If instead of Death star plans on a Nova Class starship how would Vader aim to got back plans.

[InvaderSkooj 1]

No, you see, modern armies don't have multiple Tac-Nukes at hand, that are as easy to use as their normal weapons.

 

Fighter planes don't carry around Tac-Nukes, and Tac-Nukes are our most powerful weapons.

 

So Tac-Nukes in SW could only be compared to HTLs on Capital ships.

Cold war warpac/nato armies commonly fielded nukes that could be fired by 155mm artillery not to mention most cold war era tactical fighters WERE NUCLEAR CAPABLE. Tactical nukes are not our most powerful weapon, strategic weapons are. HTL would properly be compared to ICBMs, SLBMs,strategic cruise missiles, and high yield strategic bombs. Dropping nuke yields willy nilly on a RESCUE mission is quite stupid, even for sci-fi militaries

 

 

 

And an explosion with the explosive force of 1 Kiloton still doesn't necessarily create radiation, which our Nukes do, which is also another deterrent.

At low yields you are likely to be killed by the blast anyway

 

 

 

So why don't they just have one Fighter do a fly-by, shoot those Kiloton guns at the advancing army, and then let his troops mop up the remaining resistance will a lot less losses in life, which would be logical.

 

Heck, you don't even need 1 Kiloton, just fire with 50% strength, or even 20%...

 

But we nerver see comparable yields...

Didnt see the entire battle, didnt want to collapse the building on the people they were supposed to be rescuing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the damage done to the asteroids he hits while pursuing Obi-Wan.

 

He fragments, and doesn't vaporize, asteroids no more then 10 meters across, and the bigger ones aren't even completely destroyed...

 

As I said, nowhere near 1 Kiloton...

 

10m asteroids would require 3.8-7.5kt to vaporize, and being hit with a tiny energy beam, is nowhere nearly as efficient as dropping something in a blast furnace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And my favorite, nowhere was anyone ordered or mentioned to fire at max yield.

[Praeothmin 532]

Cold war warpac/nato armies commonly fielded nukes that could be fired by 155mm artillery not to mention most cold war era tactical fighters WERE NUCLEAR CAPABLE. Tactical nukes are not our most powerful weapon, strategic weapons are. HTL would properly be compared to ICBMs, SLBMs,strategic cruise missiles, and high yield strategic bombs. Dropping nuke yields willy nilly on a RESCUE mission is quite stupid, even for sci-fi militaries

 

 

 

But they're not dropping Nukes, only weapons which supposedly have Kiloton level firepower...

 

No radiation, only a big boom.

 

 

 

At low yields you are likely to be killed by the blast anyway

 

 

 

Really?

 

The explosion of 200 tons of TNT would create a crater with a 120 meter diameter, and 60 meter of depth.

 

On a battlefield with hundreds of vehicules and thousands of troops, that would be an efficient way to win a battle quite rapidly, lowering your losses in life and material.

 

Unless your commanding officer is an idiot...

 

 

 

Didnt see the entire battle, didnt want to collapse the building on the people they were supposed to be rescuing

 

 

 

Then dial it down at 10%, but in any case, using higher yields then the ones they used would have helped in the battle against the droids and Geonosians...

 

 

 

 

 

10m asteroids would require 3.8-7.5kt to vaporize, and being hit with a tiny energy beam, is nowhere nearly as efficient as dropping something in a blast furnace

 

 

 

But they weren't vaporized, they were craterized, which is 0.2 tons to 4.7 tons...

 

 

 

And my favorite, nowhere was anyone ordered or mentioned to fire at max yield

 

 

 

This is also my favorite, because most of the explosions didn't even create craters greater then 1 or two meters, in the sand (lets say "packed earth" to be generous), which requires even less energy then 0.2 tons, which would mean that for this fight, the missiles and guns were dialed down over 1000%...

[InvaderSkooj 1]

But they're not dropping Nukes, only weapons which supposedly have Kiloton level firepower...

 

No radiation, only a big boom.

No weapons with a kiloton max yield

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really?

 

The explosion of 200 tons of TNT would create a crater with a 120 meter diameter, and 60 meter of depth.

 

On a battlefield with hundreds of vehicules and thousands of troops, that would be an efficient way to win a battle quite rapidly, lowering your losses in life and material.

Explosions and cratering have many variables. Loose sand on Iwo jima protected marines from near direct hits by mortars while marines a few feet away in packed wet sand werent so lucky

 

Unless your commanding officer is an idiot...

When dealing with visual sci-fi this is always an option

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then dial it down at 10%, but in any case, using higher yields then the ones they used would have helped in the battle against the droids and Geonosians...

Not necessarily. No one in SW has 100% accuracy, 1 stray shot and there went the reason for your rescue mission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But they weren't vaporized, they were craterized, which is 0.2 tons to 4.7 tons...

Science is lost on the simple minded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is also my favorite, because most of the explosions didn't even create craters greater then 1 or two meters, in the sand (lets say "packed earth" to be generous), which requires even less energy then 0.2 tons, which would mean that for this fight, the missiles and guns were dialed down over 1000%...

 

Well just means they almost as good as photon torpedoes, MJ(ST5)- megatons,maybe? thats like 1000000%

[Praeothmin 532]

No weapons with a kiloton max yield

 

 

 

If you're talking about the power of the LAAT's weapons, last time I had checked its missiles were rated in the Kilotons.

 

But perhaps I was wrong.

 

If someone has the AotC ICS and can give us the LAAT's weapon power, that would help us.

 

 

 

If you mean any explosive with a yield of 1 Kiloton emits radiation, then you are right, as heat is radiation.

 

I guess I wasn't clear enough:

 

Chemical explosives, or even energy weapons, would not create radioactive material after and explosion, and would not turn the target of such explosions in new "Tchernobyls" or "Hiroshimas"...

 

There is no gamma radiation in a TNT explosion, and in a completely DET weapon (such as TL are claimed to be), there shouldn't be either...

 

 

 

 

 

Explosions and cratering have many variables. Loose sand on Iwo jima protected marines from near direct hits by mortars while marines a few feet away in packed wet sand werent so lucky

 

 

 

Right, because mortars can be dialed up to 0.2 Kilotons...

 

I bet loose sand would protect many people a few feet away from that blast...

 

Bottom line is, it would still have improved the odds in favor of the Republic...

 

 

 

When dealing with visual sci-fi this is always an option

 

 

 

 

Or when facing the impossible task of demonstrating how the weapons used in a franchise aren't as powerful as some would like them to be, then it becomes an optional explanation...

 

 

 

Not necessarily. No one in SW has 100% accuracy, 1 stray shot and there went the reason for your rescue mission

 

 

 

You'd have to be a very, very bad shot to miss your target and hit one many kilometers away, but even that excuse isn't valid as weapons dialed 10 times the power shown (if they could have been) would still have had increased the odds in their favor on the ground assault...

 

 

 

Science is lost on the simple minded

 

 

 

 

Then please, enlighten me...

 

From my "simple-minded" understanding of words, there seems to be a great difference between being "vaporized" and simply "craterized", the biggest one being the energy required to do either one.

 

If I missed something, please, by all means, tell me, and let understanding's light be my guide into intelligence...

 

 

 

 

 

Well just means they almost as good as photon torpedoes, MJ(ST5)- megatons,maybe? thats like 1000000%

 

 

 

The fun part is, we know for fact that Photon torpedoes are variable yield weapons.

 

We know they need to be armed.

 

The E-A's crew knew their Captain was close by.

 

We know they had the possibility to fire an "unarmed" Photorp casing, using it as a kind of simple "kinetic impacter", which, at the speed at which it impacted, could account for the "small" explosion seen...

[InvaderSkooj 1]

If you're talking about the power of the LAAT's weapons, last time I had checked its missiles were rated in the Kilotons.

 

But perhaps I was wrong.

 

If someone has the AotC ICS and can give us the LAAT's weapon power, that would help us.

 

 

 

If you mean any explosive with a yield of 1 Kiloton emits radiation, then you are right, as heat is radiation.

 

I guess I wasn't clear enough:

 

Chemical explosives, or even energy weapons, would not create radioactive material after and explosion, and would not turn the target of such explosions in new "Tchernobyls" or "Hiroshimas"...

 

There is no gamma radiation in a TNT explosion, and in a completely DET weapon (such as TL are claimed to be), there shouldn't be either...

MAX yield was the important part, nowhere were they described as using max yield and ICS clearly label most the weapons maximum yield, not the standard or lowest possible yield

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, because mortars can be dialed up to 0.2 Kilotons...

 

I bet loose sand would protect many people a few feet away from that blast...

 

Bottom line is, it would still have improved the odds in favor of the Republic...

Or cause excessive collateral damage, and potentially jeopardize the mission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or when facing the impossible task of demonstrating how the weapons used in a franchise aren't as powerful as some would like them to be, then it becomes an optional explanation...

Applies just as much to ST, with MW-GW phasers unable to penetrate, plastic crates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You'd have to be a very, very bad shot to miss your target and hit one many kilometers away, but even that excuse isn't valid as weapons dialed 10 times the power shown (if they could have been) would still have had increased the odds in their favor on the ground assault...

Still have large area of effect, with potential catastrophic implications, and given that SW blasters and TL ignore gravity, not hard to shoot a couple cm too high and hit something Km behind your target

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then please, enlighten me...

 

From my "simple-minded" understanding of words, there seems to be a great difference between being "vaporized" and simply "craterized", the biggest one being the energy required to do either one.

 

If I missed something, please, by all means, tell me, and let understanding's light be my guide into intelligence...

I would try to explain how dumping an excessive amount of energy on a single spot would explosively disrupt the whole, and how surface impact are less efficient than the centrally buried explosive the ADC uses to derive it yield. But you have shown you are incapable of comprehending anything but the most basic concepts, the most simple underlying mechanisms is clearly beyond your grasp. Thus based on this and your insistence to scale fireballs in space as they would in an atmosphere, my simplistic explanation is still lightyears beyond your comprehension most likely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fun part is, we know for fact that Photon torpedoes are variable yield weapons.

 

We know they need to be armed.

 

The E-A's crew knew their Captain was close by.

 

We know they had the possibility to fire an "unarmed" Photorp casing, using it as a kind of simple "kinetic impacter", which, at the speed at which it impacted, could account for the "small" explosion seen...

 

The funny thing is a small rock dropped from orbit would cause a bigger boom assuming it could magically survive reentry to hit the ground in a single piece. (a 2kg rock dropped from 5000km would impact with almost 100MJ)

[Praeothmin 532]

MAX yield was the important part, nowhere were they described as using max yield and ICS clearly label most the weapons maximum yield, not the standard or lowest possible yield

 

 

 

And what I keep saying is that even when a small fraction of that maximum yield would have been practical, they still didn't use it, which is probably because they do not have it...

 

 

 

 

 

Or cause excessive collateral damage, and potentially jeopardize the mission

 

 

 

 

You can try to evade the simple fact that dialing up their weapons at even 10 times the displayed yields would have been useful all you want, the facts remain they didn't use higher yields, even when it would have been useful.

 

The Americans in Vietnam didn't mind carpet bombing with Napalm even when their troops were near by if sacrificing a few meant saving a lot.

 

10 times the displayed yields would have been very useful in getting rid of those "missile" droids pretty quickly, in the first instances of the fight, when the two armies were very distant from one another.

 

10 times the displayed yields would not have caused much collateral damage, at least definitely not as much as shooting down one of the Separatists' Sphere and letting it crash down did...

 

 

 

 

 

Applies just as much to ST, with MW-GW phasers unable to penetrate, plastic crates

 

 

 

Except that with phasers, we have numerous instances of them blowing up rocks (TNG: Hide and Q, ST: Insurrection), melt highly heat-resistant alloys (TNG: The resistance Factor), so we have two logical conclusions we can come to in the crates' incident: Either the phasers were on very low settings, or the crates were made of resistant material.

 

Unlike you, we do not have to make up bad, and illogical excuses in order to keep up some illusions on Phasers power, because we've seen what they can do...

 

 

 

 

 

Still have large area of effect, with potential catastrophic implications, and given that SW blasters and TL ignore gravity, not hard to shoot a couple cm too high and hit something Km behind your target

 

 

 

And still, with all the possibilities of collateral damage, they shoot down those Separatist Spheres and let them crash down, where the Kinetic impact of their small drop could have caused a lot more collateral damage then weapons fire at only 10 times the displayed yield...

 

Yeah, your arguments make so much sense...

 

 

 

 

 

I would try to explain how dumping an excessive amount of energy on a single spot would explosively disrupt the whole, and how surface impact are less efficient than the centrally buried explosive the ADC uses to derive it yield. But you have shown you are incapable of comprehending anything but the most basic concepts, the most simple underlying mechanisms is clearly beyond your grasp. Thus based on this and your insistence to scale fireballs in space as they would in an atmosphere, my simplistic explanation is still lightyears beyond your comprehension most likely

 

 

 

Which is similar to the difference between blowing up a stick of dynamite on the ground, where most of the explosive force will expand in the direction of the least resistance, and burying the same stick of dynamite in the ground, and blowing it up.

 

The second crater will be bigger.

 

Yet there's an order of magnitude of difference between you're fantasy yields, and the necessary power needed to craterize asteroids (most likely loose rubble) with surface shots who, I might add, were very numerous, and in very short succession, so there's a very real possibility of the repeated hits having their effects add up, some of them even going deeper in cracks made by previous shots, thus easing the fragmentation process...

 

Yeah, I'm the one who's got problem grasping concepts, and yet you're the one who can't even see the difference in magnitude between your wank Firepower and the effects that were seen...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The funny thing is a small rock dropped from orbit would cause a bigger boom assuming it could magically survive reentry to hit the ground in a single piece. (a 2kg rock dropped from 5000km would impact with almost 100MJ)

 

 

 

Funny how I have problems grasping simple concepts, and yet your calculation strangely "forgets" that air resistance would actually slow down the rock to a point where it couldn't go fast enough to actually deliver the 100MJ at impact...

 

And what's funnier is how the unattainable 100MJ barely adds up to 23kg of TNT...

 

Wow, am I happy you've enlightened me, thanks...

 

 

 

And, btw, an unarmed Photorp masses at around 248kg, so it would impact at 12.152GJ, which is barely an unattainable 2 tons of TNT...

 

 

 

 

[InvaderSkooj 1]

And what I keep saying is that even when a small fraction of that maximum yield would have been practical, they still didn't use it, which is probably because they do not have it...

And I could say the same applies to trek

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can try to evade the simple fact that dialing up their weapons at even 10 times the displayed yields would have been useful all you want, the facts remain they didn't use higher yields, even when it would have been useful.

 

The Americans in Vietnam didn't mind carpet bombing with Napalm even when their troops were near by if sacrificing a few meant saving a lot.

 

10 times the displayed yields would have been very useful in getting rid of those "missile" droids pretty quickly, in the first instances of the fight, when the two armies were very distant from one another.

 

10 times the displayed yields would not have caused much collateral damage, at least definitely not as much as shooting down one of the Separatists' Sphere and letting it crash down did...

We can do this all day long, still no evidence they were firing at max yield, and RL air support is usually limited to hundreds of meters from your own troops depending on what they're dropping{not 2000lb. bombs} as so not to kill them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except that with phasers, we have numerous instances of them blowing up rocks (TNG: Hide and Q, ST: Insurrection), melt highly heat-resistant alloys (TNG: The resistance Factor), so we have two logical conclusions we can come to in the crates' incident: Either the phasers were on very low settings, or the crates were made of resistant material.

 

Unlike you, we do not have to make up bad, and illogical excuses in order to keep up some illusions on Phasers power, because we've seen what they can do...

Except when such yields would have been useful in combat, it works both ways here.

 

 

 

We can sit here forever, and point out low-showings, and make excuses why they didnt fire at full power when it would have been useful

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And still, with all the possibilities of collateral damage, they shoot down those Separatist Spheres and let them crash down, where the Kinetic impact of their small drop could have caused a lot more collateral damage then weapons fire at only 10 times the displayed yield...

 

Yeah, your arguments make so much sense...

I doubt the holes in the ground they came from, had republic troops in them. And their explosions were non nuclear in yield, And dont get me started on the number of times higher yield in trek would have been useful

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is similar to the difference between blowing up a stick of dynamite on the ground, where most of the explosive force will expand in the direction of the least resistance, and burying the same stick of dynamite in the ground, and blowing it up.

 

The second crater will be bigger.

 

Yet there's an order of magnitude of difference between you're fantasy yields, and the necessary power needed to craterize asteroids (most likely loose rubble) with surface shots who, I might add, were very numerous, and in very short succession, so there's a very real possibility of the repeated hits having their effects add up, some of them even going deeper in cracks made by previous shots, thus easing the fragmentation process...

 

Yeah, I'm the one who's got problem grasping concepts, and yet you're the one who can't even see the difference in magnitude between your wank Firepower and the effects that were seen...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny how I have problems grasping simple concepts, and yet your calculation strangely "forgets" that air resistance would actually slow down the rock to a point where it couldn't go fast enough to actually deliver the 100MJ at impact...

 

And what's funnier is how the unattainable 100MJ barely adds up to 23kg of TNT...

 

Wow, am I happy you've enlightened me, thanks...

Note I said magically make it to the ground, cant use technical terms they might go over your head

 

Air resistance would slow something that small so much the friction would melt and vaporize it long before it hit the ground

 

 

 

And, btw, an unarmed Photorp masses at around 248kg, so it would impact at 12.152GJ, which is barely an unattainable 2 tons of TNT...

 

 

 

 

 

And yet the explosion and damage was nowhere near that level, damn mass lightening

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AND with that I grow tired defending ICS Its just as canon as darksaber, TDiC, or ST5. And I dont feel like digging through novels to demonstrate ICS compatible shit

[Praeothmin 532]

And I could say the same applies to trek

 

 

 

We could, except Trek has actually shown numerous times, onscreen, the kind of firepower that we attribute to it, especially in the hand weapon department...

 

 

 

 

 

We can do this all day long, still no evidence they were firing at max yield, and RL air support is usually limited to hundreds of meters from your own troops depending on what they're dropping{not 2000lb. bombs} as so not to kill them

 

 

 

 

And no logical or practical evidence they were firing at one thousanth of their maximum yield.

 

And you fail, yet again, to show how firing weapons at only 10 times the displayed power would have been detrimental to the troops, instead of helpful.

 

You fail because the reason for this is that they don't have the firepower stated in the ICS.

 

Pretty simple actually.

 

 

 

 

 

Except when such yields would have been useful in combat, it works both ways here.

 

 

 

We can sit here forever, and point out low-showings, and make excuses why they didnt fire at full power when it would have been useful

 

 

 

 

I agree, it goes both ways.

 

Oh, except that in many cases, in ST, they did indeed dial their weapons' yields up when needed, such as in TNG: Hide and Q, ST: Insurrection, and also in TNG: The resistance Factor, to name a few.

 

When did we see such thing in SW again?

 

Oh yeah, never...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt the holes in the ground they came from, had republic troops in them. And their explosions were non nuclear in yield, And dont get me started on the number of times higher yield in trek would have been useful

 

 

 

 

The explosions of TL cannons, of even the Republic Gunships' missiles, aren't nuclear either, and again, shooting at the enemy with a firepower of only 1 ton of TNT would have greatly helped them minimize their losses...

 

If only they had had them... Which they don't...

 

 

 

 

 

Note I said magically make it to the ground, cant use technical terms they might go over your head

 

Air resistance would slow something that small so much the friction would melt and vaporize it long before it hit the ground

 

And yet the explosion and damage was nowhere near that level, damn mass lightening

 

 

 

 

And yet you tried to bring that example in to dispute the damage done by the Torpedo impacting on the ground.

 

and even if it had magically gone through, it still would never have ad that power, because it could never have gottent the speed necessary to have that power.

 

And of course the torpedo never had that power (which is why I said "unattainable"), because again the air friction would have slowed it down to a maximum speed of what, about 135 mph, but since you didn't seem to remember air friction in your example, I didn't want to make things too complicated for you.

 

Wow, lucky thing I'm the one with comprehension issues...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AND with that I grow tired defending ICS Its just as canon as darksaber, TDiC, or ST5. And I dont feel like digging through novels to demonstrate ICS compatible shit

 

 

 

 

Nope, the ICS is C canon, while TDiC and ST5 are both film and TV canon, which in SW would be equivalent to G-canon.

 

And again, you're the one who seems to fail at basic understanding.

 

Concession accepted...

[Tyralak 12,068]

Nope, the ICS is C canon, while TDiC and ST5 are both film and TV canon, which in SW would be equivalent to G-canon.

 

And again, you're the one who seems to fail at basic understanding.

 

Concession accepted...

 

 

 

Precisely. The Clone Wars movie and TV show are above the ICS as well. It really is far down on the totem pole as far as canon goes.

[enigma 521]

Precisely. The Clone Wars movie and TV show are above the ICS as well. It really is far down on the totem pole as far as canon goes.

 

 

 

Except as long is it doesn't explicitly isn't contradicted by the higher levels of canon, books and the ICS are just as important as the movies while nothing but the ST T.V. and movies are canon.

[Tyralak 12,068]

Except as long is it doesn't explicitly isn't contradicted by the higher levels of canon, books and the ICS are just as important as the movies while nothing but the ST T.V. and movies are canon.

 

 

 

The ICS is proving to be less reliable, as more and more of it is contradicted. Also, you're mostly right about the Trek canon. However, two books and one TAS episode are also canon.

[enigma 521]

The ICS is proving to be less reliable, as more and more of it is contradicted. Also, you're mostly right about the Trek canon. However, two books and one TAS episode are also canon.

 

 

 

Don't know about that. I think in the past couple of years, even those have been dropped.

[Praeothmin 532]

Except as long is it doesn't explicitly isn't contradicted by the higher levels of canon, books and the ICS are just as important as the movies while nothing but the ST T.V. and movies are canon.

 

 

 

 

 

Except that we've seen the movies contradict the ICS, and now the Clone Wars series contradicts the ICS big time as well...

 

 

 

Don't know about that. I think in the past couple of years, even those have been dropped

 

 

 

From what I'd heard, only parts of the books and parts of the TAS episode were considered canon, all of them.

[Mith 0]

Incorrect. Read my post about ion storms. Same thing except ion cannons are just weaponised ions. lol

 

 

 

The least it would do is make it difficult for the ship to travel and the worst it could do is destroy the ship. Even the Borg are not immune.

 

 

 

The problem is that with your presumption, is that you assume that the Ion Cannons have enough firepower to overwhelm a Federation starship. In order for you to come up with a good argument, we need to know how powerful ion storms are and how powerful ISD ion cannons are. You can't simply point to two things whose levels of power we don't know and say that it must mean Trek ships are vernable to it.

 

 

 

So, if you can quantify the Ion Cannons--or at least the ships they can take out with their weapons and then quantify the power that is sent into the Starships of these ion storms, then you can compare them. If you cannot, then your argument is rather baseless.