Ties vs. ISD
Kyle
>
> Okay, we've heard your opinions on TIEs vs. the Defiant. Now, how many
> TIEs would it take (alone, without capital ships) to take on an ISD Mark I?
> How many TIE/Ins would be sufficient? Or Bombers? Interceptors? How powerful
> ARE fighters compared with capital ships?
To take out an ISD I, I'd say 12 squadrons of bombers with heavy warhead
loads, plus escorts of 12 fighter squadrons and 12 squadrons of
interceptors. Don't bring up the games, they don't count.
--
Kyle Knopf
Eframepilot
WeeMadAndo
50 TIEs. Bombers do a massive standoff range assault on the shield in an
attempt to bring them down. TIEs and Ints then strafe along the vessel
destroying point defense weapons before the second wave of bombers come in
and finish it off.
--
WeeMadAndo
"ASVS, you'll never find a more wretched hive of sum and villainy."
Eframepilot <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8e5l0u$le$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
Chris O'Farrell
Eframepilot <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8e5l0u$le$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> Okay, we've heard your opinions on TIEs vs. the Defiant. Now, how
many
> TIEs would it take (alone, without capital ships) to take on an ISD Mark
I?
> How many TIE/Ins would be sufficient? Or Bombers? Interceptors? How
powerful
> ARE fighters compared with capital ships?
Well according to the offical sources, Rogue squadron can take a VSDII out
by themselves. So Against an ISD I, I would say 2-3 squads of attack
fighters, or 4-5 of bombers.
Assuming of course the ISD does not have fighters deployed
Aaron Embry
< Don't bring up the games, they don't count. >
good point. anybody else here take down an ISD with a lone A-wing? took
about half an hour as I recall.
Eframepilot
Chris O'Farrell
I've done this in allience. one A-Wing W no missile against an ISD II on
super ace.
That was fun. Took 20 mins
Aaron Embry
"Eframepilot" <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8e623g$75j$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <3906...@news.cc.umr.edu>, "Aaron Embry" <em...@umr.edu>
wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >< Don't bring up the games, they don't count. >
> >
> >good point. anybody else here take down an ISD with a lone A-wing? took
> >about half an hour as I recall.
> >
> >
> wow. did you have invincibility on?
no, I just boosted power to weapons, set my shields to double front and
dived in towards his shield generators. then I'd boost power to engines and
set the shields double rear and get the heck outta there. wait for
everything to charge up, and do it again. As it turned out the real trick
was how you flew the evasive patterns. If you just yanked and banked
erratically the tubrolaser fire would become erratic and there was a fairly
good chance of you moving back into the path a bolt but, if you flew in a
circular pattern, sort of a spiral, you could always stay one step ahead of
the batteries. The AI was pretty good at leading a target if it was moving
in a nice strait line, but if couldn't lead you through a circular path.
obviously this wouldn't work if there were any ties still around.
Rykit
interceptors and Fighters lack proton torps, so they don't have
enough power to knock the shields out. Bombers have torps and
missles, but aren't as quick or manuverable as the other TIE
craft.
The x-wings of rogue squadron often take down capital ships, by
having one fighter attack the cap ship and provide targeting
data for the other fighters, which release large volleys of
torps. TIE's couldn't do this because fighters and interceptors
don't have the targeting mechanisms needed and the bombers would
be too slow and would get vaped by the ISD's gunners.
The best way to do it would be to have a wing or two or
fighters/interceptors running cover for a bomber providing
targeting data to a squadron of bombers. After colapsing the
shields in a particular spot, the interceptors could then start
to attack the ISD.
So about 2 to three squads and one of them has to be bombers.
Rykit
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Graeme Dice
It didn't have the dead zone beneath the bridge and the engines like the
ones in X-Wing?
Graeme Dice
--
"Why is it that if someone tells you that there are 1 billion
stars in the universe you will believe them, but if they tell you
a wall has wet paint you will have to touch it to be sure ?"
Jonathan Boyd
yno...@hotmail.com wrote on 26/4/00 9:27 am:
>
> Eframepilot <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:8e623g$75j$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>> In article <3906...@news.cc.umr.edu>, "Aaron Embry" <em...@umr.edu>
> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> < Don't bring up the games, they don't count. >
>>>
>>> good point. anybody else here take down an ISD with a lone A-wing? took
>>> about half an hour as I recall.
>>>
>>>
>> wow. did you have invincibility on?
>
> I've done this in allience. one A-Wing W no missile against an ISD II on
> super ace.
> That was fun. Took 20 mins
I've done it in X-Wing against an ISd with a frigate protecting it. Hate
those things! It's a real pain trying to hit the spin when you're flying
with a mouse. Much easier to kill ISDs. Took me about 15 min to kill the ISD
I think. 6 CMs into each shield tower, then strafe its belly.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Phong Nguyen
> Okay, we've heard your opinions on TIEs vs. the Defiant. Now, how many
>TIEs would it take (alone, without capital ships) to take on an ISD Mark I?
>How many TIE/Ins would be sufficient? Or Bombers? Interceptors? How powerful
>ARE fighters compared with capital ships?
Letsee...
I'd have two squadrons of TIE Interceptors running CAP and acting as
targets for the ISD, occasionally strafing it if needed.
A squadron of missile-armed TIE Interceptors would perform wild-weasel
duty, knocking out point defenses and such.
Finally, two squadrons of TIE Bombers would launch proton torpedoes
after the wild weasel squadron finished their job.
Kyle
>
> in article 390658D4...@freewwweb.com, Kyle at kyl...@freewwweb.com
> wrote on 26/4/00 3:47 am:
>
> > Eframepilot wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay, we've heard your opinions on TIEs vs. the Defiant. Now, how many
> >> TIEs would it take (alone, without capital ships) to take on an ISD Mark I?
> >> How many TIE/Ins would be sufficient? Or Bombers? Interceptors? How powerful
> >> ARE fighters compared with capital ships?
> >
> > loads, plus escorts of 12 fighter squadrons and 12 squadrons of
>
> ? 12 Squads?
Yes.
>They carry 2 sqauds of bombers and use them against cap ships.
The impression I get is that they use them for smaller targets and to
support the ISD, not to take out similar vessels by themselves.
> Single squads of X-Wings take out VSDs.
That's why I hate the X-Wing books, the stories are fun but they use
stats from the games.
>A single squad of TIE/Bs could kill
> an ISD if they had decent pilots and no fighter opposition.
I don't think so (opinion).
--
Kyle Knopf
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
Jonathan Boyd <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote:
> in article 3906a835$0$27...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au, Chris
O'Farrell at
> yno...@hotmail.com wrote on 26/4/00 9:27 am:
>
> >
> > Eframepilot <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> > news:8e623g$75j$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> >> In article <3906...@news.cc.umr.edu>, "Aaron Embry"
<em...@umr.edu>
> > wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>
wing? took
> >>> about half an hour as I recall.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> wow. did you have invincibility on?
> >
> > I've done this in allience. one A-Wing W no missile against an ISD
II on
> > super ace.
> > That was fun. Took 20 mins
>
> I've done it in X-Wing against an ISd with a frigate protecting it.
Hate
> those things! It's a real pain trying to hit the spin when you're
flying
> with a mouse. Much easier to kill ISDs. Took me about 15 min to kill
the ISD
> I think. 6 CMs into each shield tower, then strafe its belly.
You fly with a mouse and you don't die constantly? You must be good.
I played a guy with a mouse controller on X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter, and I
just slapped him around.
> --
> Jonathan
> AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aron Kerkhof
<jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote:
>I've done it in X-Wing against an ISd with a frigate protecting it. Hate
>those things! It's a real pain trying to hit the spin when you're flying
>with a mouse. Much easier to kill ISDs. Took me about 15 min to kill the ISD
>I think. 6 CMs into each shield tower, then strafe its belly.
I agree... those frigates are the bane of pilot's existance. Not only
do they have a much smaller blind spot, but they elso have no idiodic
shield generators to blow up, so you got to do them the old fashioned
way.
Until the B-Wing came along, then I started killing 30-40 capships per
campaign. :-)
Aron Kerkhof
neolith.org
Jonathan Boyd
> Eframepilot wrote:
>>
>> Okay, we've heard your opinions on TIEs vs. the Defiant. Now, how many
>> TIEs would it take (alone, without capital ships) to take on an ISD Mark I?
>> How many TIE/Ins would be sufficient? Or Bombers? Interceptors? How powerful
>> ARE fighters compared with capital ships?
>
> To take out an ISD I, I'd say 12 squadrons of bombers with heavy warhead
> loads, plus escorts of 12 fighter squadrons and 12 squadrons of
> interceptors. Don't bring up the games, they don't count.
? 12 Squads? They carry 2 sqauds of bombers and use them against cap ships.
Single squads of X-Wings take out VSDs. A single squad of TIE/Bs could kill
an ISD if they had decent pilots and no fighter opposition.
Chris O'Farrell
Aron Kerkhof <aronk@-spamerific-galactec.com> wrote in message
news:6pMHOQWoxTs5KD...@4ax.com...
In X-Wing, the worst ship to come up against (until u get the B-Wing) was
the Neb - b
Back then, it was sooo hard. But a few years later I brought the collectors
eddition cause all my fdd's w X-Wing were stuffed and it was tooooo easy.
Compared to the speed the lasers moveed in XVT and Allience, X-Wings lasers
took half a decade to get to you. I could fire off a few salvos at the
target, jink with the mouse, do it again and again until it blew up.
I loved the mouse, and so i did not buy XVT for ages cause there was no
mouse support.
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
My favorite part of X-Wing was the fact that cap ships only had laser
cannons, no turbolasers. A single turbolaser hit would kill you, but
they didn't have any. I thought it was wierd.
PREDATOR
Aaron Embry wrote:
> <snip>
>
> < Don't bring up the games, they don't count. >
>
> good point. anybody else here take down an ISD with a lone A-wing? took
> about half an hour as I recall.
I can do it in an X-wing, havnt tried with an A-wing though. I reckon its
firepower and lower shielding would make it a lot more difficult for the
A-wing. I'll try it someday tough.
Christian Seitz
> <snip>
>
> < Don't bring up the games, they don't count. >
>
> good point. anybody else here take down an ISD with a lone A-wing? took
> about half an hour as I recall.
ISD/VSD suck in the games. Even a single tie-fighter can shoot them down.
It just takes some time.
Christian Seitz
Jonathan Boyd
aronk@-spamerific-galactec.com wrote on 27/4/00 2:12 am:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:11:04 +0100, Jonathan Boyd
> <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've done it in X-Wing against an ISd with a frigate protecting it. Hate
>> those things! It's a real pain trying to hit the spin when you're flying
>> with a mouse. Much easier to kill ISDs. Took me about 15 min to kill the ISD
>> I think. 6 CMs into each shield tower, then strafe its belly.
> I agree... those frigates are the bane of pilot's existance. Not only
> do they have a much smaller blind spot, but they elso have no idiodic
> shield generators to blow up, so you got to do them the old fashioned
> way.
The fighter bays are nice and accessible though. Set yourself up right and
you can kill TIE flights before they're more than 10m out of the bay.
> Until the B-Wing came along, then I started killing 30-40 capships per
> campaign. :-)
Thanks to shield towers and ion cannons I find it easier to kill ISDs than
corvettes. Trouble is my wingmen keep getting my kills. Sometimes I kill
them just so they can't get the kills. I don't think I'd really fit in in
the RAF.
Jonathan Boyd
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com wrote on 27/4/00 1:40 am:
>>> I've done this in allience. one A-Wing W no missile against an ISD II on
>>> super ace. That was fun. Took 20 mins
>> I've done it in X-Wing against an ISd with a frigate protecting it. Hate
>> those things! It's a real pain trying to hit the spin when you're flying with
>> a mouse. Much easier to kill ISDs. Took me about 15 min to kill the ISD I
>> think. 6 CMs into each shield tower, then strafe its belly.
> You fly with a mouse and you don't die constantly? You must be good.
So I tell my friend who tells me the same thing about himself. I keep
challenging him to get his computers networked so I can kick his ass at XvT,
but he always has some excuse. SO what if he killed the DS before me. He's
never killed a TIE/A.
> I played a guy with a mouse controller on X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter, and I
> just slapped him around.
I find that staying alive is easy, but hitting small targets requires a lot
of effort. I guess that's why I love the Y-Wing. Accurate and slow to turn,
so you can line up easy, even with a mouse. Evasive manoeuvres require
absolutely no effort because you can move your mouse over to the edge of
your mouse pad and your fighter will quite happily loop and spin by itself.
Responds a lot faster if you need to make a sudden manoeuvre as well.
Trouble is that it tends to respond too much.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 27/4/00 3:30 am:
>> ? 12 Squads?
> Yes.
>> They carry 2 sqauds of bombers and use them against cap ships.
> The impression I get is that they use them for smaller targets and to
> support the ISD, not to take out similar vessels by themselves.
>> Single squads of X-Wings take out VSDs.
> That's why I hate the X-Wing books, the stories are fun but they use
> stats from the games.
But they're official. Which si why I love them. Give the Feds a fighting
chance.
>> A single squad of TIE/Bs could kill an ISD if they had decent pilots and no
>> fighter opposition.
> I don't think so (opinion).
I think they have the firepower, but obviously it would take good pilots.
Not as good as the 181st, but still pretty good. Realistically I think 2
squads of bombers, with 2 squads of interceptors flying cover and a squad of
gunboats to deal with any heavy opposition could do it.
Strowbridge
>
> Kyle wrote:
> > That's why I hate the X-Wing books, the stories are fun but they use
> > stats from the games.
>
> But they're official. Which si why I love them. Give the Feds a
> fighting chance.
The stories are fine but the abilities of the X-Wings are GREATLY
enhanced. So, we have one of two things we can do:
1.) Use them to show how bad VSDs, ISDs, etc. are (Your choice.)
2.) Use them to show how awesome the X-Wings are.
You see, we have source of higher canon that describe ISDs, etc. And
since the X-wings books show X-Wing to be able to take out these ships
they must be MUCH better than we thought. NOT the other way around.
C.S.Strowbridge
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 27/4/00 9:08 pm:
I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and there's
very little chance of them being taken down by phasers, however the books
show that the particle shields are much, much weaker.
Commander Thelea
>
>I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong
and there's
>very little chance of them being taken down by phasers, however
the books
>show that the particle shields are much, much weaker.
>
>--
>Jonathan
>AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website:
http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
>
>
>
And the Imperials also have CIWS that makes it essentially
impossible to hit an Imperial ship with a torpedo or missile
from beyond 7km away; So for the torpedoes to be effective, the
Star Trek ship is going to have to close to point-blank and get
shredded by the most powerful weapons in recorded history...
Main Turbolasers.
Marina O'Leary
"Ut Veniant Omnes!"
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote:
> >> But they're official. Which si why I love them. Give the Feds a
> >> fighting chance.
> >
> > The stories are fine but the abilities of the X-Wings are GREATLY
> > enhanced. So, we have one of two things we can do:
> >
> > 1.) Use them to show how bad VSDs, ISDs, etc. are (Your choice.)
> > 2.) Use them to show how awesome the X-Wings are.
> >
> > You see, we have source of higher canon that describe ISDs, etc. And
> > since the X-wings books show X-Wing to be able to take out these
> > ships they must be MUCH better than we thought. NOT the other way
> > around.
>
> I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and
> there's very little chance of them being taken down by phasers,
> however the books show that the particle shields are much, much
> weaker.
Bullshit or lies. Give ONE example that supports that claim.
C.S.Strowbridge
Phong Nguyen
wrote:
>in article 2beeabad...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com, Commander Thelea at
>Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 28/4/00 4:05 pm:
>>
>> And the Imperials also have CIWS that makes it essentially
>> impossible to hit an Imperial ship with a torpedo or missile
>> from beyond 7km away; So for the torpedoes to be effective, the
>> Star Trek ship is going to have to close to point-blank and get
>> shredded by the most powerful weapons in recorded history...
>> Main Turbolasers.
>
>Prove that it's impossible. Impossible, much like never, is a long time.
Hence the word "essentially." There's always going to be a few leakers
that get past the defenses.
Jonathan Boyd
Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 28/4/00 4:05 pm:
>
>>
>> I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong
> and there's
>> very little chance of them being taken down by phasers, however
> the books
>> show that the particle shields are much, much weaker.
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan
>> AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website:
> http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> And the Imperials also have CIWS that makes it essentially
> impossible to hit an Imperial ship with a torpedo or missile
> from beyond 7km away; So for the torpedoes to be effective, the
> Star Trek ship is going to have to close to point-blank and get
> shredded by the most powerful weapons in recorded history...
> Main Turbolasers.
Prove that it's impossible. Impossible, much like never, is a long time.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 28/4/00 5:09 pm:
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>>
>> Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>> But they're official. Which si why I love them. Give the Feds a
>>>> fighting chance.
>>>
>>> The stories are fine but the abilities of the X-Wings are GREATLY
>>> enhanced. So, we have one of two things we can do:
>>>
>>> 1.) Use them to show how bad VSDs, ISDs, etc. are (Your choice.)
>>> 2.) Use them to show how awesome the X-Wings are.
>>>
>>> You see, we have source of higher canon that describe ISDs, etc. And
>>> since the X-wings books show X-Wing to be able to take out these
>>> ships they must be MUCH better than we thought. NOT the other way
>>> around.
>>
>> I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and
>> there's very little chance of them being taken down by phasers,
>> however the books show that the particle shields are much, much
>> weaker.
>
> Bullshit or lies. Give ONE example that supports that claim.
<sigh>
X-Wing : Bacta War - 20 odd PrTs and CMs take out a VSD's shields. I'll call
it 25 and take the most generous yields from BTM according to Edam's site
http://www.trek-wars.co.uk/swwpower.htm
37.5MT * 25 = 937.5MT = 4e18 J
Ray shields should at the very least be 2 orders of magnitude higher than
this.
Incidentally, I thought that 1.5MT was the anti-cap ship load, originally. I
now see that it is between 1.5MT (100KT * 15) and 37.5MT (1.5MT*25).
In SotP the pirate ships that attack Pallaeon are described as having weak
particle shields in comparison to ray shields so it is entirely plausible
that this is common practice for warship designers. I would give a quote,
but I leant the book to a friend. Wayne offered to find the quote for me at
one point, but it never turned up.
In ESB, Needa orders shields up when the Falcon makes a run at it. It seems
illogical that he would fly through the asteroid field with shields down so
presumably he is ordering ray shields up. There is also evidence elsewhere
(I can't remember where exactly though) that particle shields are always on.
This suggests that ray shields are considerably more power intensive, which
in turn suggests that they are stronger.
Jonathan Boyd
ack...@iname.com wrote on 29/4/00 12:50 am:
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 00:10:51 +0100, Jonathan Boyd <jona...@jboyd.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> in article 2beeabad...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com, Commander Thelea at
>> Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid wrote on 28/4/00 4:05 pm:
>
>>>
>>> And the Imperials also have CIWS that makes it essentially
>>> impossible to hit an Imperial ship with a torpedo or missile
>>> from beyond 7km away; So for the torpedoes to be effective, the
>>> Star Trek ship is going to have to close to point-blank and get
>>> shredded by the most powerful weapons in recorded history...
>>> Main Turbolasers.
>>
>> Prove that it's impossible. Impossible, much like never, is a long time.
>
> Hence the word "essentially." There's always going to be a few leakers
> that get past the defenses.
Hmm, I didn't write that post did I? Must have been in a grouchy mood. Still
disagree with Thelea though.
Strowbridge
> >>>> But they're official. Which si why I love them. Give the Feds a
> >>>> fighting chance.
> >>>
> >>> The stories are fine but the abilities of the X-Wings are GREATLY
> >>> enhanced. So, we have one of two things we can do:
> >>>
> >>> 1.) Use them to show how bad VSDs, ISDs, etc. are (Your choice.)
> >>> 2.) Use them to show how awesome the X-Wings are.
> >>>
> >>> You see, we have source of higher canon that describe ISDs, etc.
> >>> And since the X-wings books show X-Wing to be able to take out
> >>> these ships they must be MUCH better than we thought. NOT the
> >>> other way around.
> >>
> >> I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and
> >> there's very little chance of them being taken down by phasers,
> >> however the books show that the particle shields are much, much
> >> weaker.
> >
> > Bullshit or lies. Give ONE example that supports that claim.
>
> <sigh>
>
> X-Wing : Bacta War
<sigh>
Circular Reasoning: Admission of Defeat accepted.
C.S.Strowbridge
Wayne Poe
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Jonathan Boyd wrote:
> I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and there's
> very little chance of them being taken down by phasers, however the books
> show that the particle shields are much, much weaker.
The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger collides with
another ISD in TESB. A flaming TIE fighter smashes into an ISD bridge
tower in ROTJ. A Y-Wing smashes into an ISD in ROTJ. 5 ISDs survived a
violent asteroid field for hours in TESB.
Guardian2000
with
>another ISD in TESB.
How do you know they collided? In the movie I saw, the order
was given to hastily change course, and everyone pulled a Trek-
esque leaning, with a couple of people falling on the floor.
The external shot shows that the two ships were not at the exact
same lateral level, and this is confirmed by the bridge shot of
the maneuvering ISD . . . we could see the other ISD's midline
trench.
In order for the ships to have collided, the trench must have
hit the bridge tower superstructure, or at least the upper
terraces of the main hull. However, the ship seems to be
turning "downward" (from its point of view), and I saw nothing
to suggest that they hit. Had they actually hit, we should have
expected to see, in the external shot, the maneuvering ISD's
tail section get knocked away from the trench of the other ship
and vice versa. I saw nothing like that.
That either implies that the two ships' hulls absorbed the
impact by crushing into one another (but, then, we don't see any
major damage to the Avenger later on), or that they did not make
contact.
I know of no other emergency maneuver by an ISD in Star Wars
episodes. However, we have seen a similar thing occur in Star
Trek . . . in "Balance of Terror"[TOS], the Romulan commander
orders "Escape maneuver one, quickly!" The ship lurches from
the maneuver, and the Romulans hang on for dear life. I'm
fairly certain the Enterprise-Prime experienced similar things,
but I can't place it with a particular episode.
I do know that in "Chain of Command, Pt. II"[TNG] Riker made an
emergency maneuver while in a nebula to avoid collision with a
Cardassian vessel, and Geordi, who was standing in the back
preparing mines, almost ate the wall.
Graeme Dice
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
> > I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and there's
> > very little chance of them being taken down by phasers, however the books
> > show that the particle shields are much, much weaker.
>
> tower in ROTJ. A Y-Wing smashes into an ISD in ROTJ. 5 ISDs survived a
> violent asteroid field for hours in TESB.
It's interesting to note that the same kind of impact which destroyed
the bridge of the Executor, had _no_ impact whatsoever on a ship with
it's shields still up. The X-Wing hit the ISD dead on, exploded, and
the ISD didn't even notice it.
Graeme Dice
--
I`ve built a better model than the one at Data General
For databases vegetable, animal, and mineral
My OS handles CPU's with multiplex duality
My PL1 compiler shows impressive functionality
My storage system's better than magnetic core polarity
You needn't even bother checking out a bit for parity
There isn't any reason to install nonstatic floormating
My diskdrive has capacity for variable formating
--I've build a better model then the one at Data General
--Stephen J. Levine
Commander Thelea
< snip >
They didn't have to physically collide. Their particle shields
could have collided.
Marina O'Leary
"Ut Veniant Omnes!"
Wayne Poe
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Guardian2000 wrote:
> >The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger collides
> with
> >another ISD in TESB.
> How do you know they collided?
You can hear the sound of the collision over the claxon. Also from the
novelization:
"Sluggishly one of the Destroyers began to move to the left in its effort
to avoid collision with the Avenger. Unfortunately, as it veered, it
brushed its companion ship, violenty shaking up both spaceborne
fortresses."
> In the movie I saw, the order
> was given to hastily change course, and everyone pulled a Trek-
> esque leaning, with a couple of people falling on the floor.
> The external shot shows that the two ships were not at the exact
> same lateral level, and this is confirmed by the bridge shot of
> the maneuvering ISD . . . we could see the other ISD's midline
> trench.
The external shot comes AFTER the internal shot. The internal shot
contains the initial contact.
> In order for the ships to have collided, the trench must have
> hit the bridge tower superstructure, or at least the upper
> terraces of the main hull. However, the ship seems to be
> turning "downward" (from its point of view), and I saw nothing
> to suggest that they hit.
Except for the internal scene, where they did.
> Had they actually hit,
they actually did hit. Watch the movie.
> we should have
> expected to see, in the external shot, the maneuvering ISD's
> tail section get knocked away from the trench of the other ship
> and vice versa. I saw nothing like that.
Because they weren't "knocked away." They brushed one another.
> That either implies that the two ships' hulls absorbed the
> impact by crushing into one another (but, then, we don't see any
> major damage to the Avenger later on),
Probably because the particle shields were on.
> or that they did not make contact.
But as we see in the movie, they did.
Guardian2000
>
> They didn't have to physically collide. Their particle shields
>could have collided.
>
This should still have caused some inertial transfer.
Guardian2000
>
>> >The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger
collides
>> with
>> >another ISD in TESB.
>
>> How do you know they collided?
>
>You can hear the sound of the collision over the claxon. Also
from the
>novelization:
That sound could just as easily have been rolling/falling
equipment, or the groans of a ship whose inertial dampeners
obviously weren't up to the task.
>"Sluggishly one of the Destroyers began to move to the left in
its effort
>to avoid collision with the Avenger. Unfortunately, as it
veered, it
>brushed its companion ship, violenty shaking up both spaceborne
>fortresses."
So the inertial dampeners of an ISD can't handle a brush without
violent shakings-up?
Besides, this is contradictory to the movie's external shot.
>
>> In the movie I saw, the order
>> was given to hastily change course, and everyone pulled a
Trek-
>> esque leaning, with a couple of people falling on the floor.
>> The external shot shows that the two ships were not at the
exact
>> same lateral level, and this is confirmed by the bridge shot
of
>> the maneuvering ISD . . . we could see the other ISD's midline
>> trench.
>
>The external shot comes AFTER the internal shot. The internal
shot
>contains the initial contact.
I was aware of the scene order . . . this was never a matter of
question.
>
>> In order for the ships to have collided, the trench must have
>> hit the bridge tower superstructure, or at least the upper
>> terraces of the main hull. However, the ship seems to be
>> turning "downward" (from its point of view), and I saw nothing
>> to suggest that they hit.
>
>Except for the internal scene, where they did.
>
How do you know?
>> Had they actually hit,
>
>they actually did hit. Watch the movie.
>
I did, and saw no hit.
>> we should have
>> expected to see, in the external shot, the maneuvering ISD's
>> tail section get knocked away from the trench of the other
ship
>> and vice versa. I saw nothing like that.
>
>Because they weren't "knocked away." They brushed one another.
>
They weren't in a position to have hit one another, based on the
external shot.
>> That either implies that the two ships' hulls absorbed the
>> impact by crushing into one another (but, then, we don't see
any
>> major damage to the Avenger later on),
>
>Probably because the particle shields were on.
>
>> or that they did not make contact.
>
>But as we see in the movie, they did.
>
So, wait . . . were the particle shields on, or did they make
contact? And if they made contact through the particle shields,
have you not just agreed that particle shields are penetrable?
At best, they bumped particle shields. Otherwise, no collision
occurred, since the two ships were too distant in the external
shot to have "brushed" a moment beforehand.
Commander Thelea
Guardian2000 <randers2...@ocean.otr.usm.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> They didn't have to physically collide. Their particle shields
>>could have collided.
>>
>
>This should still have caused some inertial transfer.
>
Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in
Usenet - Free!
>
>
Computerized automatic thruster compensation to maintain
ordered course.
That's a very simple, very easy explaination. They certain have
the technology and the thrust power for it.
Marina O'Leary
"Ut Veniant Omnes!"
Guardian2000
>>> They didn't have to physically collide. Their particle
shields
>>>could have collided.
>>>
>>
>>This should still have caused some inertial transfer.
>>
>
>ordered course.
>
Which would have kept them in contact . . . at least their
shields. To paraphrase South Park: "Stupidgaycomputer!".
Lord Edam de Fromage
>In ESB, Needa orders shields up when the Falcon makes a run at it. It
seems
>illogical that he would fly through the asteroid field with shields down
so
>presumably he is ordering ray shields up.
Given that, in the film, we can see asteroids impact against some form of
shields onyl moments before he gives the order "shields up" it is logical
to assume he is refering to ray shields when he orders 'Shields Up'
There is also evidence elsewhere
>(I can't remember where exactly though) that particle shields are always
on.
>This suggests that ray shields are considerably more power intensive,
which
>in turn suggests that they are stronger.
Essential guide to Vehicles and Vessels, pXV
Particle sihelds protect against physical objects, such as missiles,
proton torpedoes, and space debris. Particle shields must be turned out to
allow a vessel to fire its own missiles, or to launch or receive craft.
Ray shields protect against laser, blaster and turbolaser attacks. Energy
shields require significantly more power to maintain than particle shields
and are normally only raised in combat
Essential Guide to Weapons & Technology, p82
Particle shields are standard equipment no all starships.
These shields greatly enhance the ship's hull integrity by using energy
charges to strengthen hte molecular bonds of the hull plating. They are
kept powered at all times to deflect micrometeors and other small
particles.
Ray shields consume a tremendous amount of energy, so are only raised when
battle is imminent, and may etend anywhere from a few mm to several cm
away from the hull {we see them further than this in the films - edam}
Lord Edam de Fromage
Find me at www.trek-wars.co.uk
or on AIM as Sorborus
"I am "correct" in the same way that the entirely-liquid Europa, moon of
Jupiter,
is "moist."" -- Kynes
Commander Thelea
For a moment, yes, they would have had their particle shields
scraping against one another.. Depleting energy from them, and
making both the destroyers more vunerable to the asteroid field.
Marina O'Leary
"Ut Veniant Omnes!"
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 29/4/00 4:26 am:
>>> Bullshit or lies. Give ONE example that supports that claim.
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> X-Wing : Bacta War
>
> <sigh>
>
> Circular Reasoning: Admission of Defeat accepted.
Point out the circular reasoning then Point out my flaws. If you can't then
you're going against the rules of your precious R&R by claiming you've won.
Jonathan Boyd
lo...@h4h.com wrote on 29/4/00 8:19 am:
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
>> I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and there's
>> very little chance of them being taken down by phasers, however the books
>> show that the particle shields are much, much weaker.
>
> The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger collides with
> another ISD in TESB.
IIRc, they manoeuvred to avoid collision.
> A flaming TIE fighter smashes into an ISD bridge
And how much energy did that impact? Before you claim I'm wrong, you might
want to do some calcs.
> tower in ROTJ. A Y-Wing smashes into an ISD in ROTJ.
See above.
> 5 ISDs survived a violent asteroid field for hours in TESB.
5 ISD's with guns that appear to be in a fairly docile asteroid field in
certain scenes in ESB.
Jonathan Boyd
>
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Guardian2000 wrote:
>
>>> The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger collides with another
>>> ISD in TESB.
>>>
>> How do you know they collided?
> You can hear the sound of the collision over the claxon. Also from the
> novelization:
> "Sluggishly one of the Destroyers began to move to the left in its effort
> to avoid collision with the Avenger. Unfortunately, as it veered, it
> brushed its companion ship, violenty shaking up both spaceborne
> fortresses."
But we don't see this in the film. Or if it does happen, then it is only a
very slight brush.
>> In the movie I saw, the order
>> was given to hastily change course, and everyone pulled a Trek-
>> esque leaning, with a couple of people falling on the floor.
>> The external shot shows that the two ships were not at the exact
>> same lateral level, and this is confirmed by the bridge shot of
>> the maneuvering ISD . . . we could see the other ISD's midline
>> trench.
>
> The external shot comes AFTER the internal shot. The internal shot
> contains the initial contact.
Butt here is no contaact.
>> In order for the ships to have collided, the trench must have
>> hit the bridge tower superstructure, or at least the upper
>> terraces of the main hull. However, the ship seems to be
>> turning "downward" (from its point of view), and I saw nothing
>> to suggest that they hit.
> Except for the internal scene, where they did.
Butt hey didn't. WE see the other ISD through the viewpoint, we hear the
crew warned to brace, we see the ships start to move apart, we hear the
klaxon, we see the ship shake a bit as emergency manoeuvres are executed.
>> Had they actually hit,
> they actually did hit. Watch the movie.
I did and they didn't. In fact i plated close attention to that last time I
watched.
>> we should have expected to see, in the external shot, the maneuvering ISD's
>> tail section get knocked away from the trench of the other ship and vice
>> versa. I saw nothing like that.
> Because they weren't "knocked away." They brushed one another.
In other words a low speed, low energy collision. That may not have even
happened.
>> That either implies that the two ships' hulls absorbed the
>> impact by crushing into one another (but, then, we don't see any
>> major damage to the Avenger later on),
> Probably because the particle shields were on.
Or they didn't collide.
>> or that they did not make contact.
> But as we see in the movie, they did.
But they didn't.
Phong Nguyen
wrote:
>in article 390a23a7...@News.CIS.DFN.DE, Phong Nguyen at
I disagree to the extent of warheads getting through, but really, it
isn't all that hard to shoot something moving in a straight line given
decent range. Just start shooting at the inbound warheads and set some
other guns to flak mode to catch some more leakers. Depending on the
amount launched, some might break through.
Strowbridge
> >>> Bullshit or lies. Give ONE example that supports that claim.
> >>
> >> <sigh>
> >>
> >> X-Wing : Bacta War
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Circular Reasoning: Admission of Defeat accepted.
>
> Point out the circular reasoning then Point out my flaws. If you can't
> then you're going against the rules of your precious R&R by claiming
> you've won.
You are trying to prove the X-Wings novels are accurate by using the
X-Wing Novels.
C.S.Strowbridge
Dalton
>
> >The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger collides
> with
> >another ISD in TESB.
>
> How do you know they collided?
[snip]
I guess you missed the really loud grinding sound.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
"It's like comparing a cool theme park to a padded white cell."
--PREDATOR, commenting on Star Trek and Star Wars
Da ASVS Fanfic Archive: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fanfics]
Da ASVS FUQ: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fuq]
Dalton
>
> >
> >> >The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger
> collides
> >> with
> >> >another ISD in TESB.
> >
> >> How do you know they collided?
> >
> from the
> >novelization:
>
> equipment, or the groans of a ship whose inertial dampeners
> obviously weren't up to the task.
The sound coincided with the Imperials falling over. Occam's Razor
dictates that it has to be the sound of them brushing together, since
it's the easiest explanation for that sound.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
*THWACK*
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 29/4/00 6:15 pm:
Huh? I never set out to prove they were accurate. They are assumed to be
unless contradicted. You asked:
"Give ONE example that supports that claim."
and I gave you one. Nowhere was the validity of X-Wing novels questioned.
Jonathan Boyd
ack...@iname.com wrote on 29/4/00 6:02 pm:
>>> Hence the word "essentially." There's always going to be a few leakers
>>> that get past the defenses.
>>
>> Hmm, I didn't write that post did I? Must have been in a grouchy mood. Still
>> disagree with Thelea though.
>
> I disagree to the extent of warheads getting through, but really, it
> isn't all that hard to shoot something moving in a straight line given
> decent range. Just start shooting at the inbound warheads and set some
> other guns to flak mode to catch some more leakers. Depending on the
> amount launched, some might break through.
They can be programmed not to travel in straight lines (WotW, TUC, Genesis)
and you still have to be pretty accurate. I agree flak bursts could be
effective, if gunners respond in time. Given the response in RotJ when
intensified firepower is ordered, however, it looks like torps launched at a
few kilometres would have no probs getting through.
Jonathan Boyd
on 29/4/00 8:53 pm:
>> That sound could just as easily have been rolling/falling
>> equipment, or the groans of a ship whose inertial dampeners
>> obviously weren't up to the task.
>
> The sound coincided with the Imperials falling over. Occam's Razor
> dictates that it has to be the sound of them brushing together, since
> it's the easiest explanation for that sound.
Or it could be stuff falling over as they make evasive manoeuvres.
Strowbridge
> > You are trying to prove the X-Wings novels are accurate by using the
> > X-Wing Novels.
>
> Huh? I never set out to prove they were accurate. They are assumed to
> be unless contradicted.
And I gave you a contradiction
C.S.Strowbridge
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 29/4/00 10:09 pm:
No you didn't. You just said it was a circular argument. Any contradictions
you may have given me in earlier threads, I have answered.
Strowbridge
> No you didn't. You just said it was a circular argument. Any
> contradictions you may have given me in earlier threads, I have
> answered.
Nope. I showed examples of high KE resistance by ISDs. Multiple
examples, in fact.
C.S.Strowbridge
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 29/4/00 10:53 pm:
You mean stuff like TIEs hitting ISDs? Have you done any calcs to
demonstrate high ke resistance? because calcs are things that will get you
results, not simply stating situations. I have done calcs to show the
strength of particle shields. You do the same if you want to prove me wrong.
If you do prove me wrong then I will switch to the SW side because without
the torp advantage, the Feds are sunk.
Dalton
>
> in article 390B3DC9...@erols.com, Dalton at dalto...@erols.com wrote
> on 29/4/00 8:53 pm:
>
> >> That sound could just as easily have been rolling/falling
> >> equipment, or the groans of a ship whose inertial dampeners
> >> obviously weren't up to the task.
> >
> > The sound coincided with the Imperials falling over. Occam's Razor
> > dictates that it has to be the sound of them brushing together, since
> > it's the easiest explanation for that sound.
>
> Or it could be stuff falling over as they make evasive manoeuvres.
Stuff falling over would not make that kind of long, drawn-out grinding
noise. Stuff falling over would sound like the Cloud City duel.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
How do primitive people know if they're doing the dances
correctly?
Dalton
>
> in article 390B7C80...@home.com, Strowbridge at strow...@home.com
> wrote on 30/4/00 1:20 am:
>
> >>> Nope. I showed examples of high KE resistance by ISDs. Multiple
> >>> examples, in fact.
> >>
> >> You mean stuff like TIEs hitting ISDs? Have you done any calcs to
> >> demonstrate high ke resistance?
> >
>
> You may have quoted energy figures for TL yields and ray shielding strength,
> but that has about as much bearing on particle shield strength as the
> tensile strength of a dead haddock has on my ability to type.
>
Or the tensile strength of a herring on a mighty tree...
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
"Hath not a dude eyes?
If you prick us, do we not get bummed?
If you poison us, do we not blow chunks?"
--Keanu Reeves in "The Merchant of Venice Beach" from "The Critic"
Guardian2000
>> >> >The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger
>> collides
>> >> with
>> >> >another ISD in TESB.
>> >
>> >> How do you know they collided?
>> >
>> >You can hear the sound of the collision over the claxon. Also
>> from the
>> >novelization:
>>
>> equipment, or the groans of a ship whose inertial dampeners
>> obviously weren't up to the task.
>
>The sound coincided with the Imperials falling over. Occam's
Razor
>dictates that it has to be the sound of them brushing together,
since
>it's the easiest explanation for that sound.
My good friend Occam is silent on this one, because he knows
that the external shot shows that the two ships could not have
touched.
Using that silly "if it can happen in one universe, it probably
happens in the other" idea that has been flung my way, this
would probably mean that the sound was like the cracking &
creaking of the Romulan bird-of-prey performing "escape maneuver
one" in "Balance of Terror"[TOS].
Guardian2000
>it's the easiest explanation for that sound.
. . . not to mention the fact that we never saw external hull
damage in later scenes, which one pro-SW debater suggested might
mean that the particle shields were on.
Dalton
>
> >> >> >The books are wrong, as dictated by canon. The Avenger
> >> collides
> >> >> with
> >> >> >another ISD in TESB.
> >> >
> >> >> How do you know they collided?
> >> >
> >> >You can hear the sound of the collision over the claxon. Also
> >> from the
> >> >novelization:
> >>
> >> That sound could just as easily have been rolling/falling
> >> equipment, or the groans of a ship whose inertial dampeners
> >> obviously weren't up to the task.
> >
> >The sound coincided with the Imperials falling over. Occam's
> > Razor dictates that it has to be the sound of them brushing together,
>
> My good friend Occam is silent on this one, because he knows
> that the external shot shows that the two ships could not have
> touched.
>
Yeah? How?
> Using that silly "if it can happen in one universe, it probably
> happens in the other" idea that has been flung my way, this
> would probably mean that the sound was like the cracking &
> creaking of the Romulan bird-of-prey performing "escape maneuver
> one" in "Balance of Terror"[TOS].
It wasn't a crack nor a creak. It was a prolonged, shrieking groan.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
Precinct toilet stolen. Cops have nothing to go on.
Dalton
>
> >it's the easiest explanation for that sound.
>
> damage in later scenes, which one pro-SW debater suggested might
> mean that the particle shields were on.
>
Which means...?
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
"Heh...uh...Hi, Mister Killer. Gee, I'm sorry
I- *THWACK!*: --Martin Short, "Innerspace"
Guardian2000
>> . . . not to mention the fact that we never saw external hull
>> damage in later scenes, which one pro-SW debater suggested
might
>> mean that the particle shields were on.
>
This means that the sound could not have been the hulls making
contact, if particle/KE shields are impenetrable. If the sound
is to be argued as hull contact, then the shields are
penetrable.
Furthermore, if it is to be argued that particle/KE shields are
always on, then we know that the fighters that took down DS1
passed effortlessly through the particle/KE shields, and that
the shield surrounding the DS2 (which, according to you,
destroyed fighters) must have been of a drastically different
configuration.
Furthermore, if they are always on aboard starships, they were
penetrated by an out-of-control Naboo fighter in TPM.
What we have is a problem . . . are the particle/KE shields
always on, or are they turned off every time something exits the
shield? If so, then an ISD firing a missile or launching
fighters (or, arguably, a turbolaser bolt) would have to drop
the shields that are always supposed to be on.
It seems like the only solution to this would be to have shields
that can allow objects out, but not in, a la Star Trek shields.
But, then, the shield would not have been down in TPM to allow
the fighters to exit it, and thus Anakin penetrated the shield
when flying into the hangar bay.
Guardian2000
>>
>> My good friend Occam is silent on this one, because he knows
>> that the external shot shows that the two ships could not have
>> touched.
>>
>
>Yeah? How?
>
Too far away.
Kynes
> I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and there's
> very little chance of them being taken down by phasers, however the books
> show that the particle shields are much, much weaker.
And the particle shields will stop the impact of the torpedoes, and the ray
shields will then stop the resultant burst of gamma rays.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"Discussions which lack moral or normative assessments are rarely interesting."
- Emily Cuatto
Strowbridge
> >> No you didn't. You just said it was a circular argument. Any
> >> contradictions you may have given me in earlier threads, I have
> >> answered.
> >
> > Nope. I showed examples of high KE resistance by ISDs. Multiple
> > examples, in fact.
>
> You mean stuff like TIEs hitting ISDs? Have you done any calcs to
> demonstrate high ke resistance?
I don't need to cause I quoted energy figures.
C.S.Strowbridge
Jonathan Boyd
>>> Nope. I showed examples of high KE resistance by ISDs. Multiple
>>> examples, in fact.
>>
>> You mean stuff like TIEs hitting ISDs? Have you done any calcs to
>> demonstrate high ke resistance?
>
> I don't need to cause I quoted energy figures.
You may have quoted energy figures for TL yields and ray shielding strength,
but that has about as much bearing on particle shield strength as the
tensile strength of a dead haddock has on my ability to type.
--
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 30/4/00 1:13 am:
> "Jonathan Boyd" <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B52F591D.CE01%jona...@jboyd.co.uk...
>
>> I disagree. We know that Imperial ray shields are very strong and there's
>> very little chance of them being taken down by phasers, however the books
>> show that the particle shields are much, much weaker.
>
> And the particle shields will stop the impact of the torpedoes, and the ray
> shields will then stop the resultant burst of gamma rays.
The ray shields won't catch all the gamma rays if they aren't in the same
place as the particle shields. And most photorp energy is released as
particles which will affect the weakest shield system - the particle
shields. See my tech thread for a continuation of this.
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge at strow...@home.com wrote:
> > I don't need to cause I quoted energy figures.
>
> You may have quoted energy figures for TL yields and ray shielding
> strength,
No, I quote KE figures.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kynes
> If you do prove me wrong then I will switch to the SW side because without
> the torp advantage, the Feds are sunk.
Fine.
INTRODUCTION
The core of your argument relies on the X-Wing books' description of CMs and
proton torpedoes penetrating the shields of various ships. You use 450MT as the
upper particle shield limit for an ESD based on this information, or ~1.9e18 J.
Obviously, an ESD will have a shield limit greater than an ISD's; thus, I don't
think it's unfair to say that if I can demonstrate conclusively that an ISD has
a greater particle shield than this, then your calculations are flawed. But, why
would they be flawed?
EXAMINATION OF FLAWS
There is nothing wrong with your methods. Thus, we must bring your data into
question. Your data is obviously Edam's site. I don't think I'm the only person
to take exception at his use of what is obviously data intended for the SW civilian
public as specific expressions of energy yield.
But I certainly do wonder out of what arse he pulled his "note" from:
"note: capital ship Torpedoes may be between 15 and 25 times stronger"
Where does this number come from? What justifies it? No mention is made of its
source or anything else. We're just supposed to accept it? I think not. This puts
the data you used in direct question.
SHIELD ANALYSIS
Now let's do a reasonable shield analysis for an ISD. We will, of course, use the
most famous example of an ISD's KE shielding: the ESB asteroid scene.
Many people have said that the film does not depict the "steady rain" of asteroids
that "Anakin Skywalker: The Story of Darth Vader" says that it does. However, this
is not necessarily true; while a "steady rain" may have been poetic exaggeration,
we can certainly infer from this that the asteroid impact rate was fairly high;
this can easily be rationalized to agree with the film.
Further, the book is quite explicit that the asteroids that were missed by the
gunners exploded against the KE shields with "multi-megaton" energy. Again allowing
for a bit of poetic license (though none is really necessary here), we will say
that the average was about 1MT. This allows both for much higher energies (such
as those described in the book) as well as much lower ones, to be fair.
Now, let's take a look at what would be required to create an ISD particle shield
of 2e18 J:
SCENARIO 1: ENERGY OF EACH ASTEROID KNOWN
2e18 = (energy of average asteroid) * (# of asteroids)
Obviously, energy is known, although we will soon look at a scenario where it is
not. Energy is 4.2e15 J -- a little over one megaton.
So, solving for the number of asteroids that impacted each ISD, we get 239. This
seems, at first, reasonable -- until we realize that the ISD was in the Hoth
asteroid belt for days! The search took place, Vader summoned all of the bounty
hunters, a few more events took place, and eventually the Falcon was flushed out
and the ISDs left the belt. We will assume this took about 2 days, though it could
have been more.
That means, over the course of two days, each ISD absorbed only 239 asteroids.
Keep in mind, BTW, that for the number you're using, a 239th asteroid would be the
one that caused particle shield *failure*. This did not occur, so the actual number
of asteroids would be less, further adding to the conservatism of these
calculations.
That means an asteroid impact occurred roughly five times per hour, or once every
twelve minutes.
!??!?!
This is obviously NOT what was observed in the film. It is certainly not a "steady
rain," as "Anakin Skywalker" described. A "steady rain" would be more like once
per minute, at the very least. In this case, each ISD would have absorbed 2880
asteroids, putting the particle shields of an ISD at a lower limit of ~1.2e19 J
each.
This is obviously an order of magnitude higher than your numbers yield for an ESD,
which we have already agreed is going to have a shield strength many times than of
an ISD. So what's going on here?
Answer: Something is wrong with your calcs. But what? Answer above. Your methods
were fine, but your data was way off. What does this tell us? Well, it tells us
that a fan-based interpretation of BTM weapons data (which, by the looks of the
displays, appears to be a rough civilian guide to the weapons, rather than an
actual firepower rating) does not jive with Episode V and "The Story of Darth
Vader." Obviously, the solution here is clear. Edam is wrong.
I can see your rebuttal already: I didn't screw up the impact rate, I screwed up
the energy. Fine then, let's take a look at that.
SCENARIO 2: NUMBER OF ASTEROIDS KNOWN
We now know that for any kind of rational interpretation of "Anakin Skywalker", at
least 2880 asteroids must have impacted on the shields of an ISD. Now let us take
a look at the energy level for each asteroid must have had to fit your shield
number:
2e18 J = (energy of each asteroid) * (# of asteroids)
Clickity click and it's 7e14 J, or about 165 kilotons.
Assuming an average 40m asteroid and a generally spherical shape, we get an
asteroid volume of about 33,500 m^3. Assuming an iron composition for the asteroid,
the mass of the asteroid would be about 2.6e8 kg.
Now, knowing the mass, we can get the energy of each asteroid by simply applying
the KE formula. The only question is the velocity.
To get an average energy of each asteroid of 7e14 J, we would have to have:
7e14 J = (1/2)(2.6e8)(v^2)
Clickity click and v is 2320m/s, or 2.3km/s.
Obviously this is not correct, for a number of reasons. While some of the asteroids
may have been low-speed like this one, it is obvious from watching the film (and
especially the MF/TIE chase scenes) that this is way too low for the general speed
of the asteroids in the belt.
Further, this outright contradicts the "Anakin Skywalker" quote, describing the
asteroid impacts as "multi-megaton." While multi-megaton might mean an average of
two or three megatons to be conservative, it certainly does NOT mean an average
of 0.1 megatons. "Multi", as an educated young Boyd certainly knows, tends to mean
"more than one."
CONCLUSION
Obviously, something is amiss here. Using a super-conservative interpretation of
the "Anakin Skywalker" steady-rain statement, we get asteroid velocities that are
far too low; using a conservative interpretation of its multi-megaton-impact
statement, we get asteroid numbers which make no sense.
The book is obviously not in contradiction with itself, further. Both of these
statements must be applied. Asteroid impact rates of one per 12 minutes are not
acceptable, nor are 165kT asteroids. The only solution?
The 2e18 J particle-shield number is wrong, plain and simple. The possible reasons
for this are discussed above, but whatever they turn out to be is irrelevant. This
clearly shows that an ISD has a greater KE tolerance than your calcs show an ESD,
an inherently *superior* vessel, to have.
So, obviously, your calculations are flawed, young Boyd -- through no fault of your
own.
Phong Nguyen
wrote:
>in article 390b156a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE, Phong Nguyen at
Once you get to close range, you have to deal with the other weapons,
such as turbolasers and such. In other words, we've just rehashed
Marina's entire post.
When the order was given on the Executor, they did manage to shoot down
the X-Wing and damage the A-Wing, but apparently couldn't hit it again
with loss of one of the primary sensor domes.
Kynes
>
> >it's the easiest explanation for that sound.
>
> damage in later scenes, which one pro-SW debater suggested might
> mean that the particle shields were on.
They were on, because they are ALWAYS on.
Kynes
>
> >>
> >> My good friend Occam is silent on this one, because he knows
> >> that the external shot shows that the two ships could not have
> >> touched.
> >
> >Yeah? How?
>
> Too far away.
This from the guy that claimed that there were only three TIE fighters launched
in ANH and that torpedoes have a full suite of shielding and jamming equipment
because they glow. TimTwo!
Kynes
>
> >> . . . not to mention the fact that we never saw external hull
> >> damage in later scenes, which one pro-SW debater suggested
> might
> >> mean that the particle shields were on.
> >
> >They were on, because they are ALWAYS on.
>
> contact, if particle/KE shields are impenetrable. If the sound
> is to be argued as hull contact, then the shields are
> penetrable.
I'm not interested in debating sound effects. The collision occurred, particle
shields were up, EOF.
> Furthermore, if it is to be argued that particle/KE shields are
> always on, then we know that the fighters that took down DS1
> passed effortlessly through the particle/KE shields
The shields of Imperial warships are always on. However, those of the DS1 were
obviously not, as we can see that the fighters passed through the area where
they would normally be without difficulty.
> and that
> the shield surrounding the DS2 (which, according to you,
According to the ROTJ novelization, not me. Might want to pick up some of the
relevant source material next time Domino's dispenses a check.
> Furthermore, if they are always on aboard starships, they were
> penetrated by an out-of-control Naboo fighter in TPM.
They are obviously not on when LAUNCHING OTHER STARSHIPS, idiot.
> What we have is a problem . . . are the particle/KE shields
> always on, or are they turned off every time something exits the
> shield?
They are turned off. As you have been told countless times.
> If so, then an ISD firing a missile or launching
> fighters (or, arguably, a turbolaser bolt) would have to drop
> the shields that are always supposed to be on.
Yes, when launching fighters and torpedoes, the shields do have to be dropped.
This is not the case for TL bolts, however, as the novels describe the dangers of
dropping the shield for fighters but never TLs. Again, reading the source material
is key.
Commander Thelea
$E85.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>, "Kynes" <ky...@choam.org>
wrote:
>"Guardian2000" <randers2...@ocean.otr.usm.edu.invalid>
wrote in message news:3c2afe85.ef7ac326@usw-ex0105-
036.remarq.com...
>>
>> >>
>> >> My good friend Occam is silent on this one, because he
knows
>> >> that the external shot shows that the two ships could not
have
>> >> touched.
>> >
>> >Yeah? How?
>>
>> Too far away.
>
>This from the guy that claimed that there were only three TIE
fighters launched
>in ANH and that torpedoes have a full suite of shielding and
jamming equipment
>because they glow. TimTwo!
>-LK!
>[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
>
>"Discussions which lack moral or normative assessments are
rarely interesting."
> - Emily Cuatto
>
>
>
>
You have to wonder, Kynes, what would happen if that guy was
drafted into the Army and saw a Tracer Round incoming from the
enemy.. He'd probably scream "They've got shielding technology!"
and run for the rear as fast as he could.
Marina O'Leary
"Ut Veniant Omnes!"
Guardian2000
>> Too far away.
>
>This from the guy that claimed that there were only three TIE
fighters launched
>in ANH and that torpedoes have a full suite of shielding and
jamming equipment
>because they glow. TimTwo!
You should just be glad I do not blatantly misrepresent you on
almost every occasion as you do to me. Unlike you, I'm trying
to have a constructive debate.
Guardian2000
>>
>> >> . . . not to mention the fact that we never saw external
hull
>> >> damage in later scenes, which one pro-SW debater suggested
>> might
>> >> mean that the particle shields were on.
>> >
>> >They were on, because they are ALWAYS on.
>>
>> This means that the sound could not have been the hulls making
>> contact, if particle/KE shields are impenetrable. If the
sound
>> is to be argued as hull contact, then the shields are
>> penetrable.
>
>I'm not interested in debating sound effects. The collision
occurred, particle
>shields were up, EOF.
Collision occurred, particle shields were up. Alright then,
particle shields are penetrable. Thanks!
>> Furthermore, if it is to be argued that particle/KE shields
are
>> always on, then we know that the fighters that took down DS1
>> passed effortlessly through the particle/KE shields
>
>The shields of Imperial warships are always on. However, those
of the DS1 were
>obviously not, as we can see that the fighters passed through
the area where
>they would normally be without difficulty.
But, we know they are penetrable, because the two ISD's
supposedly collided, as you said a mere few lines above.
>
>> and that
>> the shield surrounding the DS2 (which, according to you,
>
>According to the ROTJ novelization,
Hey, I've seen your efforts at synopsis before with that whole
TIE acceleration and Mara thing.
But, to be fair, it was "according to you, according to the ROTJ
novel . . . "
>> Furthermore, if they are always on aboard starships, they were
>> penetrated by an out-of-control Naboo fighter in TPM.
>
>They are obviously not on when LAUNCHING OTHER STARSHIPS, idiot.
Then they are not always on. But, if they were on when the two
ships supposedly collided, then they are penetrable.
>> If so, then an ISD firing a missile or launching
>> fighters (or, arguably, a turbolaser bolt) would have to drop
>> the shields that are always supposed to be on.
>
>Yes, when launching fighters and torpedoes, the shields do have
to be dropped.
That's a glaring weakness for TIEs with missiles and torpedoes,
isn't it?
Also, if a turbolaser bolt is really a particle weapon, how
could it get through the shields? Since those shields are
obviously not polarized as are Trek shields, wouldn't there be
defensive system fratricide?
Guardian2000
> You have to wonder, Kynes, what would happen if that guy was
>drafted into the Army and saw a Tracer Round incoming from the
>enemy.. He'd probably scream "They've got shielding technology!"
>and run for the rear as fast as he could.
>
> Marina O'Leary
Why thank you, my dear. I do so very much love the
misrepresentation the pro-SW side has been flinging my way in
place of valid arguments, and I believe this is your first
contribution to that effort.
Commander Thelea
Guardian2000 <randers2...@ocean.otr.usm.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You have to wonder, Kynes, what would happen if that guy was
>>drafted into the Army and saw a Tracer Round incoming from the
>>enemy.. He'd probably scream "They've got shielding
technology!"
>>and run for the rear as fast as he could.
>>
>> Marina O'Leary
>
>
>Why thank you, my dear. I do so very much love the
>misrepresentation the pro-SW side has been flinging my way in
>place of valid arguments, and I believe this is your first
>contribution to that effort.
If you believe that because a projectile glows, it is shielded,
than you deserve to be ridiculed, to be blunt, and honest.
However, looking at it from another perspective, I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt and assume that tracers simply didn't
occur to you.
Marina O'Leary
"Ut Veniant Omnes!"
Guardian2000
>than you deserve to be ridiculed, to be blunt, and honest.
>
I hypothesized that a very special sort of fictional projectile,
with very special fictional properties, with very special
fictional technologies, might have some sort of anti-targeting
or anti-weapon system on board, and I based my argument on other
fictional parts and aspects of the same fictional universe.
However, several parties, yourself included, were apparently
unable to appreciate the nature of this, and have erroneously
concluded that I think any existing glowing projectiles are
shielded, whether past, present, or future . . . real or
fictional.
It is upon that basis that I claimed to have been misrepresented.
However, I should follow your lead, and give benefit of the
doubt, and thus chalk it up to simple error . . . a temporary
inability to separate fact and fiction.
> However, looking at it from another perspective, I'll give you
>the benefit of the doubt and assume that tracers simply didn't
>occur to you.
Actually, they did as I made the original post, but I suppose I
presumed, quite erroneously, that no one would be silly enough
to attempt to base a personal attack on modern-day tracer
rounds, which serve a totally different purpose, and operate on
totally different principles than the fictional principles and
technologies we are all discussing.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 30/4/00 2:40 am:
In this thread? Did I reply to that post? If so then I'll go look for the
post. Perhaps I'm going senile.
Jonathan Boyd
ack...@iname.com wrote on 30/4/00 3:27 am:
>> They can be programmed not to travel in straight lines (WotW, TUC, Genesis)
>> and you still have to be pretty accurate. I agree flak bursts could be
>> effective, if gunners respond in time. Given the response in RotJ when
>> intensified firepower is ordered, however, it looks like torps launched at a
>> few kilometres would have no probs getting through.
>
> Once you get to close range, you have to deal with the other weapons,
> such as turbolasers and such. In other words, we've just rehashed
> Marina's entire post.
>
> When the order was given on the Executor, they did manage to shoot down
> the X-Wing and damage the A-Wing, but apparently couldn't hit it again
> with loss of one of the primary sensor domes.
Those aren't sensor domes. They're shield generators. Saxton says they're
sensor domes based on 20th century technology, but official sources label
them as shield domes so Saxton is wrong.
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 30/4/00 2:43 am:
> "Jonathan Boyd" <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B5311B80.D38E%jona...@jboyd.co.uk...
>
>> If you do prove me wrong then I will switch to the SW side because without
>> the torp advantage, the Feds are sunk.
>
> Fine.
<snip>
> CONCLUSION
> Obviously, something is amiss here. Using a super-conservative interpretation
> of the "Anakin Skywalker" steady-rain statement, we get asteroid velocities
> that are far too low; using a conservative interpretation of its
> multi-megaton-impact statement, we get asteroid numbers which make no sense.
But are asteroid speeds of a few kms-1 too low? I don't recall the ISDs
being anywhere near asteroids the crossed their length in about 2/3rds of a
second.
> The book is obviously not in contradiction with itself, further. Both of these
> statements must be applied. Asteroid impact rates of one per 12 minutes are
> not acceptable, nor are 165kT asteroids. The only solution?
Well if you take a look at seanbig's post regarding the semicolon and large
asteroids statement, you will se that it is perfectly possible that only a
few asteroids were multi-megaton, while the rest were in the kiloton range.
> The 2e18 J particle-shield number is wrong, plain and simple. The possible
> reasons for this are discussed above, but whatever they turn out to be is
> irrelevant. This clearly shows that an ISD has a greater KE tolerance than
> your calcs show an ESD, an inherently *superior* vessel, to have.
> So, obviously, your calculations are flawed, young Boyd
How old are you again? 16?
> -- through no fault of your own.
I disagree (about them being wrong. You've forgotten to factor in shield
recharge rates. If they never recharges, I might just agree with your
figures, but then that would also mean that ISD shields don't recharge over
a period of 2 days which is just silly and wrong according to official
sources.
In Bacta War against the VSD-II, Wedge is concerned because they have to
kill it before it can recharge its shields. For the shields to be
permanently knocked down by the asteroids, they would have to deliver
712.5MT within the time required to re-establish shields. This is a fairly
short period of time, somewhere between 30 and 60 seconds I think. This
means that asteroids would have to deliver between 712.5MT and 1425MT per
minute or 11.875MT and 23.75MT per second. Since multi-MT can include values
below this figures and, to quote Graeme Dice, "we try to rationalize
discrepancies between official and canon sources, we don't dismiss the
official out of hand.", we must therefore assume that the multi-megaton
bombardments were less than the figures suggested by the X-Wing novels.
Oh and those figures are assuming that it was a VSD-II and the asteroids
were all impacting on one half of the shields. For an ISD, with all its
particle shields up, the asteroids would obviously have to be delivering
even more megatonnage per second.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> Using that silly "if it can happen in one universe, it probably
>> happens in the other" idea that has been flung my way, this
>> would probably mean that the sound was like the cracking &
>> creaking of the Romulan bird-of-prey performing "escape maneuver
>> one" in "Balance of Terror"[TOS].
>
>It wasn't a crack nor a creak. It was a prolonged, shrieking groan.
A ship will groan shriekily for a long period if the maneuver it is doing
is harder than it is typically designed to endure. Doesn't mean the ship
hit anything - just that it's various structural braces are being stressed
a lot more than usual.
Lord Edam de Fromage
Find me at www.trek-wars.co.uk
or on AIM as Sorborus
"I am "correct" in the same way that the entirely-liquid Europa, moon of
Jupiter,
is "moist."" -- Kynes
Lord Edam de Fromage
<0c80fd18...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>...
>This means that the sound could not have been the hulls making
>contact, if particle/KE shields are impenetrable. If the sound
>is to be argued as hull contact, then the shields are
>penetrable.
This scene would also allow us to determine the levels of the particle
shields, because if the particle shields were ihgh enough to protect the
ship there woudl have been little need to turn to avoid each other - just
bounce off the shields :)
>Furthermore, if it is to be argued that particle/KE shields are
>always on,
It doesn't need to be argued - it is STATED in official sources.
then we know that the fighters that took down DS1
>passed effortlessly through the particle/KE shields,
No, because the particle shields are on/in the hull (they have to be,
because they contribute something similar to ST's SIFs)
and that
>the shield surrounding the DS2 (which, according to you,
>destroyed fighters) must have been of a drastically different
>configuration.
It was of a very drastically different configuration. It wasn't hull
fitting, it was projected from a planet by a big sattellliitee dish etc.
etc. etc.
>Furthermore, if they are always on aboard starships, they were
>penetrated by an out-of-control Naboo fighter in TPM.
no, because they have to be dropped to allow sihps to leave, and when
Anakin's Naboo fighter entered tehhanger in TPM fighter droids were
leaving (see lower left corner. Or is it lower right corner? one of them
anyway)
>What we have is a problem . . . are the particle/KE shields
>always on, or are they turned off every time something exits the
>shield?
Duh... Let's see. They stop KE. They can either be always on, in which
case no one can enter leave, or they can be always on momentarily dropped
for something to exit.
If so, then an ISD firing a missile or launching
>fighters (or, arguably, a turbolaser bolt) would have to drop
>the shields that are always supposed to be on.
Missiles and fighters yes, TLs no.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>The core of your argument relies on the X-Wing books' description of CMs
and
>proton torpedoes penetrating the shields of various ships. You use 450MT
as the
>upper particle shield limit for an ESD based on this information, or
~1.9e18 J.
within a period of a few seconds.
>Obviously, an ESD will have a shield limit greater than an ISD's; thus, I
don't
>think it's unfair to say that if I can demonstrate conclusively that an
ISD has
>a greater particle shield than this, then your calculations are flawed.
If you show an ISD's aprticle shields have withstodd similar energies in
similar time frames
>EXAMINATION OF FLAWS
>
>There is nothing wrong with your methods. Thus, we must bring your data
into
>question. Your data is obviously Edam's site.
BTM CD-ROM.
I don't think I'm the only person
>to take exception at his use of what is obviously data intended for the
SW civilian
>public as specific expressions of energy yield.
You take exception to a statment of yield in an official SW technical
source? But you don't say *why* you object to this. You just say "I don't
like him using it"
>But I certainly do wonder out of what arse he pulled his "note" from:
>
>"note: capital ship Torpedoes may be between 15 and 25 times stronger"
Taken from multiple posts by Strowbridge. I can dig it out if you need it.
>Where does this number come from? What justifies it? No mention is made
of its
>source or anything else. We're just supposed to accept it? I think not.
This puts
>the data you used in direct question.
Okay, so we use the 1.5MT upper limit. If we really want to push it, we
take the 10MT space-to-ground rockets of the Mandel blueprints, rather
than the 22 to 38 MT yield we would get otherwise. So Jon's figures are
actually three times too high.
>SCENARIO 1: ENERGY OF EACH ASTEROID KNOWN
>
>2e18 = (energy of average asteroid) * (# of asteroids)
>
>Obviously, energy is known, although we will soon look at a scenario
where it is
>not. Energy is 4.2e15 J -- a little over one megaton.
>
>So, solving for the number of asteroids that impacted each ISD, we get
239. This
>seems, at first, reasonable -- until we realize that the ISD was in the
Hoth
>asteroid belt for days! The search took place, Vader summoned all of the
bounty
>hunters, a few more events took place, and eventually the Falcon was
flushed out
>and the ISDs left the belt. We will assume this took about 2 days, though
it could
>have been more.
And Bingo. You make the exact cock up I was expecting. You see, as
everyone knows, ships can
re-charge their shields. Jon's figure is the result of many torps
impacting on the particle shields in a short period of time, rapidly
draining all the power from the particle shields leaving the ship
vulnerable until it can re-establish shields. Taking 1/3 of jon's number
(because, as shown above, the highest yield for the torps is going to be
10MT) this would mean 151 megatonne asteroids striking the shield in a few
seconds. Not gonna happen.
>That means, over the course of two days, each ISD absorbed only 239
asteroids.
>Keep in mind, BTW, that for the number you're using, a 239th asteroid
would be the
>one that caused particle shield *failure*. This did not occur, so the
actual number
>of asteroids would be less, further adding to the conservatism of these
>calculations.
Wrong. You are trying to compare what happened over a few days with what
happened in a few seconds. I can stand outside in the glaring sun on the
hottest day of the year for a whole day with little problem. If I had to
endure teh exact same amount of energy crammed into a few seconds I would
burn. Rapidly and painfully. Maybe even die.
>This is obviously NOT what was observed in the film. It is certainly not
a "steady
>rain," as "Anakin Skywalker" described. A "steady rain" would be more
like once
>per minute, at the very least. In this case, each ISD would have absorbed
2880
>asteroids, putting the particle shields of an ISD at a lower limit of
~1.2e19 J
>each.
With the ability to be re-charged continually over those two days.
Obviously, in the case of a hail of torpedoes all launched from (near
enough) the same place at the same velocity, the ability to re-charge the
shields over a few days is not going to exist.
>This is obviously an order of magnitude higher than your numbers yield
for an ESD,
>which we have already agreed is going to have a shield strength many
times than of
>an ISD. So what's going on here?
>
>Answer:
you are trying to compare the lack of siheld depletion over two days with
siheld depletion over a few seconds. You know, P O W E R.
If Jon's energy at Jon's power can drop the shields why should we assume
10 times the energy at a power 4 orders of magnitude LOWER would do the
same thing?
Something is wrong with your calcs. But what? Answer above. Your methods
>were fine, but your data was way off. What does this tell us? Well, it
tells us
>that a fan-based interpretation of BTM weapons data (which, by the looks
of the
>displays, appears to be a rough civilian guide to the weapons, rather
than an
>actual firepower rating) does not jive with Episode V and "The Story of
Darth
>Vader." Obviously, the solution here is clear. Edam is wrong.
Obviously, the solution here is clear. You have no idea of how to compare
firepower. Yes, the energy of the asteroids is higher, but it's
'firepower' is far far lower.
>I can see your rebuttal already: I didn't screw up the impact rate, I
screwed up
>the energy. Fine then, let's take a look at that.
No, you screwed up the power. To compare Jon's numbers with the asteroid
scene would require over 100 asteroids impacting in the same area of the
ship in the space of a few seconds.
[snip more calcs based on the same faulty assumptions]
>The 2e18 J particle-shield number is wrong, plain and simple.
2e18J over a few seconds is right.
2e18 joules over a few hundred thousand seconds would, obviously, be
wrong, because the ship would have te ability to recharge the shields
This
>clearly shows that
Kynes has yet to understand the concept of power. Maybe we should teach
him this by forcing him to endure chinese water torture for a month, then
finishing with the total energy of his previous month's torture in the
space of ten seconds.
I'm sure Kynes was already expecting this reply, since his mistake was
such an obviously basic one. Let's see what he has to say for himself
Kynes
> >I'm not interested in debating sound effects. The collision
> occurred, particle
> >shields were up, EOF.
>
> Collision occurred, particle shields were up. Alright then,
> particle shields are penetrable. Thanks!
A collision occurred between the two ship's particle shields, NOT their hulls.
Particle shields are not penetrable, as ROTJ and TPM clearly show. Further, what
would be the point of particle shields if they were penetrable? This is an idiotic
"theory."
> >> and that
> >> the shield surrounding the DS2 (which, according to you,
> >
> >According to the ROTJ novelization,
>
> Hey, I've seen your efforts at synopsis before with that whole
> TIE acceleration and Mara thing.
And I've seen your efforts at reading comprehension with the same post.
> >They are obviously not on when LAUNCHING OTHER STARSHIPS, idiot.
>
> Then they are not always on.
Thanks, Captain Science.
> >Yes, when launching fighters and torpedoes, the shields do have
> to be dropped.
>
> That's a glaring weakness for TIEs with missiles and torpedoes,
> isn't it?
Not really. Missiles and torpedoes get less use in the SW galaxy, for one. Laser
cannons and turbolasers are more powerful and faster, and they don't require
dropping KE shields.
Secondly, the standard TIE fighter HAS no shields, which you would know if you
had any knowledge about this.
> Also, if a turbolaser bolt is really a particle weapon, how
> could it get through the shields?
Who knows? We know it does. I'm not interested in making up theories to explain
it. It does, they don't have to drop shields, EOF.
Kynes
>
> >> Too far away.
> >
> >This from the guy that claimed that there were only three TIE
> fighters launched
> >in ANH and that torpedoes have a full suite of shielding and
> jamming equipment
> >because they glow. TimTwo!
>
> You should just be glad I do not blatantly misrepresent you on
> almost every occasion as you do to me. Unlike you, I'm trying
> to have a constructive debate.
Wow, you didn't launch into a self-gratifying speech about how much you adore
Milton and yearn to be like him by committing grammar errors. I'm surpised at
your restraint.
Hey, I've got a question for you... I noticed today while I was outside that the
sun appeared to be glowing brightly. Given the now-obvious fact that the sun is
equipped with heavy jamming equipment, how is it that we're still possible to
communicate on Earth?
Phong Nguyen
wrote:
>in article 390b99b7...@News.CIS.DFN.DE, Phong Nguyen at
::shrug::
Matter of interpretation. Could be sensor domes, shield domes or *both*.
Depends on if the domes act the same as in the Mandel blueprints or
differently.
At any rate, *something* apparently caused the CIWS gunners to not be
able to hit the A-Wing again.
Kynes
> in article 6dMO4.71514$E85.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com, Kynes at
> ky...@choam.org wrote on 30/4/00 2:43 am:
>
>
> > Obviously, something is amiss here. Using a super-conservative interpretation
> > of the "Anakin Skywalker" steady-rain statement, we get asteroid velocities
> > that are far too low; using a conservative interpretation of its
> > multi-megaton-impact statement, we get asteroid numbers which make no sense.
>
Obviously yes -- they don't yield the multi-megaton impacts that SODV describes,
unless the asteroids are superdense.
> I don't recall the ISDs
> being anywhere near asteroids the crossed their length in about 2/3rds of a
> second.
None that we SAW. We saw the asteroid field for moments.
> > The book is obviously not in contradiction with itself, further. Both of these
> > statements must be applied. Asteroid impact rates of one per 12 minutes are
> > not acceptable, nor are 165kT asteroids. The only solution?
>
> Well if you take a look at seanbig's post regarding the semicolon and large
> asteroids statement, you will se that it is perfectly possible that only a
> few asteroids were multi-megaton, while the rest were in the kiloton range.
No, I don't think so. The statement in SODV does not imply that the gunners missed
any of the big rocks -- it implies that they were all blasted, so whatever is left
over must have had the average multi-megaton impact energy that's being described.
> > -- through no fault of your own.
>
> I disagree (about them being wrong. You've forgotten to factor in shield
> recharge rates.
Did you factor in recharge rates in YOUR analysis? Further, you've not responded to
my question about where Edam pulled his "capital ships are X times stronger" number
from. I assume this means you don't know -- so why are you using it?
> This
> means that asteroids would have to deliver between 712.5MT and 1425MT per
> minute or 11.875MT and 23.75MT per second.
So what you're saying here is that an ISD can recharge its particle shields at
a rate of at least 25MT per second? How was this not factored in by you when you
wrote up those long "an ESD can be taken down by one torpedo" figures?
Knowing this, even if Federation torpedoes strike at the rate of one per second,
they will still never wear down the shields of an ISD, because the recharge rate
is higher than the yield of their torpedoes. Also, they will have totally exhausted
their torpedo supply in about three and a half minutes doing this.
Kynes
> >
> >"note: capital ship Torpedoes may be between 15 and 25 times stronger"
>
> Taken from multiple posts by Strowbridge. I can dig it out if you need it.
Strowbridge is not an official source. So what you're essentially saying is, the
number could be much higher? Thanks.
Strowbridge
> Perhaps I'm going senile.
I think that's the most likely scenario.
C.S.Strowbridge
Ashen-Shugar
>>
>> When the order was given on the Executor, they did manage to shoot down
>> the X-Wing and damage the A-Wing, but apparently couldn't hit it again
>> with loss of one of the primary sensor domes.
>
>Those aren't sensor domes. They're shield generators. Saxton says they're
>sensor domes based on 20th century technology, but official sources label
>them as shield domes so Saxton is wrong.
If they're shield domes then howcome the fighters could hit them
before they were destroyed and thus bring down the shield? Or was the
shield first brought down so the fighters could hit the sensor domes?
Confused.
------------------
Ashen-Shugar
------------------
Last of the Dragon Lords,
Greatest of the Valheru.
M.I.C.H.A.E.L.: Mechanical Intelligent Construct Hardwired for Assassination and Efficient Learning
Ashen-Shugar
>Knowing this, even if Federation torpedoes strike at the rate of one per second,
>they will still never wear down the shields of an ISD, because the recharge rate
>is higher than the yield of their torpedoes. Also, they will have totally exhausted
>their torpedo supply in about three and a half minutes doing this.
>--
I calculated exactly this on one of my pages. If we calculate Imperial
shield power based on Imperial weapon performance (being able to
withstand several broadsides, etc), then take a reasonably lengthy
recharge time (several hours), the recharge rate is still greater than
the average yield of a photon torpedo. Hence, hitting an ISD at the
rate of one photon per second will not reduce their shields AT ALL. I
vaguely recall that it would require something like 12 photons per
second for several minutes to reduce their shields to zero.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 30/4/00 7:56 pm:
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I'm going senile.
>
> I think that's the most likely scenario.
Might be needing false teeth soon. You've been using them for a few years,
so which kind do you recommend?
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 30/4/00 7:38 pm:
> "Jonathan Boyd" <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B5320A06.D6BD%jona...@jboyd.co.uk...
>> in article 6dMO4.71514$E85.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com, Kynes at
>> ky...@choam.org wrote on 30/4/00 2:43 am:
>>
>>> CONCLUSION
>>
>>> Obviously, something is amiss here. Using a super-conservative
>>> interpretation
>>> of the "Anakin Skywalker" steady-rain statement, we get asteroid velocities
>>> that are far too low; using a conservative interpretation of its
>>> multi-megaton-impact statement, we get asteroid numbers which make no sense.
>>
>> But are asteroid speeds of a few kms-1 too low?
>
> Obviously yes -- they don't yield the multi-megaton impacts that SODV
> describes, unless the asteroids are superdense.
>> I don't recall the ISDs being anywhere near asteroids the crossed their
>> length in about 2/3rds of a second.
> None that we SAW. We saw the asteroid field for moments.
But it means that it is certainly possible that the asteroids are that slow
since the ones we saw were at about that speed.
>>> The book is obviously not in contradiction with itself, further. Both of
>>> these statements must be applied. Asteroid impact rates of one per 12
>>> minutes are not acceptable, nor are 165kT asteroids. The only solution?
>>>
>> Well if you take a look at seanbig's post regarding the semicolon and large
>> asteroids statement, you will se that it is perfectly possible that only a
>> few asteroids were multi-megaton, while the rest were in the kiloton range.
>
> No, I don't think so. The statement in SODV does not imply that the gunners
> missed any of the big rocks -- it implies that they were all blasted, so
> whatever is left over must have had the average multi-megaton impact energy
> that's being described.
I'd be more inclined to agree with an English major on this then you.
>>> -- through no fault of your own.
>>
>> I disagree (about them being wrong. You've forgotten to factor in shield
>> recharge rates.
>
> Did you factor in recharge rates in YOUR analysis? Further, you've not
> responded to my question about where Edam pulled his "capital ships are X
> times stronger" number from. I assume this means you don't know -- so why are
> you using it?
I'm using it because I assumed he wasn't going to cover his site in lies.
And I left the question for him to answer since it is his site. If you want
I could use the 1.5MT figure instead which we have definite official proof
for.
>> This means that asteroids would have to deliver between 712.5MT and 1425MT
>> per minute or 11.875MT and 23.75MT per second.
> So what you're saying here is that an ISD can recharge its particle shields at
> a rate of at least 25MT per second? How was this not factored in by you when
> you wrote up those long "an ESD can be taken down by one torpedo" figures?
I never said "an ESD can be taken down by one torpedo". That's a libellous
statement. And where is your figure that an ISD can recharge shields at at
least 25MT per second come from? My figures say at least 11.875. And see
below.
> Knowing this, even if Federation torpedoes strike at the rate of one per
> second, they will still never wear down the shields of an ISD, because the
> recharge rate is higher than the yield of their torpedoes. Also, they will
> have totally exhausted their torpedo supply in about three and a half minutes
> doing this.
Last I saw, torps could be fired at a rate of several per second. Some
people would say 10 can be fired per second, but I think 3-5 is closer to
the mark. Taking 3 as a conservative example, a starship is still going to
do 26.65MT damage to an ISD's shields per second, assuming the same recharge
rate as a VSD-II, which will eventually wear it down. Multiple starships
working together could certainly do it. Starships with QTs rather than PTs
will have an even easier time of it. I've personally always been of the
opinion that 4 Excelsior's could take an ISD. They've get enough phasers to
cover each other against TIEs and they can pump out quite a few torps thanks
to their dual fore launchers.
Furthermore, the nature of recharge for shields is rather interesting. It
appears that once they are knocked out, they don't gradually come back on,
but remain off line until repaired, then come back at full strength. It
appears that the shields of the Nubian ship Amidala escaped in in TPM worked
in the same manner. This suggests that shields do not actually recharge at
all, but instead sustain damage to the generators which must be repaired.
This means that the shields could be worn down gradually.
Jonathan Boyd
ack...@iname.com wrote on 30/4/00 7:21 pm:
>>> Once you get to close range, you have to deal with the other weapons,
>>> such as turbolasers and such. In other words, we've just rehashed
>>> Marina's entire post.
>>>
>>> When the order was given on the Executor, they did manage to shoot down
>>> the X-Wing and damage the A-Wing, but apparently couldn't hit it again
>>> with loss of one of the primary sensor domes.
>>
>> Those aren't sensor domes. They're shield generators. Saxton says they're
>> sensor domes based on 20th century technology, but official sources label
>> them as shield domes so Saxton is wrong.
>
> ::shrug::
>
> Matter of interpretation. Could be sensor domes, shield domes or *both*.
> Depends on if the domes act the same as in the Mandel blueprints or
> differently.
I was actually thinking of novels which claim them to be shield domes.
> At any rate, *something* apparently caused the CIWS gunners to not be
> able to hit the A-Wing again.
Inaccuracy on their part. Poor targeting. Drunk gunnery officers.
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 30/4/00 6:59 pm:
>>> This from the guy that claimed that there were only three TIE fighters
>>> launched in ANH and that torpedoes have a full suite of shielding and
>>> jamming equipment because they glow. TimTwo!
>> You should just be glad I do not blatantly misrepresent you on
>> almost every occasion as you do to me. Unlike you, I'm trying
>> to have a constructive debate.
> Wow, you didn't launch into a self-gratifying speech about how much you adore
> Milton and yearn to be like him by committing grammar errors. I'm surpised at
> your restraint.
> Hey, I've got a question for you... I noticed today while I was outside that
> the sun appeared to be glowing brightly. Given the now-obvious fact that the
> sun is equipped with heavy jamming equipment, how is it that we're still
> possible to communicate on Earth?
I'm curious, this doesn't seem to have any point other than to aggravate
G2000, so this would constitute a troll, would it not?
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 30/4/00 6:31 pm:
> "Guardian2000" <randers2...@ocean.otr.usm.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0a33a21f...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
>
>>> I'm not interested in debating sound effects. The collision
>> occurred, particle
>>> shields were up, EOF.
>>
>> Collision occurred, particle shields were up. Alright then,
>> particle shields are penetrable. Thanks!
>
> A collision occurred between the two ship's particle shields, NOT their hulls.
Then why have some on the pro-SW side claimed that the groaning sound heard
was evidence that they collided?
> Particle shields are not penetrable, as ROTJ and TPM clearly show. Further,
> what would be the point of particle shields if they were penetrable? This is
> an idiotic "theory."
Umm, shields do get penetrated. You just have to hit them hard enough. ISDs
would be invincible otherwise.