The 1.5 megaton myth

[Praeothmin]

Additionally, asteroids. For example, some of them, which were clearly scalable by being in the same screen as the Falcon, are being vaporized by areas in which there don't even exist turbolasers (so presumably from point defense laser cannons) and output megatons.

What asteroids are you talking about? None of the asteroids you claim exist before getting hit are being shot down. This was made plain and simple in an earlier page in this very thread, which I linked to a video clip of the Falcon being chased down by ISD Avenger, and you were specifically asked to point out the alleged asteroids being vaporized, to which you failed to reply.

It was very obvious and several participants even commented on this.
-Mike

Wouldn't that be considered dishonest debating, since he keeps ignoring evidence that he asteroids were self-exploding, that there were flak shots where no asteroids were, etc...
All stuff he keeps willfully ignoring, even though people keep repeating it?

[StarWarsStarTrek]

What do you think you have demonstrated? My point still stands. There's zero mention of the hit rate. We're only given one information, of range. In fact, I'm being generous in claiming effective range. Others would exactly tab that as mere maximum range (meaning the effective range is shorter).

(me)
You disputed "hundreds of kilometers" as effective range.

When?

(you)

It just says they exchanged fire. There's no indication of the hit rate, i.e., the effective range.

(you)

I suppose that by now, after having read that last post of mine, you better understand my position. I'm not denying stated maximum range. I'm disputing treating it as some particularly effective range, otherwise getting closer to ISDs would have changed nothing for the Rebels.

Stop lying to cover up your tracks.

As I will elaborate on later, this is not the only lie. You have decided to completely inflate SW accuracy and range capabilities just so that you can deflate firepower, and then will proceed to deny SW the accuracy and range capabilities you conceded to it in any other thread.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Additionally, asteroids. For example, some of them, which were clearly scalable by being in the same screen as the Falcon, are being vaporized by areas in which there don't even exist turbolasers (so presumably from point defense laser cannons) and output megatons.

What asteroids are you talking about? None of the asteroids you claim exist before getting hit are being shot down. This was made plain and simple in an earlier page in this very thread, which I linked to a video clip of the Falcon being chased down by ISD Avenger, and you were specifically asked to point out the alleged asteroids being vaporized, to which you failed to reply.

It was very obvious and several participants even commented on this.
-Mike

Wouldn't that be considered dishonest debating, since he keeps ignoring evidence that he asteroids were self-exploding, that there were flak shots where no asteroids were, etc...
All stuff he keeps willfully ignoring, even though people keep repeating it?

The fuck? I've responded to that argument many times in the past. How do you know how large the asteroids were? Do you have a point of reference? If you don't know how large they were then how do you know how fast they were moving? How does this override the fact that metallic tie fighters made no dents in the asteroids upon collision?

[Mr. Oragahn]

What do you think you have demonstrated? My point still stands. There's zero mention of the hit rate. We're only given one information, of range. In fact, I'm being generous in claiming effective range. Others would exactly tab that as mere maximum range (meaning the effective range is shorter).

(me)
You disputed "hundreds of kilometers" as effective range.

When?

(you)

It just says they exchanged fire. There's no indication of the hit rate, i.e., the effective range.

(you)

I suppose that by now, after having read that last post of mine, you better understand my position. I'm not denying stated maximum range. I'm disputing treating it as some particularly effective range, otherwise getting closer to ISDs would have changed nothing for the Rebels.

Stop lying to cover up your tracks.

As I will elaborate on later, this is not the only lie. You have decided to completely inflate SW accuracy and range capabilities just so that you can deflate firepower, and then will proceed to deny SW the accuracy and range capabilities you conceded to it in any other thread.

Let's see what the last quote looks like when you don't bold the same words.

(you)

I suppose that by now, after having read that last post of mine, you better understand my position. I'm not denying stated maximum range. I'm disputing treating it as some particularly effective range, otherwise getting closer to ISDs would have changed nothing for the Rebels.

See? There are degrees of effective range, as it's defined by ratios of hits and misses.
To be able to conduct bombardment operations in low orbit, star destroyers would still need to be able of some reliable effective ranges around 200-300 km. Member have posted, over time, several scans of destroyers firing at planets, causing small damage, but being very accurate nonetheless.
It goes without saying that effective range against mobile targets and effective ranges against structures stuck on a planet are bound to vary, of course.

[Picard]

@SWST

You ignored last 1-2 of my posts in this thread. At least you could have said "I'll respond later".

[Mike DiCenso]

The fuck? I've responded to that argument many times in the past. How do you know how large the asteroids were? Do you have a point of reference? If you don't know how large they were then how do you know how fast they were moving? How does this override the fact that metallic tie fighters made no dents in the asteroids upon collision?

No, you haven't. We have the footage I referenced, which gives us plenty of visual evidence to work from. Your denials of that actual canon footage shows that you are unwilling to acknowledge basic evidence when presented to you.

You know, it's funny how easy it was for me to take about 15 minutes or so before going to sleep to check up on this sort of thing. It's also funny how many other people could do something similar, and yet you can't?

Furthermore, this adds up to evidence, abeit older evidence that you habitually ignore that which you do not like. The clip from TESB shows that the Falcon and Avenger flying briefly past just three visible asteroids at the edge of the field (per character dialog and shown in the FX). None of those asteroids that can be seen are hit by Avenger's TLs. Those are just big sparkly flack bursts. Same thing a bit later on when the Falcon's hyperdrive fails a second time, and we have a much closer in view so no chance of missing anything. This is backed up in the earlier part of this thread by referencing RoTS and ANH flak. All of which keeps in line with George Lucas' concept of a recurring World World II motif for most of the space battles in Star Wars.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

@SWST

You ignored last 1-2 of my posts in this thread. At least you could have said "I'll respond later".

I'll respond later. :)

Sorry, but responding to Mr. O's posts alone take up too much time. Do not worry, I hath not forsaken thou. Some of your arguments may have overlapped with his as well.

@Mike:

The theory that they are flak bursts simply does not hold water. Why are the bursts blue when they are coming from green turbolasers? Why are these space detonated bursts magically contained in a spherical shape?

[Picard]

Thanks. But try and keep in mind that for future when replying - I doubt I'll start writing down walls of text again, given my relative lack of time, so I like to know that you didn't miss them.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Until you provide proof that there's any special tech there, what we're left with is people clearly living in the upper levels and not having problems to breathe.
Tell me one thing. How high above see level do you think those rooftops are?

Kilometers? Ie nowhere near the "surface" in any way, and above most light pollution and cloud coverings.

HAHAHAHAHALOLOLOL

Hey fucker. Do you know how far up a planet's atmosphere extends, by chance?
That's twice comical.

I am well aware of the size of the Earth's atmosphere. But since starfighters are clearly visible at whatever height these citizens are looking from, the idea that light turbolasers are visible as well is hardly absurd.

As I said, we see what is easily identified as heavy turbolasers (or even very heavy TLs in the case of the Munificents' prow guns) being used.

I was not requesting that you restate your position as "obvious" or a fact. Prove to me that the turbolasers can be "easily" identified as heavy turbolasers instead of dancing haplessly around the point.

And obviously not all ships were drained since we saw a CIS battleship's unique shields flare up on contact from enemy fire.
That said, in general shields don't show up at all, save for a few ones (like the thermal shields from TCWS used on one of the CIS new ships I think).

So then you cannot prove that the large majority of the ships still had shields up. The fact that sub kiloton flak cannons were penetrating the Invisible Hand's hull clearly indicates otherwise.

Aside from the fact that in the movie, you can barely see the bolts.

Your opinion. You've read the quote several times by now, stop ignoring key sections of it, such as the fact that starfighters are still visible from Coruscant's rooftops.

Because those were the same and unique guns only seen firing? Because in fact most of the fire (>99%) clearly came from one ship? Because that Nubian ship has no reason to be a shitty tincan, considering the people it transports? Because the ship wasn't slow at all (even Dooku, running for his life, wasn't considerably faster, considering how he sailed past coreships docking with their rings)?

Why trying so hard to deny the fact that those truly immense quad cannons were capable to harm the Nubian ship as much as they could actually track and destroy N-1s?
Perhaps it's time you stop refering to that monolithic EU sorting of weapon calibers and pay more attention to higher canon material.

How the fuck does this refute anything? Yes, the cannons were firing at the ship. Yes, out of several dozen attempts, a few shots hit the ship. Yes, you could tell that the cannons rotated slow as hell, clearly indicating that they were not designed to hit even a slow moving ceremonial ship.

Now please explain to me how admitting that a non combat starfighter being able to take multiple small town vaporizing hits supports your position to the slightest degree.

Aside from the droids obviously not destroyed by yields similar to Ivy Mike you mean?

Oh yes, because obviously a starfighter designed for air shows and hand crafted by artisans would have its laser cannons dialed up to full in a hanger within a populated city while at the same time being unlocked and unprotected so that a 10 year old kid can enter it.

Um, no, because I also considered that these cannons could dial their firepower down.

1. Pointless conjecture.

2. If you argue that they would dial down their yield to fire at starfighters, wouldn't this lead to the conclusion that the HTL's (allegedly speaking) dialed down their yield to fight the fighters at Coruscant for the same reason? That "vaporize a small town" firepower is the firepower used to track starfighters?

You don't see N-1s being instantly flash-boiled when hit as they dive towards the DCS at the end of the movie.

All this does is show how impressive their armor and shields are. It does not dictate the very much known quantity of firepower.

I'm simply not seeing whatever point of importance you're trying to make. If your guns are simply and TOTALLY inadequate, you won't use them. You won't see a WWII battleship using its heavy bores to take down zero fighters for example, even if said fighters kept flying just above the oceans' surface.

Because your analogy is too extreme. Zero fighters flew in a completely different medium compared to ships, and heavy bores fired in ballistic arcs that were completely ineffectual against fighters.

Heavy guns in TPM were fired at two different types of targets simply because they are that versatile.

So you admit that heavy guns can reliably hit starfighters?

None of the VIP Nubian ships were warships; that didn't prevent Saxton from slapping them with petawatt of shielding when he could. Damn, you don't even know your holy piss bible enough. What a sad state of affairs, really.

This is absolutely irrelevant. "this is not a warship" is referring to the relative capabilities of the Queen's ship and, say a shielded headhunter several times faster and more maneuverable, and being flown by skilled pilots.

So you can't read. I said 100s for max effective range, and with rapidly decreasing hit rates. The battle of ROTJ doesn't lie.

Once more, you lie.

The quad cannons could hit both N-1s and a 78 meters long yacht, and that at a distance of +100 km. See for more info.

You claim that quad cannons can hit N-1 starfighters and yachts at a distance of 100+ km's. If they can hit starfighters at 100+ km, to claim that their effective range for giant, lumbering capital ships is the exact same is ridiculous.

I didn't say 200 km.
I'm actually leaving myself enough room for it to be about 100s of km.

Yes, I know. You've completely changed your position from earlier to suit the specific arguments of this debate. You make up bullshit stances and change them every fucking time. When we discuss accuracy, you downplay accuracy by inflating everything else. When we discuss firepower like now, you downplay it by inflating everything else.

Not starfighters.

If you're going to lie and backtrack, why don't you display the intelligence to at least edit your posts so that you can cover up your lying ass?

The quad cannons could hit both N-1s and a 78 meters long yacht, and that at a distance of +100 km. See for more info.

^a starfighter.

She wasn't hit again. Only buffeted by nearby flaking bolts.

Right, yet her shield generator withstood several town vaporizing shots.

Not necessarily. Vaporizing a small town can happen with a couple dozen terajoules tops. Remember Hiroshima. Mos Espa was already several kilometers long, but it's always described as a city, not a small town.

Darkstar's calculations are 1.5 megatons. You are defending him by arguing against my stance in this thread. Now please, go ahead and suddenly change your figure when you realize how silly and ridiculous it is.

But even if it only happens with a "few dozen terajoules" (why you use the word "tops", which implies an upper limit, is beyond me), that means that a non combat yacht can still take kilotons of damage at the very least before its shields go down.

Already addressed earlier on in my post.
Cannons can be dialed.
They seem to be at least smart enough to use what's about good enough to take down a target based on its volume and, therefore, expected shielding capacity.

Why dial the yield? They have no fear of wasting energy, since they're not in combat. It isn't to get better accuracy or rotation speed because neither improve at all.

Because you can't keep an eye on the road, I'll remind you that this whole topic that's been going on was about discussing fighter tracking and weapon calibers.

But accuracy and range are completely relevant, as you are using them in your arguments. You are adjusting your statistics on SW accuracy in every thread to suit each argument.

If they have nothing better to do but are absolutely worthless, no one uses them. That's why you won't see people firing their berettas at the hulls of merkava tanks.

Berettas can never conceivably damage a tank from the exterior. Heavy turbolasers and quad turbolasers can still hit a yacht moving in a predictable line. Your analogy is silly.

Moreso, all you have established is that ceremonial yachts that you stated to be not that much larger than a starfighter can take multiple town vaporizing shots.

What do you think you have demonstrated? My point still stands. There's zero mention of the hit rate. We're only given one information, of range. In fact, I'm being generous in claiming effective range. Others would exactly tab that as mere maximum range (meaning the effective range is shorter).

See other post. You didn't claim effective range until now. Earlier, you denied that effective range was hundreds of kilometers because it did not suit you.

Sort of like how you stated that you saw no problem with Traviss equating durasteel to rubber, denied seeing no problem with it, and then promptly deleted the section from your response.

Did you know that in the vaaaast majority of cases, you don't see shields doing anything when hit, always remaining invisible?

Wrong. You see effects in the movies. Done.

Because they can? Because it can happen that the closest danger to a ship isn't some distant enemy cruiser already locked into a battle with another comrade warship, but that fast approaching squadron of fighters and bombers?

Fighters & Capital ships in the films

This makes no fucking sense at all. What made you think that the enemy cruisers were "distant"? Yes, they were distant as in hundreds of kilometers away, but the novel clearly describes ships routinely being swallowed whole by turbolaser bolts. Nowhere does it mention ships being swallowed by proton torpedos. The enemy capital ships are not only more capable of hurting you, they're a more efficient use of the energy intensive heavy turbolasers.

And the ICS's.

Contradicted. So why should I care?
It's quite fantastic that you think you can still convince me by citing the only one source that gives stupid amounts of firepower -the kind that can burn the entirety of Washington DC by accident- to point defense guns, in opposition to the vast majority that doesn't even dare going beyond attributing that kind of firepower or even less to HTLs.

[/quote]

I find it hilarious that you feel a galactic civilization harnessing enough power to blow up DC by accident is "stupid", but fighting a galactic war with four million soldiers is "fact".

[Picard]

You misread him. He was saying that it was stupid for point defence guns - Star Wars equivalent of 20 mm Oerlikon from WW2, except for the fact that SW guns are mostly single-shot - to have firepower to wipe out a city (which is what Saxton and co. give them).

ISD can easily wipe out New York with few shots. But not by using its PD guns.

[Mike DiCenso]

The theory that they are flak bursts simply does not hold water. Why are the bursts blue when they are coming from green turbolasers? Why are these space detonated bursts magically contained in a spherical shape?

I note that you are again ignoring multiple instances of similar flak bursts throught the Trilogies, as mentioned before, and now those seen in the atmosphere in the TCW episodes.

See here's the thing of it. You ignore the stated context of a situation. The Falcon and Avenger were exiting the asteroid field. At the moment prior, the field has clearly thinned out into just three or so asteroids. Han attempts another hyperjump because they are clear of the field, but it fails. He does not turn around and try to hide back inside it, but instead we see the Falcon go through a bunch of evasive maneuvers. All during that time we have a good close up of the Falcon dodging and weaving the TL bolts with flak going off around it.

Now, point out to me where those asteroids are before the TL bolts hit them. It's really simple and anything else on your part will be added to your list of dishonesty. No, go on. Give us some timestamps in the video. Really, go on.
-Mike

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Feel free to show me a definite example of turbolaser flak (that is magically contained in a magical bubble in space for absolutely no reason) from a green bolt that is blue.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The fuck? I've responded to that argument many times in the past. How do you know how large the asteroids were? Do you have a point of reference? If you don't know how large they were then how do you know how fast they were moving? How does this override the fact that metallic tie fighters made no dents in the asteroids upon collision?

No, you haven't. We have the footage I referenced, which gives us plenty of visual evidence to work from. Your denials of that actual canon footage shows that you are unwilling to acknowledge basic evidence when presented to you.

You know, it's funny how easy it was for me to take about 15 minutes or so before going to sleep to check up on this sort of thing. It's also funny how many other people could do something similar, and yet you can't?

Furthermore, this adds up to evidence, abeit older evidence that you habitually ignore that which you do not like. The clip from TESB shows that the Falcon and Avenger flying briefly past just three visible asteroids at the edge of the field (per character dialog and shown in the FX). None of those asteroids that can be seen are hit by Avenger's TLs. Those are just big sparkly flack bursts. Same thing a bit later on when the Falcon's hyperdrive fails a second time, and we have a much closer in view so no chance of missing anything. This is backed up in the earlier part of this thread by referencing RoTS and ANH flak. All of which keeps in line with George Lucas' concept of a recurring World World II motif for most of the space battles in Star Wars.
-Mike

It's not like scripts and novelizations don't have multiple mentions of flak, or that Lucas even heavily exaggerated the flak effect in TCWS to literally make it look like WWII flak.
I mean, just in case it wasn't that obvious...

[Mr. Oragahn]

Until you provide proof that there's any special tech there, what we're left with is people clearly living in the upper levels and not having problems to breathe.
Tell me one thing. How high above see level do you think those rooftops are?

Kilometers? Ie nowhere near the "surface" in any way, and above most light pollution and cloud coverings.

If I said near the surface, it was, anyway, relative to how far above the ships were.
And yes, the right answer was kilometers.
In other words, pee poo compared to the orbital altitude.

HAHAHAHAHALOLOLOL

Hey fucker. Do you know how far up a planet's atmosphere extends, by chance?
That's twice comical.

I am well aware of the size of the Earth's atmosphere. But since starfighters are clearly visible at whatever height these citizens are looking from, the idea that light turbolasers are visible as well is hardly absurd.

But since you obviously don't understand that I'm telling you the movies disagree with the books about how everything should be visible from the surface (and yes, even being on Mt Everest is being on the surface), I rest my case.

As I said, we see what is easily identified as heavy turbolasers (or even very heavy TLs in the case of the Munificents' prow guns) being used.

I was not requesting that you restate your position as "obvious" or a fact. Prove to me that the turbolasers can be "easily" identified as heavy turbolasers instead of dancing haplessly around the point.

Biggest guns seen firing. Ergo HTLs fire.
It can't get more simple, really, you dick.

And obviously not all ships were drained since we saw a CIS battleship's unique shields flare up on contact from enemy fire.
That said, in general shields don't show up at all, save for a few ones (like the thermal shields from TCWS used on one of the CIS new ships I think).

So then you cannot prove that the large majority of the ships still had shields up.

And you can prove that the vast majority of shields were down?
I don't recall you doing that.

The fact that sub kiloton flak cannons were penetrating the Invisible Hand's hull clearly indicates otherwise.

One can only thank the god hyperluck that in the barrage of teraton shots necessary to take down the IH's shield, all yields magically switched to TNT backpack levels, in order not to flash-vaporize the entirety of a ship which get punctured by sub-KT projectiles.
:o]

Aside from the fact that in the movie, you can barely see the bolts.

Your opinion.

Oh. My opinion.
TL bolst are barely visible at a distance, and it's my opinion. No shit, I'm not even grant you a screencap, you aborted foetus.

You've read the quote several times by now, stop ignoring key sections of it, such as the fact that starfighters are still visible from Coruscant's rooftops.

The book makes claims about the visibility of bolts and their length which is simply not mirrored in the movie. Stop ignoring the movie, cretin.

Because those were the same and unique guns only seen firing? Because in fact most of the fire (>99%) clearly came from one ship? Because that Nubian ship has no reason to be a shitty tincan, considering the people it transports? Because the ship wasn't slow at all (even Dooku, running for his life, wasn't considerably faster, considering how he sailed past coreships docking with their rings)?

Why trying so hard to deny the fact that those truly immense quad cannons were capable to harm the Nubian ship as much as they could actually track and destroy N-1s?
Perhaps it's time you stop refering to that monolithic EU sorting of weapon calibers and pay more attention to higher canon material.

How the fuck does this refute anything?

Because it proves that, contrary to your thinking, very big guns CAN track fighters and even shoot them down?
I thought it was rather obvious, by now. Are you that impaired?

Yes, the cannons were firing at the ship. Yes, out of several dozen attempts, a few shots hit the ship. Yes, you could tell that the cannons rotated slow as hell, clearly indicating that they were not designed to hit even a slow moving ceremonial ship.

Restating what happened in the movie doesn't change that these guns could do all of what I said they could and which you said they couldn't, in order to force the idea that the turbolasers tracking fighters could only be small pieces.

Now please explain to me how admitting that a non combat starfighter being able to take multiple small town vaporizing hits supports your position to the slightest degree.

A non combat starfighter?
What's that?
How do you fight with non combat? Harsh words perhaps (supposing that they can cross from ship to ship in the far end of space)?

Where did I admit something so stupid?
Where did I admit that such a stupid concept could even be associated to a firepower capable of vaporizing small towns?
Where did I put my pen?

Aside from the droids obviously not destroyed by yields similar to Ivy Mike you mean?

Oh yes, because obviously a starfighter designed for air shows and hand crafted by artisans would have its laser cannons dialed up to full in a hanger within a populated city while at the same time being unlocked and unprotected so that a 10 year old kid can enter it.

Hello?
The Nubian J-type idiot, not N-1s. We're talking about the Nubian J-type. *sigh*
The last line of the bit you quoted from me was: "Oh, look. By all ICS logic, that yacht should have had shields at the petawatt level."

Um, no, because I also considered that these cannons could dial their firepower down.

1. Pointless conjecture.

Fact. They can barely blow a droid and yet destroy a N-1. They can also bring down the shields of a J-type, whicb by ICS logic would blah blah blah...

2. If you argue that they would dial down their yield to fire at starfighters, wouldn't this lead to the conclusion that the HTL's (allegedly speaking) dialed down their yield to fight the fighters at Coruscant for the same reason? That "vaporize a small town" firepower is the firepower used to track starfighters?

Nope, because they also were firing at "small planetoids", aka massive warships.

You don't see N-1s being instantly flash-boiled when hit as they dive towards the DCS at the end of the movie.

All this does is show how impressive their armor and shields are. It does not dictate the very much known quantity of firepower.

Sure. Petatons needed to take down the shields of a ship which is of the same nature as other Naboo yachts and of which one of them is rated at petawatt shielding... will only blow some fighters in a gasoline like fashion despite fighters, by the best figure found in ICS, could only shoot and cope with terajoules. That is, a thousand times less.

I'm simply not seeing whatever point of importance you're trying to make. If your guns are simply and TOTALLY inadequate, you won't use them. You won't see a WWII battleship using its heavy bores to take down zero fighters for example, even if said fighters kept flying just above the oceans' surface.

Because your analogy is too extreme. Zero fighters flew in a completely different medium compared to ships, and heavy bores fired in ballistic arcs that were completely ineffectual against fighters.

My point. If they were completely ineffectual (TOTALLY inadequate), they wouldn't be used.
Gee.

Heavy guns in TPM were fired at two different types of targets simply because they are that versatile.

So you admit that heavy guns can reliably hit starfighters?

Admit? Nice projecting here.
I never denied it.
In fact, it always has been my argument against your attempt to force the turbolasers mentioned in the book (and said to vape a small town) to only be small pieces.

Your claim is finished, that's it.

None of the VIP Nubian ships were warships; that didn't prevent Saxton from slapping them with petawatt of shielding when he could. Damn, you don't even know your holy piss bible enough. What a sad state of affairs, really.

This is absolutely irrelevant.

That is absolutely relevant, cretin.
See above for the difference of shielding between starfighters and cargo-sized ships such as all those Nubian chrome ships.

If you're going to lie and backtrack, why don't you display the intelligence to at least edit your posts so that you can cover up your lying ass?

Me: "The quad cannons could hit both N-1s and a 78 meters long yacht, and that at a distance of +100 km."

My mistake. In that goddamn marathon to keep up with your bullshit, I ended typing a setence that doesn't fit with my positions.
I should have said:
"The quad cannons could hit both N-1s and a 78 meters long yacht, the later at a distance of +100 km."
Happy?
We never saw N-1s shot down that far. In fact, they weren't even shot at even when they were closer to the battleship.

She wasn't hit again. Only buffeted by nearby flaking bolts.

Right, yet her shield generator withstood several town vaporizing shots.

What is your evidence that she was hit after shields were back?

Not necessarily. Vaporizing a small town can happen with a couple dozen terajoules tops. Remember Hiroshima. Mos Espa was already several kilometers long, but it's always described as a city, not a small town.

Darkstar's calculations are 1.5 megatons.

It's his high end I think, no?

You are defending him by arguing against my stance in this thread.

Says who? Threads have been going on so many tangents, you're actually invited to prove that I was totally defending his position.

Already addressed earlier on in my post.
Cannons can be dialed.
They seem to be at least smart enough to use what's about good enough to take down a target based on its volume and, therefore, expected shielding capacity.

Why dial the yield?

Why use a million or a thousand times the energy you need?
You know, like overheating for example.

If they have nothing better to do but are absolutely worthless, no one uses them. That's why you won't see people firing their berettas at the hulls of merkava tanks.

Berettas can never conceivably damage a tank from the exterior. Heavy turbolasers and quad turbolasers can still hit a yacht moving in a predictable line. Your analogy is silly.

See the bolded part. If the TL can still hit a ship, then they're not "absolutely worthless".

Moreso, all you have established is that ceremonial yachts that you stated to be not that much larger than a starfighter can take multiple town vaporizing shots.

They're all ceremonial ships. That's how Naboo VIPs deal with their extra planetary appointments.
I, however, never stated that the Nubian ship seen in TPM tanked several "town vaporizing shots". That is your pure invention.

What do you think you have demonstrated? My point still stands. There's zero mention of the hit rate. We're only given one information, of range. In fact, I'm being generous in claiming effective range. Others would exactly tab that as mere maximum range (meaning the effective range is shorter).

See other post. You didn't claim effective range until now.

Bullshit.

Now I'm expecting an argument about how now doesn't mean now but several posts ago.
Whatever.

Earlier, you denied that effective range was hundreds of kilometers because it did not suit you.

Thousands. Not hundreds. ROTJ really shows that, for the reasons I stated.

Sort of like how you stated that you saw no problem with Traviss equating durasteel to rubber, denied seeing no problem with it, and then promptly deleted the section from your response.

I asked you for evidence of rubber equivalence. I'm not even sure if you ever actually demonstrated when she claimed such a thing. I admit I didn't go read on internet if whatever strength figure she wrote was that of rubber.
Did you? Please link to the post where you did so then.

Did you know that in the vaaaast majority of cases, you don't see shields doing anything when hit, always remaining invisible?

Wrong. You see effects in the movies. Done.

You see flashes which could easily be light and the bolts themselves splashing. You don't see that kind of thundery ripple that stretches over the hull.
I remember one instance of an Y-wing I think making a particularly big flash, and that's all.

Because they can? Because it can happen that the closest danger to a ship isn't some distant enemy cruiser already locked into a battle with another comrade warship, but that fast approaching squadron of fighters and bombers?
Fighters & Capital ships in the films

This makes no fucking sense at all. What made you think that the enemy cruisers were "distant"?

Dunno. That same novelization that mentions 100s of km for instance. Or perhaps the fact that the zone wasn't filled with warships everywhere at any time, meaning that there were a large quantity of them on the edge of the battle zone which had either their top, bottom, aft, bow, portside or starboard side pointing at space or Coruscant, but not at enemy warships.

Fighters tend to buzz around warships however.

Yes, they were distant as in hundreds of kilometers away, but the novel clearly describes ships routinely being swallowed whole by turbolaser bolts.

That's some very big and very hungry turbolaser bolts.

Nowhere does it mention ships being swallowed by proton torpedos.

The shieldless Invisible Hand suffered an internal detonation resulting from sub-gigajoule blasts flying through windows. The shields of her landing bay were shot down by a mere fighter.
The Executor went down because her bridge was down.
You know, if you claim that all ships had their shields down, you may want to stay up to date with the danger posed by fighters in such a case.

I'm nice, I won't bother you with the incidents of TCWS.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

What asteroids are you talking about? None of the asteroids you claim exist before getting hit are being shot down. This was made plain and simple in an earlier page in this very thread, which I linked to a video clip of the Falcon being chased down by ISD Avenger, and you were specifically asked to point out the alleged asteroids being vaporized, to which you failed to reply.

It was very obvious and several participants even commented on this.
-Mike

[/quote]

Just because we can't physically see the asteroids does not mean that they do not exist. There are an infinite amount of reasons why you could not see a forty meter asteroid in a vacuum, but the idea that they are flak bursts is completely unsupported. For one, there is the fact that the glow witnessed after contact is...well, blue. Flak bursts from turbolasers are either yellow-ish (like an explosion), or green. Never has it ever been stated or implied that a green turbolaser bolt is magically going to glow blue upon detonating.

Near the end here: http://www.scifights.net/starwarsshields.mov

As you can see, the blue glow precedes the turbolaser disappearing! The bolt is completely intact, then at the end of the beam, there is a blue glow, completely consistent with the expected effects of the beam hitting an object, completely inconsistent with any weapon detonating.

Additionally, after the glow, there is an expansion and then a dissipation of matter that happens to fit directly with other [clearly visible] asteroids being blasted in the scene. Compare this to, for example, the [alleged] flak bursts seen in AotC, and the flak bursts seen in RotS; the effects are completely inconsistent.



@Mr. O:


1. Your argument [or, shall I say, Darkstar's argument] that only heavy turbolaser bolts could have been visible from the rooftops of Coruscant is in complete contradiction with the stated fact that starfighters were visible as gnats from said Coruscanti rooftops. Going by your logic, both medium/light turbolaser bolts and starfighters should have been completely invisible. The fact that the latter is explicitly false brings into question the validity of your theory.

At the worst, you can argue that the quote is invalid. However, G canon evidence must follow far stricter standards than evidence from the EU; since we have no idea how high up these rooftops were, nor how clear Coruscant's atmosphere is, there is no conclusive contradiction to warrant discarding.

2. You justify the use of heavy turbolasers against starfighters on the basis that similar sized turbolasers have been used against starfighter sized craft before. However, this line of reasoning runs into several flaws and even self contradictions:

a) You claim that quad turbolasers are witnessed hitting a yacht from 100 kilometers away. You also claim that the yacht is barely bigger than a starfighter. Extrapolating from this, even giant, quad turbolasers can hit starfighters from as far as a hundred kilometers away!

b) You claim that these quads are comparable to HTLs in firepower. You claim that the town-vaporizing turbolasers in the RotS novel are HTLs. The obvious conclusion is that the Queen's yacht, which was "not a warship", by the queen's own words, can tank multiple town vaporizing shots at the least. Note that its shields were never overcome by brute force; bleed through damage shorted them out, and after R2 repaired the components, they easily passed the blockade.

Now you may argue [without a shred of evidence] that the yields were dialed down. However, this brings up the question as to why they would dial down the yields so far that they can hit the ship a dozen times and not break through its deflector shields. Dialing down a shot that would be massively overkill makes sense; dialing it down to the point in which it can tank dozens of your shots doesn't.

Even then, if HTL's (or quads, which you argue are comparable) are dialed down to fight off yachts (comparable to starfighters, by your own theory), then the town-vaporizing turbolasers were also being dialed down; therefore, their described firepower is a minimum value, and the "dialed down" yields are town vaporizing; by extension, the quads in TPM were still town vaporizing after haven been dialed down. Your argument defeats itself.

c) You say that HTL's can be used against starfighters with respectable efficiency if need be. However, neither of us would disagree with the notion that heavy turbolasers are designed with the primary goal of combating capital ships, and that it is more efficient for a ship's HTL's to target enemy star destroyers, while its light turbolasers track fighters.

Why would the HTL's have been used to track starfighters in the RotS battle, when there were giant capital ships that HTL's are optimized to combat? What were their LTL's doing then?

Were the ships' LTL's firing at the capital ships and the HTL's fighting at small starfighters? Does this make sense to you?


3. Heavy turbolasers have rates of fire estimated at between two shots per second to one shot per two seconds. How could this form an "infinite lattice" of light filling the entire night sky?