept
> > warp
> > strafing).
>
> As I've said above, there's no reason why it should not bode well;
> There isn't any evidence to prove those point defence cannons are not
> computer controlled, and until I find some, I'm going to assume that
> the Galactic Empire is advanced as the US Navy and has computers
> running their point-defence guns.
>
See above.
>
> < snip >
>
> > Okay, fair enough. However, when we saw the protons in ANH, they
> > were not
> > travelling at anything like light speed. Again, we could track
> > them fire
> > with the unaided eye, so that severely limits their canon speed.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. You're thinking like they're Turbolasers, and you're
> thinking like this is an atmosphere. Proton torpedoes have engines, of
> course, and therefore they CONTINUOUSLY accelerate. I was not putting a
> maximum speed on Proton torpedoes, I was putting a maximum
> acceleration. Depending on how long their engines can burn before their
> fuel runs out, Proton torpedoes could reach speeds of 0.9c+, and yet
> our ISD Captain still believes any long-range Proton torpedo shot would
> be easily taken down by that Battlecruiser's point defence guns.
>
What info do we have on protons? Remember, their acceleration might be
limited by other factors.
>
> < Snip >
>
> > The problem is that we have never seen TIEs pull anything like
> > this on film.
>
>
> True, but we know the minimum acceleration of X-wings based on the
> attack on the DS I, and we know that the Executor can make 4,000gs of
> acceleration. Are you proposing that Tie Fighters are slower than the
> Executor? Remember, there's canon evidence for both, based on fleet,
> planet, and DS positions in the movies.
>
Again, can you explain the 4000g figure.
> > We know the protons travel STL, but we also know they can pull
> > very tight
> > turns (the turn into the shaft). No fighter has shown anything
> > like that
> > kind of ability to turn.
>
>
> Fighters are also larger, bulkier, ect.
>
True
> > Thanks. I've been here a while now. You can ask anyone, and I'm
> > sure they'll
> > tell you that I NEVER insult anyone. If people insult me, I simply
> > stop
> > debating. It's far easier in the long run. I might be wrong from
> > time to
> > time, but I do admit that too.....sometimes....with little grace.
> > :)
> > I think that ST ships would win a one on one battle, but that SW
> > would win a
> > war. That gives me a different perspective to most peole here.
>
>
> It's nice to hear what you think, but are you planning on calculating
> the interception percentage of Photon torpedoes? Even if you disagree
> with it, it would be valuable to point out to some fanatical warsie
> that there is a maximum effectiveness against Photon torpedoes for
> point-defence guns, if they don't accept your other arguements. The
> instructions for how to calculate it are up there.. And you probably
> have a better head for calculation than I do.. Or I can find someone
> else to. I'll probably end up taking a stab at it myself.
>
I'll have a stab, but my maths is aweful.
Paul Cassidy
The fact that we have not seen a long range battle with the dominion,
doesn't mean that their range is any less than the Feds. I covered this in
my last post.
> Sorry, Paul. I know this would really help your dying cause, but this is
simply
> a closed point. Effective tactical range aside, we know where Federation
captains
> *prefer* to engage -- point-blank range, which will put them right in the
laps
> of the Imperial warships.
>
Dying. Huh! :)
Simple fact is that the Feds have used long range. They used it when they
did outrange their oponent, therefore, it is both admissilbe and logical to
say they would do the same against the empire.
> > > Oh, it's admissible, but that's not really the issue. I already said
that
> > > they can obviously fire torpedoes at great, even infinite ranges --
the
> > > question is, will they? Will they use this apparent range advantage?
The
> > answer,
> > > drawing from all canon, is obviously no.
> > >
> >
> > Again, see above. The Wounded clearly shows that this was exactly the
reason
> > they went to a long range attack. In battles where both sides have
broadly
> > the same range, it wouldn't matter. Therefore, in the one example that
we
> > know of, where a Fed ship had a range advantage, they did use it.
>
> One example? What about countless DS9 examples? The Dominion has no such
great
> range -- all we ever see them do is attack at close range, giving them a
very
> short range, according to all the canon we've got. The Federation never
exploited
> this. Same with the Borg.
>
Nope, as stated previously, there are many other examples.
So how do they detect transwarp?
> > Also, why are they just
> > sitting there? If they are moving (especially if at warp), then the
> > hyperspace jump would not bring the SW ships out on top of them, since
they
> > would have movedsince the calcs were performed.
>
> The Federation will be in a position where they will have to have many
> standing fleets in orbit around their planets. They'll have no time to
actually
> be on the offensive; the Imperials will have been making hit-and-fade
attacks
> on every planet that they leave bare and so they'll have no choice but to
> spread themselves thin.
>
Ah, now this is different. I've always said that SW would win a war.
However, we were talkign about a single ship or fleet battle.
> So, assuming they will NOT be at warp while in standard orbit, it'll be
pretty
> easy for the Imperials to spot them. And I'm not saying that they'd come
out
> of hyperspace guns blazing -- I'm saying that they'd look for them and
fire
> immediately, at ranges we saw in ROTJ (i.e. further than the Feds like to
> engage at). The Federation ships will slog through the flurry of incoming
TL
> fire, losing about a third of their fleet while doing it, and finally get
into
> the Federation captain "comfort zone" where they'll begin firing slow
volleys --
> see all the Dominion battles.
>
Covered before.
They have in many occasions, it's canon!
> > Assume a fleet of 100 ships (similar to DS9), each
> > fires an average of 5 torps (some fire more some less). Less than a
second
> > later, 500 torpedos arrive at 0.7c, each striking with a force of about
48MT
> > (not 100% efficient).
>
> 48MT, half of which is radiated into space. 24MT. And, if the torpedoes do
> not score direct hits (and detonate in proximity) they'll only be about an
> 8MT charge, which of course will be even smaller because the energy will
be
> radiated over a greater area.
>
As covered in another thread, torps do not radiate spherical explosions when
they hit targets and shields.
> I don't even think you'd wake up an Imperial captain like this.
>
> > > I don't think so. The encounter I described assumed a large-scale
attack
> > by
> > > the Empire on a Federation who knew that such an attack would be
coming.
> > > A first encounter would just be a slaughter for the Empire.
> > >
> >
> > Actually I think that Sw would win a war, but I think you've stacked the
> > deck a bit in this scenario by giving all the advantages to the Imps.
:)
>
> The Imperials *DO* have all the advantages! They have more ships. They're
> faster. They're more accustomed to war. They've got no planets to defend.
> Their ships are vastly more powerful. This ends the discussion, frankly --
> no one can beat those odds.
>
But you also gave them the exact position of a stationary Fed fleet, who
despite knowing they are at war, do not fire at the first cance.
> > > I also notice you've totally ignored my point about fighters.
> > >
>
> > However, I think the same applies to them regarding inaccurate/out of
date
> > hyper jumps.
>
> As I said -- the Federation fleets will be forced into holding positions
over
> defended planets. They won't be off, galavanting at warp. They even had to
> do this with the Dominion (remember all the comments about never being on
the
> offensive?) and they were nowhere NEAR this bad.
>
Agreed
> > They take time to launch and time to fly to and lock onto the
> > target. If the jump is inaccurate, that takes even longer. By the time
they
> > do, the Feds will have gone to warp, and the fighters have no chance of
> > catching them.
>
> The Federation uses warp combat now? I must have missed the episode.
Source,
> please?
>
Elaan of Troyius. Even if you don't believe the evidence that they used warp
strafing, they did use short warp hjump tactically. Either interpretation is
good for ST.
> > > Torpedoes rarely miss at short range, given; but there's not enough
> > evidence
> > > to clear the Federation of their reputation for abhorrently bad
targeting
> > > systems yet, especially at long range when firing is *harder*.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, since we haven't seen a long range miss, we can't really
conclude
> > anything.
>
> It's obvious that it's harder to target at longer ranges.
>
> > > It's really fairly immaterial; heavy cannons would be overkill. A
point
> > > defense cannon is more than enough to destroy a Federation vessel in a
> > couple
> > > of shots.
> > >
> >
> > Except I don't think they would actually get a hit.
>
> Won't get a hit at the 5km range the Feds like to engage at? Think again.
> The fighters will be even worse -- it won't take long for the Imperials
> to notice all the holes in Federation shielding (remember, the one Ensign
> Ro got in?) and fly their fighters INSIDE Federation shield bubbles; not
> that this will be necessary, since I doubt any Federation ship that's not
> intentionally captured will live very long.
>
Why would it be 5km.
> > > Interesting. So the ship lost shields after one 400GW volley, and was
in
> > > serious danger after two or three more? Imagine how they'll deal with
the
> > > multi-terawatt cannons of an ISD. Not well, I should say.
> > > --
> >
> > The original point was regarding flak bursts. The E-D here survived a
direct
> > 400GW hit, with just scorch marks.
>
> "Scorch marks?" The ship was in serious danger. Picard ordered it to move
> away.
>
Second hit. That was the quote!
> > Given spherical bursts, how close would a
> > TL have to get to do significant damage? What are the chances of getting
a
> > hit, when the bolt has to travel for over 100 days just to reach the
ship?
>
> A non-issue. The bolts will travel a fraction of a second.
Long range.
Aron Kerkhof
<paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>> 48MT, half of which is radiated into space. 24MT. And, if the torpedoes do
>> not score direct hits (and detonate in proximity) they'll only be about an
>> 8MT charge, which of course will be even smaller because the energy will
>be
>> radiated over a greater area.
>>
>
>As covered in another thread, torps do not radiate spherical explosions when
>they hit targets and shields.
Well, actually, the jury is still out on that one. We just don't have
the concrete evidence to say so at this point.
Aron Kerkhof
galactec.com/neolith
Ashen-Shugar
>in article 0a0bc822...@usw-ex0102-011.remarq.com, Commander Thelea at
>Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 10:29 am:
>
>> "We're not going to have much chance of hitting them with proton
>> torpedoes, if that's what you're thinking," Ardiff warned. "In close,
>> their angular speed is too high for the torpedoes to track; and at any
>> real distance, they'll have all the time they need to target and
>> destroy them."
>
><snip>
>
>All very nice, but it involves a lot of speculation. And we know that on
>many occasions torps have been used with 100% effectiveness against ISDs.
Torps that were fired from fighters at point-blank range, or fired en
mass, i.e., in volleys of several hundred.
>Perhaps the old battlecruisers were much better at point defence than the
>ISDs.
HUH!!?
That guy was afraid to go head to head with an ISD in his
battlecruiser. Said something to the effect that the battlecruiser was
"no match" for an ISD.
Ashen-Shugar
>> >
>> > How do we know this? They can detect a wide range of events, (including
>> > transwarp which may be faster than hyperspace).
Transwarp is NOT faster than hyperspace. We have several ST examples
of Transwarp being of the order of 11 light years per hour, and one
unproven assertion that it might be several hundred light years per
hour.
In SW we have one case of an old, slow, outdated Victory doing 127
light years per hour, and several movie instances of ships covering
thousands of light years per hour.
Preponderance of evidence suggests that transwarp is a tenth the speed
of an aging VSD.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>>> Can anyone tell me how to shoot screenshots of .asf files in windows
>>> media player. I could answer so many of these types of questions if
>>> only I knew how to do so!
>>
>>Can't you pause it and then use paintshop or something?
>
>You'd think. However, when I paste into the adobe file, or windows
>paint for that matter, the player, my window's background, open
>applications, all print normally.. EXCEPT the friggin media player's
>window is BLACK! Very wierd... no other file format does this...
>perhaps its something to do with the streaming content.
I have that problem using PSP6. If I leave the pasted image open and try
again though it works perfectly. The most it has ever taken is four
attempts. I'm wondering if Media Player only updates the screen so often,
and it is a pure fluke(or bug) it turns out blank the first time you try
to capture it.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> In The Wounded, the reason given for the long range is to position
>> themselves outside the enemy ship's range. This is therefore canon
proof
>> that Fed captains will modify their tactics for each foe. Therefore the
>> range question is certainly not moot. In most occasions, I suspect that
the
>> ranges would be the same for both sides, so advantages of long range
battles
>> would disappear. In that case, a short range intense fight, where both
sides
>> could make precision strikes (ie on engines or weapons arrays) would be
more
>> attractive.
>
>What about the Dominion? According to on-screen evidence, their range is
very
>short;
No, according to on-screen evidence the range at which they engage is very
short. This could either be because their range really is short, or
because they are doing what Paul suggests. You are assuming the Feds have
a range advantage over the dominion with no proof of that.
>> > No, I factored that in; think about it. The Imperials have standing
orders
>> to
>> > fire on the Federation ships as they drop out of hyperspace. But the
>> Federation
>> > fleet has no idea that the Imperials will be arriving. They're blind
to
>> > hyperspace.
>> >
>>
>> How do we know this? They can detect a wide range of events, (including
>> transwarp which may be faster than hyperspace).
>
>Because their sensor pings are too slow, firstly; secondly, because the
Feds
>have no idea that hyperspace even exists! If they did, perhaps they
wouldn't
>be putting around at a few thousand times the speed of light. Don't force
this
>issue; there is no way you'll be able to come up with the requisite proof
for
>this. TOWNMNBS tried to force this for years and never did anything
except
>make himself look foolish. :)
Scenario is a SW fleet coming out of hyperspace and destroying most of the
ST fleet before they have time to react yes? (just making sure)
Out of interest Kynes, can you provide any examples of ships dropping out
of hyperspace and firing immediately? Can you give quotes and page numbers
as well?
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> The Federation uses warp combat now? I must have missed the episode.
>Source,
>> please?
>>
>
>Elaan of Troyius. Even if you don't believe the evidence that they used
warp
>strafing, they did use short warp hjump tactically. Either interpretation
is
>good for ST.
Also Peak Performance, which Kynes has been told of repeatedly over the
last few weeks but still conveniently forgets when it pleases him.
I swear, he's turning into Elim.
Rob Dalton
>
> in article 388CEA27...@erols.com, Rob Dalton at dalto...@erols.com
> wrote on 25/1/00 12:11 am:
>
> > Jonathan Boyd wrote:
> >>
> >> in article 097f46d3...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com, Commander Thelea at
> >> Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 11:17 am:
> >>
> >>>> In the novels, the shields are described as spheres, not just hull hanging
> >>>> things. In some of the novels, (can't remember which offhand but I can find
> >>>> it) the shields are most defiantly spheres which slowly contract and then
> >>>> implode under fire. I think
> >>
> >>> Canon overrides official sources.
> >>
> >> I'm curious, what sources?
> >>
> >>>> dest
> >>
> >>> The example in one of the X-wing books is of a bubble shield
> >>> protecting a ground base, not the shields of a capital starship.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> Changes in technology then. Perhaps spherical shields are now favoured.
There really isn't much indication of that.
--
Dalton
AIM: RobPDalton
ICQ: 50342303
I can't think of anything. How about you?
Jonathan Boyd
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>>
>> in article 097f46d3...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com, Commander Thelea at
>> Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 11:17 am:
>>
>>>> In the novels, the shields are described as spheres, not just hull hanging
>>>> things. In some of the novels, (can't remember which offhand but I can find
>>>> it) the shields are most defiantly spheres which slowly contract and then
>>>> implode under fire. I think
>>
>>> First of all, all Canon evidence indicates they're hull-conformal.
>>> Canon overrides official sources.
>>
>> I'm curious, what sources?
>>
>>>> there was an example in Isards revenge with Admiral Ackabar vrs Imp Star
>>>> dest
>>>> and more then a few other books which would explain what people have
>>
>>> The example in one of the X-wing books is of a bubble shield
>>> protecting a ground base, not the shields of a capital starship.
>>
>> In CoPL shields are described as being spherical.
>>
>
> CoPL?...well, in TPM they sure ain't.
Changes in technology then. Perhaps spherical shields are now favoured.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 25/1/00 12:55 am:
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>>
>> Wayne Poe at lo...@h4h.com wrote on 24/1/00 6:12 am:
>
>>> Ugh. How many times must this fallacial crap be disputed?
>>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, so a SSD broadside is supposed to be like 2,000 gigatons
>>>> according to the SW side. This is clearly impossible, as in
>>>> "Darksaber" the Knight Hammer bombarded Yavin IV without reducing
>>>> the entire area surrounding the Great Temple into a molten sea of
>>>> superheated magma. I quote(capitalization added):
>>>> "Yes," Daala said. "We strike from orbit. ALL
>>>> TURBOLASER BATTERIES, ***FULL STRENGTH***. Fire at will,
>>>> targeting any structures in the jungle."
>>>
>>>> And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in the
>>>> jungle, completely unvaporized!
>>>
>>> And yet, you can't even read what you quoted! They were targeting
>>> STRUCTURES. Hi strawman! Refutation of your first point.
>>
>> Actually on the same page it says "she could already see the forests
>> starting to burn so bolts were obviously hitting the trees. Full power
>> bolts. I'm not going to debate firepower here, however it does raise
>> the question of accuracy. If weapons are that inaccurate then I think
>> we have a reason why SW ships engage at such short ranges.
>
> If they are hitting the structures of course some of the jungle is going
> to burn. This doesn't have any effect of accuracy or firepower.
What? How are the trees going to be burning from the bolts hitting the
structures?
Jonathan Boyd
aronk@-spamerific-galactec.com wrote on 25/1/00 3:24 am:
>>>> Wrong. If it was greater than the entire Starfleet, then he would have said
>>>> "greater than the entire Starfleet." He didn't, so it wasn't. If it was
>>>> greater than three-fourths of the Starfleet, he would have said "greater
>>>> than three-fourths of the Starfleet." He did, so it wasn't. This reasoning
>>>> can be taken to its logical end to deduce that the Death Star was less than
>>>> one ship's firepower greater than the entirety of the Starfleet. EOF. This
>>>> has been debated and lost by greater ST fanatics than you, I'm afraid.
>>>
>>> And he didn't say greater than 5/8 of the starfleet, or 9/16 or 17/32 or
>>> 33/64... ad naseum
>>
>> Precisely. So it had to be greater than half the Starfleet, but not greater
>> than (half the Starfleet + 1 ship).
>
> Eh... I could go so far as up to greater than 3/4 the starfleet. He
> wasn't being THAT precise.
We know. we're just taking the piss out of each other :^)
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 25/1/00 12:52 am:
> "Paul Cassidy" <paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:86igdm$1k2tu$1...@reader1.wxs.nl...
>> From on screen evidence you might be right. I would say phasers are a bit
>> faster, but the difference is not great enough to argue.
>>
>> In The Wounded, the reason given for the long range is to position
>> themselves outside the enemy ship's range. This is therefore canon proof
>> that Fed captains will modify their tactics for each foe. Therefore the
>> range question is certainly not moot. In most occasions, I suspect that the
>> ranges would be the same for both sides, so advantages of long range battles
>> would disappear. In that case, a short range intense fight, where both sides
>> could make precision strikes (ie on engines or weapons arrays) would be more
>> attractive.
> What about the Dominion? According to on-screen evidence, their range is very
> short; we've seen them engage exclusively within visual range. The Federation,
> then, has an obvious advantage over them in range; yet they didn't use it! Why
> not? Because the Federation doesn't do that sort of thing, apparently. Name
> one fleet engagement where the Federation exploited their range advantage over
> the Dominion and you'll have proven your point. (But don't look too hard --
> none exist.)
See below. Where is your proof of a Fed range advantage?
> Sorry, Paul. I know this would really help your dying cause, but this is
> simply a closed point. Effective tactical range aside, we know where
> Federation captains *prefer* to engage -- point-blank range, which will put
> them right in the laps of the Imperial warships.
This is a debate about tech not tactics. That's why prefacing was
introduced.
>> Again, see above. The Wounded clearly shows that this was exactly the reason
>> they went to a long range attack. In battles where both sides have broadly
>> the same range, it wouldn't matter. Therefore, in the one example that we
>> know of, where a Fed ship had a range advantage, they did use it.
>
> One example? What about countless DS9 examples? The Dominion has no such great
> range -- all we ever see them do is attack at close range, giving them a very
> short range, according to all the canon we've got. The Federation never
> exploited
> this. Same with the Borg.
You've ignored what he said. If they have the same range then they're not
going to have a range advantage to take advantage of. If they can both fire
from 300,000km then they may as well get up close and get more accurate
hits.
<snip>
>> Alternatively.
>>
>> ...the SW fleet exits hyperspace, and opens fire on the reported position of
>> the Fed fleet. But there's noting there. The calcs are old, and the Fed
>> fleet has moved. Suddenly, they get confused reports of multiple contacts,
>> travelling at impossible speeds in real space. Before they can react, the
>> Fed fleet has opened the range to 50,000 km, and each has fired a full torp
>> spread at a single ISD.
>
> Invalid, I'm afraid. The Federation captains just aren't willing to engage at
> this range, and on the rare occasions that they did, they fired just a single
> torpedo, wasn't it? Obviously, the captains of the Federation vessels have
> some psychological issues with combat; luckily, the FAQ makes it perfectly
> legal for me to advance this.
More than a single torpedo wasn't needed.
>> Assume a fleet of 100 ships (similar to DS9), each
>> fires an average of 5 torps (some fire more some less). Less than a second
>> later, 500 torpedos arrive at 0.7c, each striking with a force of about 48MT
>> (not 100% efficient).
> 48MT, half of which is radiated into space. 24MT. And, if the torpedoes do
> not score direct hits (and detonate in proximity) they'll only be about an
> 8MT charge, which of course will be even smaller because the energy will be
> radiated over a greater area.
>
> I don't even think you'd wake up an Imperial captain like this.
<groan> ISDs blown up by less than 50 torps, VSDs blown up by 20 torps,
SSD's shields knocked out by a couple of hundred. Blah, blah, blah. Said
this before.
>> However, I think the same applies to them regarding inaccurate/out of date
>> hyper jumps.
> As I said -- the Federation fleets will be forced into holding positions over
> defended planets. They won't be off, galavanting at warp. They even had to
> do this with the Dominion (remember all the comments about never being on the
> offensive?) and they were nowhere NEAR this bad.
Why are you assuming the combat takes place in Fed space? Why not neutral
space?
>> They take time to launch and time to fly to and lock onto the
>> target. If the jump is inaccurate, that takes even longer. By the time they
>> do, the Feds will have gone to warp, and the fighters have no chance of
>> catching them.
> The Federation uses warp combat now? I must have missed the episode. Source,
> please?
They have warp drive. They can engage it to move from place to place. This
keeps them out of the way of fire. It's something that has been brought up
time and time again. This isn't warp strafing, it's a perfectly legitimate
evasive tactic. Must we remind you of this every month?
>> Except I don't think they would actually get a hit.
> Won't get a hit at the 5km range the Feds like to engage at? Think again.
> The fighters will be even worse -- it won't take long for the Imperials
> to notice all the holes in Federation shielding (remember, the one Ensign
> Ro got in?) and fly their fighters INSIDE Federation shield bubbles; not
> that this will be necessary, since I doubt any Federation ship that's not
> intentionally captured will live very long.
The hole that Roe knew how to take advantage of? The hole that no Imp
officer would be aware of? The hole we have never seen exploited? Didn't the
crew allow Roe on board because she was infiltrating the Maquis? It's been
several years since I saw that ep. but I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
<snip>
>> Given spherical bursts, how close would a
>> TL have to get to do significant damage? What are the chances of getting a
>> hit, when the bolt has to travel for over 100 days just to reach the ship?
> A non-issue. The bolts will travel a fraction of a second.
Contrary to canon evidence?
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
Jonathan Boyd
xr...@nospam.iafrica.com wrote on 25/1/00 4:33 pm:
> sub-space transmission from Jonathan Boyd <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> :
>
>> in article 0a0bc822...@usw-ex0102-011.remarq.com, Commander Thelea at
>> Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 24/1/00 10:29 am:
>>
>>> "We're not going to have much chance of hitting them with proton
>>> torpedoes, if that's what you're thinking," Ardiff warned. "In close,
>>> their angular speed is too high for the torpedoes to track; and at any
>>> real distance, they'll have all the time they need to target and
>>> destroy them."
>> <snip>
>>
>> All very nice, but it involves a lot of speculation. And we know that on
>> many occasions torps have been used with 100% effectiveness against ISDs
> Torps that were fired from fighters at point-blank range, or fired en
> mass, i.e., in volleys of several hundred.
Tactics that would work for the Feds. And it wasn't hundreds against VSDs or
ISDs. It was in total 20 against a VSD and 48 for an ISD. Only an SSD
required hundreds. And then it was several smaller volleys.
>> Perhaps the old battlecruisers were much better at point defence than the
>> ISDs.
> HUH!!?
> That guy was afraid to go head to head with an ISD in his
> battlecruiser. Said something to the effect that the battlecruiser was
> "no match" for an ISD.
Its main guns yeah, but it may well have had better point defence. Compare
Corvettes and Lancers. Corvette can beat a Lancer, but a Lancer has way
better point defence.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind -
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. - Gene Spafford
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge at strow...@home.com wrote
> > If they are hitting the structures of course some of the jungle is
> > going to burn. This doesn't have any effect of accuracy or
> > firepower.
>
> What? How are the trees going to be burning from the bolts hitting the
> structures?
Think about it. 2 tons of plasma hit a structure in the middle of the
jungle there is going to be some collateral damage.
C.S.Strowbridge
Wayne Poe
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Chris O'Farrell wrote:
> SW Rulez! wrote in message <388b0ef8...@news.iafrica.com>...
> >We see flak bursts several times in ANH and ESB, where aparently near
> >misses detonates close to the ship.
> Apparently. But is there proof???????????.
"The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by
the fighters." ---falcon being chased by TIEs from Hoth. TESB
novelization, canon source.
"Ye Gods, to call you an idiot would be an insult to idiots."
--------Michael January to Anton Polinger
Wayne Poe
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Commander Thelea wrote:
> There's no direct evidence of a bolt from a Tie turning into a flak
> burst, true.
Sure there is. Look at the scene JUST before we see Han crawling around in
his hyperdrive in TESB.
"Huh? What are you talking about? I am confused yet again."
----Anton Polinger
Wayne Poe
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Eframepilot wrote:
> I never disputed the size of the bolts. I disputed a direct correlation
> between the size of the bolts and the energy of the bolts. Even if such
> correlation exists, it is impossible to determine what said correlation is.
That's why both Wong and Saxton use the scientifically accepted practice
of LOWER LIMITS on their calcs to come to the conclusions they do.
> >Why, oh why are you tossing this Red Herring into the mix? This isn't a
> >discussion on sensor domes. This has nothing to do with the argument
> >above, concerning Saxton and Wong's firepower estimates being CANON from
> >the official materials.
> This is an example of where a conclusion reached by Saxton based upon
> ONE official source (original ISD blueprints) has been given priority
> on ASVS over dozens of more recent official sources' direct statements
> to the contrary.
No, this is an example of a WEG screwup repeated over and over again. I'm
not going into this arguement again. I've done this arguement at least 15
times here.
> >> Nooo she didn't! Pellaeon may have left behind wounded and crippled
> >> forces before his little Force jump, but Daala chose to launch no
> >> ground forces until after (and during) her full bombardment.
> >Eh...didn't have any ground troops until after (and during) her full
> >bombardment? Are you trying to be the new Elim? BTW, if those were
> >Pellaeon's troops, WHO is in charge of them once Daala is on the scene?
> It's true! Pellaeon's forces had been wiped out by the Jedi, and Dorsk 81 had
> just given him a big kick out of the system. No significant Imp forces were
> left on the ground when Daala arrived.
Daala never launced any ground forces at all.
> >Yes, you're right. You did completely misinterpret it. You also
> >contradicted yourself. Above, you said "Pellaeon's troops" were dispatched
> >to the ground, but above you say Daala began her bombardment when there
> >were NO ground troops present.
> "Pellaeon's troops" were WIPED OUT! Gone! Neutralized. Apparently that wasn't
> quite clear, but this is a minor technical point that anyone who has read
> "Darksaber" shouldn't be bothering to point out.
Yes, EXACTLY. And I suggest that you read the book you are talking about
BEFORE posting here, and making such incredible mistakes like you have.
Simply reading old arguments in this ng and quoting passages from
another's post does not equal reading a book.
First of all, Daala did NOT dispatch any ground forces after (or during)
her bombardment. Second of all, Pellaeon's ground troops were NOT "WIPED
OUT! Gone!" or "Neutralized." Shall I waste my precious time quoting from
the novel to completely bury you, or will you concede that you made a
mistake?
"Don't ask me... I am completely confused."
----Anton Polinger
Wayne Poe
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Jonathan Boyd wrote:
> >> And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in the jungle,
> >> completely unvaporized!
> > And yet, you can't even read what you quoted! They were targeting
> > STRUCTURES. Hi strawman! Refutation of your first point.
> Actually on the same page it says "she could already see the forests
> starting to burn so bolts were obviously hitting the trees. Full power
> bolts.
Well Jon, when a JUNGLE PLANET has structures on it which are SURROUNDED
BY A JUNGLE, you're going to set a few trees ablaze.
Wayne Poe
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Jonathan Boyd wrote:
> From RotJ, the scene where the Executor is engaging a Neb-B (with pitifully
> few guns I might add), I calculated the speed to be less than 2km/s as an
> upper limit. I could dig the post out. Works out as less than 10,000 km/hr.
I see you cling to this pitiful one scene, of two ships that have been in
extended combat in the middle of a war zone, and ignore all others in all
three movies which show TLs as much faster, and just as fast as phasers.
And MY site is biased, eh?
Rob Dalton
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
> > >> completely unvaporized!
>
> > > And yet, you can't even read what you quoted! They were targeting
> > > STRUCTURES. Hi strawman! Refutation of your first point.
>
> > Actually on the same page it says "she could already see the forests
> > starting to burn so bolts were obviously hitting the trees. Full power
> > bolts.
>
> Well Jon, when a JUNGLE PLANET has structures on it which are SURROUNDED
> BY A JUNGLE, you're going to set a few trees ablaze.
>
You sound like a game show contestant.
--
Dalton
AIM: RobPDalton
ICQ: 50342303
It is impossible to dry one hand.
Max Veers
> I think
> we have a reason why SW ships engage at such short ranges.
SW ships do NOT engage at short ranges! In the Battle of Endor, the
Imperial fleet comes out from the opposite side of the moon, and the
rebels are still far away from their side! They engage in a full-scale
space battle!
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Aron Kerkhof
>
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Chris O'Farrell wrote:
>
>> SW Rulez! wrote in message <388b0ef8...@news.iafrica.com>...
>
>> >We see flak bursts several times in ANH and ESB, where aparently near
>> >misses detonates close to the ship.
>
>> Apparently. But is there proof???????????.
>
>"The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by
>the fighters." ---falcon being chased by TIEs from Hoth. TESB
>novelization, canon source.
Wow, Wayne shoots and scores! That quote is good to have around.
Aron Kerkhof
galactec.com/neolith
Andras Otto Schneider
>
>> >
> I hope flak bursts are real, (they would be kinda useful against feds) but
> until an official source actually confirms the existence of them, then I am
> going to treat it as speculation.
>
In my copy of SW:TESB novel pg 130, "It was all he [ Solo] could do to
avoid the flak bursts rocketing towards the Falcon from the Imperial
Ship" This is when the Falcon turns around and flys past the Avenger
after exiting the asteroid field
Eframepilot
>
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
>> >> And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in the jungle,
>> >> completely unvaporized!
>
>> > And yet, you can't even read what you quoted! They were targeting
>> > STRUCTURES. Hi strawman! Refutation of your first point.
>
>> Actually on the same page it says "she could already see the forests
>> starting to burn so bolts were obviously hitting the trees. Full power
>> bolts.
>
>Well Jon, when a JUNGLE PLANET has structures on it which are SURROUNDED
>BY A JUNGLE, you're going to set a few trees ablaze.
>
pretty direct hits on the forest.
Jonathan Boyd
lo...@h4h.com wrote on 26/1/00 9:52 am:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
>> From RotJ, the scene where the Executor is engaging a Neb-B (with pitifully
>> few guns I might add), I calculated the speed to be less than 2km/s as an
>> upper limit. I could dig the post out. Works out as less than 10,000 km/hr.
>
> I see you cling to this pitiful one scene, of two ships that have been in
> extended combat in the middle of a war zone, and ignore all others in all
> three movies which show TLs as much faster, and just as fast as phasers.
Give me a scene. Come on. One scene where the speed is faster by an order of
magnitude or more. I dare you!
> And MY site is biased, eh?
Do I still have that written? Oh, meant to change that ages ago. Note that I
say it has been accused of being biased. I didn't say I thought it was :^)
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Hardware: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 26/1/00 4:37 am:
<chuckle> I know, but I was curious about who would be more outraged, you or
Wayne :^)
Seriously though, I don't remember reading anything about the ground round
the temples being damaged. Seemed quite intact IIRC. If there had been
collateral damage, surely it would have been concentrated around the temple.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
Strowbridge
>
> Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
> >> >> And yet, the Jedi apprentices on Yavin continue to hide in the
> >> >> jungle, completely unvaporized!
> >
> >> > And yet, you can't even read what you quoted! They were targeting
> >> > STRUCTURES. Hi strawman! Refutation of your first point.
> >
> >> Actually on the same page it says "she could already see the
> >> forests starting to burn so bolts were obviously hitting the trees.
> >> Full power bolts.
> >
> >Well Jon, when a JUNGLE PLANET has structures on it which are
> >SURROUNDED BY A JUNGLE, you're going to set a few trees ablaze.
>
> You're not going to see them burning from orbit,
Yes you are. Smoke from forest fires are visible from space, and that's
with no magnification.
C.S.Strowbridge
Eframepilot
Second of all, Pellaeon's ground troops were NOT "WIPED
>OUT! Gone!" or "Neutralized."Shall I waste my precious time quoting from
>the novel to completely bury you, or will you concede that you made a
>mistake?
>
>
have brought them up! BUT-
The point of this argument is not to prove I haven't read "Darksaber". (I
actually haven't completely, but I have skimmed it pretty well and took
another look before this discussion.) Screw ground forces! Daala certainly
did, if they were there. She ordered a full bombardment with all turbolaser
batteries, full strength. THAT is the only issue. And even if the temples
could withstand gigaton-level firepower, they would not absorb it completely.
There would be MASSIVE devastation of the surrounding area. Plus, with the
size and power of the bolts, they would incinerate anything INSIDE the
temples, as well. The doors and windows of the temple wouldn't be so
invulnerable, and the Jedi would've fried.
Strowbridge
> >>> If they are hitting the structures of course some of the jungle is
> >>> going to burn. This doesn't have any effect of accuracy or
> >>> firepower.
> >>
> >> What? How are the trees going to be burning from the bolts hitting
> >> the structures?
> >
> > Think about it. 2 tons of plasma hit a structure in the middle of
> > the jungle there is going to be some collateral damage.
>
> <chuckle> I know, but I was curious about who would be more outraged,
> you or Wayne :^)
It does bring up an interesting point though. Even if the shots travel
at 1000 km/s each shot would have to weigh over 8000 tons.
> Seriously though, I don't remember reading anything about the ground
> round the temples being damaged. Seemed quite intact IIRC.
What did they say about the ground around the temples?
C.S.Strowbridge