I crunched some numbers...

[Khas 12,158]

Still, they are using their turbolasers at full power, and concentrating the blasts, no less.

[Vince 520]

Still, they are using their turbolasers at full power, and concentrating the blasts, no less.

 

Ultimately it is irrelevant, because a corvette would wield the sort of firepower demonstrated here [extrapolated from the movies]. I though you despised the EU for all its inconsistencies in the first place? Your not going to try an use this over higher canon are yoU?

[scvn2812 504]

Still, they are using their turbolasers at full power, and concentrating the blasts, no less.

 

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anything about their turbolasers being at full power. Jacen's monologue outlines the exact same mentality, almost point for point, of both the reasons not to fully incinerate a planet and in causing a major humanitarian crisis that will draw off resources from war fighting. If he really wanted the whole planet dead, then he could just nuke it. Have every ship in the fleet unload on all of the major population centers and kill as many people and as much infrastructure as possible. Instead only his ship fires and even minimizes the initial damage by focusing on one area rather than spreading it out or concentrating on just the population centers.

[Vince 520]

You haven't addressed any of the points either...

[Captain Seafort 17]

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anything about their turbolasers being at full power. Jacen's monologue outlines the exact same mentality, almost point for point, of both the reasons not to fully incinerate a planet and in causing a major humanitarian crisis that will draw off resources from war fighting. If he really wanted the whole planet dead, then he could just nuke it. Have every ship in the fleet unload on all of the major population centers and kill as many people and as much infrastructure as possible. Instead only his ship fires and even minimizes the initial damage by focusing on one area rather than spreading it out or concentrating on just the population centers.

 

They're also way outside the system, given that they're using "long-range" turbolasers, and even the bog-standard version can hit planets in the green belt from the edge of the system (per the Enemy Lines duology). Indeed, it may be that they are firing full-power shots, and they're simply at the outer edge of their range - the fact that TL bolts shed energy laterally means that even tera- or peta-ton shots must be reduced to a mild tickle at some point, even if that point is a few dozen light hours out.

[Khas 12,158]

No, the quote from the book states that they're in orbit of the planet.

 

Yes, the EU is wildly inconsistent, and yes, I hate a lot of it. However, a lot does not mean all.

[Captain Seafort 17]

No, the quote from the book states that they're in orbit of the planet.

 

At what altitude? Mercury and Pluto both orbit the sun. They're obviously outside the system, given that they're having to use specialised long-range weapons.

[Khas 12,158]

What... altitude...? Guh.. Bah.. Nar... Vajook...

 

Close enough that the planet took up most of the viewport.

[Captain Seafort 17]

Guh.. Bah.. Nar... Vajook...

 

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with those units. Could you rephrase that in terms of light hours please.

 

Close enough that the planet took up most of the viewport.

 

So their viewports are TV screens that can magnify what's on them. Big deal.

[scvn2812 504]

Scientific method time! Khas, I think its time you presented your own theory and explanations about why possibly conflicting examples don't actually conflict or are irrelevant.

 

Refute the methods of Brian and Saxton, come up with your own superior hypothesis stitching together a clear vision of what Star Wars ought to be capable of and defend your conclusions.

 

How about a Star Destroyer? Tell us what a Star Destroyer should be capable of and why. If the figures on the first page are your final word and not a doodle, then answer the questions it presents with regards to higher canon.

 

Why can a Star Destroyer not wield proportionate power to the Death Star for its volume? (I.E. around 1/10 millionth of the DS1) Or are there billions or trillions of Star Destroyers such that they can fulfill the requirements of half the Starfleet being somewhat less powerful than the Death Star.

[Khas 12,158]

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with those units. Could you rephrase that in terms of light hours please.

 

 

 

So their viewports are TV screens that can magnify what's on them. Big deal.

 

 

It said veiwport, like the windows we see on the bridge of an ISD. It said that the TL bolts raced from the bow of the Anakin Solo right down to the planet. Also, see this:

http://forums.asvs.org/showthread.php/2321-TCW-Weapons-Ranges

 

Light-hours my ass.

 

That's T-Canon, by the way, which basically tells C-Canon that it has a "real purdy mouth" and then asks if it can squeal like a piggy. Considering that Ryloth got retconned big time by TCW, this wouldn't be the first thing.

[Vince 520]

It said veiwport, like the windows we see on the bridge of an ISD. It said that the TL bolts raced from the bow of the Anakin Solo right down to the planet. Also, see this:

http://forums.asvs.org/showthread.php/2321-TCW-Weapons-Ranges

 

Light-hours my ass.

 

That's T-Canon, by the way, which basically tells C-Canon that it has a "real purdy mouth" and then asks if it can squeal like a piggy. Considering that Ryloth got retconned big time by TCW, this wouldn't be the first thing.

Thats against targets with deflectors, which shunt off attacks. Then theres jamming, then theres the fact ships can move. The same tl's may have light hour minute/hour ranges against planets as EU suggests.

Now address the points in my post please.

[Khas 12,158]

Also:

[Vince 520]

No, the quote from the book states that they're in orbit of the planet.

 

Yes, the EU is wildly inconsistent, and yes, I hate a lot of it. However, a lot does not mean all.

Just like the bits that suggest low end firepower? Like turbolasers that pack as much punch as a hand grenade (like in the comic shots)? Or your multi hundred megaton kashyyyk example? Are you actually going to address anything anyone says?

[Vince 520]

Mature.

[Captain Seafort 17]

It said veiwport, like the windows we see on the bridge of an ISD.

 

And the "windows" we see on the bridges of Trek ships.

 

It said that the TL bolts raced from the bow of the Anakin Solo right down to the planet.

 

Just like bolts raced from from the NR cruiser outside the Coruscant system right down to Coruscant in the green belt in the EL duology.

 

http://forums.asvs.org/showthread.php/2321-TCW-Weapons-Ranges

 

Light-hours my ass.

 

I see absolutely nothing in that clip as evidence that VenStars have a shorter weapons range than an AT-AT.

[Khas 12,158]

An interesting thing to note is that both the Encyclopedia and NEG mention that an X-Wing's hull is made of titanium.

 

Yes, titanium, which is used for modern aircraft hulls.

[scvn2812 504]

Khas;

We have slave 1 vaporizing some asteroids, and X-wings causing massive collateral in the films, suggesting terajoule range firepower. Its worth noting that the armours that fighter firepower penetrate can withstand multi-hundred megajoule blaster shots taking only trivial surface damage, like stray shots that hit tanks or the Falcon. ICS gives yields of between 1 and 2 kilotons per shot to fighter based weapons, which is consistent with these on screen events. X-Wings are have larger heavier laser guns, so probably yield 2 or more kilotons per shot, and have four lasers total. According to SWvST they have a volume of ~27 cubic meters.

 

In a New Hope, we see the Tantive with its proportionally massive turbolasers fire of a couple of bursts on to the bare armoured hull of a ISD, the energy is spread over hundreds of square meters and leaves zero visible damage. This Corvette is close to 2,400 times greater in volume than the X-wing. If it had proportionally more firepower we would be talking tens of megatons. In reality in may wield far more firepower, because larger capital ships dedicate a larger percentile of their power output to weapons – even hundreds of megatons. These are the energy levels which the main hull of the ISD can harmlessly dissipate, receiving trivial damage at best.

 

In contrast, the heavy turbolasers of a capital ship may blast 60 meter wide holes through such armour, and even penetrate half way through a starship, as demonstrated in both ROTS and ROTJ. Armour which can withstand hundreds of megatons harmlessly could well require teratons to blast through.

 

So from observed firepower in the movies, we can set a lower limit orders of magnitude greater than tens or hundreds of megatons, for single shots from heavy turbolasers. We also have the Falcon’s shields withstanding a single digit megaton blast in ESB, when she is escaping through the asteroid field. The shields are taking a beaten, but we don’t know how many shots of this yield it would take to lower them. And this is a 35 meter long freighter, not a warship. This blast is spread over a far larger volume than the tie lasers, explaining how fighters might compromise shields with less firepower.

 

Then we have propulsion and required power generation, suggesting very high firepower, and the fleet wielding close to twice the firepower of the Death Star’s superlaser, suggesting greater firepower still.

Fighter extrapolated firepower, the falcon scene, the propulsion figures, DS calculations, are all independent of each other and are all from the films. They all dictate firepower orders of magnitude higher than what you were proposing (<14 kilotons per second_). This and more is covered in the videos Brian has created.

 

Points that have not yet been refuted.

 

Scientific method time! Khas, I think its time you presented your own theory and explanations about why possibly conflicting examples don't actually conflict or are irrelevant.

 

Refute the methods of Brian and Saxton, come up with your own superior hypothesis stitching together a clear vision of what Star Wars ought to be capable of and defend your conclusions.

 

How about a Star Destroyer? Tell us what a Star Destroyer should be capable of and why. If the figures on the first page are your final word and not a doodle, then answer the questions it presents with regards to higher canon.

 

Why can a Star Destroyer not wield proportionate power to the Death Star for its volume? (I.E. around 1/10 millionth of the DS1) Or are there billions or trillions of Star Destroyers such that they can fulfill the requirements of half the Starfleet being somewhat less powerful than the Death Star.

 

Bottom post just before a page jump, could have been missed by accident.

[Khas 12,158]

And the "windows" we see on the bridges of Trek ships.

 

 

 

Just like bolts raced from from the NR cruiser outside the Coruscant system right down to Coruscant in the green belt in the EL duology.

 

 

 

I see absolutely nothing in that clip as evidence that VenStars have a shorter weapons range than an AT-AT.

 

 

What, does the ICS say an AT-AT have weapons ranges in the AU range? Or maybe it says that a thermal detonator can level mountains. Or that Luke can knock planets out of orbit by farting.

[Captain Seafort 17]

An interesting thing to note is that both the Encyclopedia and NEG mention that an X-Wing's hull is made of titanium.

 

Yes, titanium, which is used for modern aircraft hulls.

 

And?

[Khas 12,158]

Mature.

 

Matches the maturity of most ICS fanboys I've met.

[Khas 12,158]

And?

 

 

Since when can a modern aircraft stand up to a point-blank kiloton blast? Much less a gigaton one?

 

Oh that's right. Since never.

[Captain Seafort 17]

What, does the ICS say an AT-AT have weapons ranges in the AU range? Or maybe it says that a thermal detonator can level mountains. Or that Luke can knock planets out of orbit by farting.

 

I'm not talking about the ICS, or AU - I'm talking about your fucked-up claim that VenStars have a weapons range of about 15km, given that AT-AT's have a range of over 17km, per ESB.

[Captain Seafort 17]

Since when can a modern aircraft stand up to a point-blank kiloton blast? Much less a gigaton one?

 

Oh that's right. Since never.

 

When have we seen an unshielded X-Wing do that?

[Vince 520]

When have we seen an unshielded X-Wing do that?

 

This, and internal force fields might strengthen the hull making conventional materials more protective than you would first expect. A regular E-11 can vaporize a few dozen kilos of iron in one shot after all.