40K firepower analysis 1 (pdf)

VS debates involving other fictional universes than Star Trek or Star Wars go here, along with technical analysis, detailed discussion, crossover scenario descriptions, and similar related stuffs.
User avatar
WhiteLion
Padawan
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:16 am

Re: 40K firepower analysis 1 (pdf)

Post by WhiteLion » Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:24 pm

Thank you very much for the clemency towards my English :). Speeches like Star Wars versus Star Trek or 40k I never do because they are very speculators, too many variables, such a discourse never leads to any real conclusion, we always end up exaggerating, we can only do an idea but this does not it is never conclusive.
The speech that I did instead I tried to base it on objective data, available to anyone reading the various books, if you are interested I can report precise quotations. In my opinion the only sensible discourse regarding possible comparisons between different scifi series can be made only by having numbers, for example comparing the power of the weapons, the resistance of the shields and the number of deployable ships. For example in ICS a data was published concerning the power of turbolasers which stood at 200 gigatons, this in my opinion put SW almost on a par with firepower, because if it is true that macrocannons and heavy spears can be adjusted up to scaling petaton is also true that a super or mega star destroyer compensates for the power gap with a huge number of turbolaser turrets. Then I read that ICS was declared non-canon and from then on I think any comparison is useless, as it does not have objective and cononic data.

But we must consider that the 40 weapons are adjustable in power, at maximum power a heavy lance can destroy a planet, for example the planet of ours exploded concurring only the spear fire

----------Update------------------
Sorry, the post is wrong, when I wrote the post I didn't know that the CS is no longer canon and that since then the turbolasers for canon have become much less powerful than 200 Gigaton, even if I still haven't read how much power they have I think anyway fall within the megatons scale)

User avatar
Mith
Starship Captain
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:17 am

Re: 40K firepower analysis 1 (pdf)

Post by Mith » Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:34 am

General Donner wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:17 am
*On city-destroying weapons, I think it should be noted that a timeframe is not usually specified. Nothing is said to indicate that only single shots are intended. Indeed, some books (such as Execution Hour) specifically say otherwise: there, it's mentioned that a cruiser's batteries can "raze whole cities with sustained orbital bombardments" (emphasis added). This would seem to indicate lower numbers than megatons or gigatons, as obviously even a single salvo of many such weapons would leave the city little more than a crater.
When we discuss city-destroying weapons, I think we should be careful to define our terms.

First, cities are not necessarily as we think of them when we use the term city. Places like New York City, London, or Tokyo are in fact megacities. They are technically cities, but they are on the very large end of the scale. So much so that a new term was invented to describe them. On the other hand, a city can be much, much smaller. For example, if one were to look at a smaller city like St. Davids, in the UK. A 10 kiloton bomb would effortlessly wipe the small town off the map:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt ... 0,35&zm=13

Madison, WI is another city:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt ... 0,35&zm=11

10 kilotons won't take out Madison, but a 1 megaton bomb will effortlessly take out Madison and shake up some towns just outside of Madison.

Second, the term destroyed is rather vague. Lots of cities were destroyed in WWI and WWII and they didn't require a great deal of firepower. In fact, the sort of weapons exchanged weren't even in the range of battleship cannons in most instances. We're talking tank fire, artillery, and so forth. Especially when you consider that there is a great deal of things within a city that are combustible that will add to the damage. It's not all modern concrete and glass skylines. Indeed, there are a great deal many of many cities with above-ground power lines, telephone poles, and old wooden structures that would absolutely contribute to a massive firestorm. Anyone can look at the past week of California burning to the ground to understand just how much damage an out of control firestorm can do to modern cities.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: 40K firepower analysis 1 (pdf)

Post by sonofccn » Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:06 am

Mith wrote:
Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:34 am
General Donner wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:17 am
*On city-destroying weapons, I think it should be noted that a timeframe is not usually specified. Nothing is said to indicate that only single shots are intended. Indeed, some books (such as Execution Hour) specifically say otherwise: there, it's mentioned that a cruiser's batteries can "raze whole cities with sustained orbital bombardments" (emphasis added). This would seem to indicate lower numbers than megatons or gigatons, as obviously even a single salvo of many such weapons would leave the city little more than a crater.
When we discuss city-destroying weapons, I think we should be careful to define our terms.

First, cities are not necessarily as we think of them when we use the term city. Places like New York City, London, or Tokyo are in fact megacities. They are technically cities, but they are on the very large end of the scale. So much so that a new term was invented to describe them. On the other hand, a city can be much, much smaller. For example, if one were to look at a smaller city like St. Davids, in the UK. A 10 kiloton bomb would effortlessly wipe the small town off the map:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt ... 0,35&zm=13

Madison, WI is another city:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt ... 0,35&zm=11

10 kilotons won't take out Madison, but a 1 megaton bomb will effortlessly take out Madison and shake up some towns just outside of Madison.

Second, the term destroyed is rather vague. Lots of cities were destroyed in WWI and WWII and they didn't require a great deal of firepower. In fact, the sort of weapons exchanged weren't even in the range of battleship cannons in most instances. We're talking tank fire, artillery, and so forth. Especially when you consider that there is a great deal of things within a city that are combustible that will add to the damage. It's not all modern concrete and glass skylines. Indeed, there are a great deal many of many cities with above-ground power lines, telephone poles, and old wooden structures that would absolutely contribute to a massive firestorm. Anyone can look at the past week of California burning to the ground to understand just how much damage an out of control firestorm can do to modern cities.
Neat. Knew places like New York or London were "big cities" but didn't really know we had to invent new terms to describe them. Through I suppose that does make sense.

And totally second you on the vulnerable infrastructure and city combustibles. Honestly in these kind of debates I'm always surprised how everyone acts like secondary effects aren't a thing.

Post Reply