When was the firepower of ships stated?

[Sektor31]

Because if a turbolaser from an X-wing can fire 50 GT, then what's the need for the Deathstar?

[Robert Treder]

Because if a turbolaser from an X-wing can fire 50 GT, then what's the need for the Deathstar?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Agreed....

You are in need of serious help boy. X-Wing don't have turbolasers. They don't have any gun (MAYBE torps) that can even REMOTLEY hit 50GT, which I think is a number you pulled outta yer ass.

And lastly 50GT is no where near even remoley close to within a partial fraction of a decimal powerful enough to kill a planet.

IIRC that at least take yottatons.

[Master of Ossus]

Because if a turbolaser from an X-wing can fire 50 GT, then what's the need for the Deathstar?

I actually think I know WTF he's talking about.

X-Wing lasers fire a lower limit of 60 GJ. That is SUBSTANTIALLY less than 50 GT. Realistic estimates peg the number around 1-3 kilotons.

Missiles on X-Wings total between 250 and 750 MT. That is also less than one GT. Only capital ships in SW have GT level turbolasers. I have explained, numerous times, to numerous people why a DS is necessary with ships that can melt the surface of a world by themselves. If you insist on my explaining it again, I will do so, but I would prefer to avoid it so that I may move on to newer questions.

[Sektor31]

Someone told me X-Wings had turbolasers and fired 50GT per bolt, ah well.

Either way, what about ISDs? The turbolasers on there would fire at >50GT right? Why make a battlestation that would turn a planet into pebbles when you could fire at it and turn the surface into molten slag while boiling the oceans?

Remember, a hydrogen bomb yield is ~50MT.

[Sektor31]

I actually think I know WTF he's talking about.

X-Wing lasers fire a lower limit of 60 GJ. That is SUBSTANTIALLY less than 50 GT. Realistic estimates peg the number around 1-3 kilotons.

Missiles on X-Wings total between 250 and 750 MT. That is also less than one GT. Only capital ships in SW have GT level turbolasers. I have explained, numerous times, to numerous people why a DS is necessary with ships that can melt the surface of a world by themselves. If you insist on my explaining it again, I will do so, but I would prefer to avoid it so that I may move on to newer questions.

Err, yeah, posted what I said before I read your post.

If you want, just point me to a topic in which you explained this. I'd think it's more cost-efficient to use an ISD fleet.

[Utsanomiko]

Not when it takes a fleet of Stardestroyers and a Torpedo Sphere to punch a meter-wide whole in planetary shields for a couple of seconds. you notice that 1/10th of a second flash when Alderaan was hit by the Death Star? IIRC, that was its shields holding up against over 1E41 Joules(as opposed to 5E10 that you're suggesting Stardestroyers have) of energy. That's a long time for that much ungodly power. You'd need way to many ships to do that. Anywho, that's just me thinknig off the top of my head with a mild migrain, so I could have a few numbers wroing.

[Darth Phoenix]

Because if a turbolaser from an X-wing can fire 50 GT, then what's the need for the Deathstar?

That is the power for capship grade LTL or MTL depending on the calcs.
Xwings can fire at best 2/3 kilotons per cannon!

[Ender]

Either way, what about ISDs? The turbolasers on there would fire at >50GT right? Why make a battlestation that would turn a planet into pebbles when you could fire at it and turn the surface into molten slag while boiling the oceans?

Remember, a hydrogen bomb yield is ~50MT.

You speak of a Base Delta Zero operation. Unfortunatly they are negated by shields, and most planets have shields after the devestation of the Clone wars. Hence the need for something that can punch through shields and destroy the planet

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Someone told me X-Wings had turbolasers and fired 50GT per bolt, ah well.

Either way, what about ISDs? The turbolasers on there would fire at >50GT right? Why make a battlestation that would turn a planet into pebbles when you could fire at it and turn the surface into molten slag while boiling the oceans?

Remember, a hydrogen bomb yield is ~50MT.

Yes, but that operation is nowhere near as powerful as the DS blast, and isn't able to penetrate a good planetary shield. Also, while only someone in a deep underground shelter could survive a BDZ, I'm sure the DS blast guaranteed no survivors.

[Connor MacLeod]

Because if a turbolaser from an X-wing can fire 50 GT, then what's the need for the Deathstar?

I actually think I know WTF he's talking about.

X-Wing lasers fire a lower limit of 60 GJ. That is SUBSTANTIALLY less than 50 GT. Realistic estimates peg the number around 1-3 kilotons.

Actually some fighters appear to mount turbolasers (X-wings are mentioned in certain series, such as the Corellian Trilogy, as having Turbolasers. Not to mention later modifications of the Falcon supposedly mounted them.) However, this does not mean that TL ALWAYS equals multi-gigaton firepower. Capital ships have both the power generation capabilities to generate such bolts, as well as the sheer mass to handle the volleys (Imagine the recoil the Falcon would suffer for firing a 50 GT TL bolt - which is 1/4 the power of the 200 GT Acclamator guns)

But even moreso, we know that power ratings and definitions for guns are not completely strict (the ISD-1 mounts Quad laser cannons nearly as large as the priamry turrets on the ISD - and larger than the medium/light TLs on the ship - and this isnt even addressing the fact that capital lasers can easily be multimegaton) It stands to reason that fighters could *probably* mount turbolasers, but that the yields would be substantially lower (perhaps megaton range at best.)

Also, some ground vehicles are known to mount turbolasers as well. Same rules apply there. (I believe even AT-ATs have been modified to carry them!)

Missiles on X-Wings total between 250 and 750 MT. That is also less than one GT. Only capital ships in SW have GT level turbolasers. I have explained, numerous times, to numerous people why a DS is necessary with ships that can melt the surface of a world by themselves. If you insist on my explaining it again, I will do so, but I would prefer to avoid it so that I may move on to newer questions.

Actually, given we know that Slave-1 carries multi-gigaton munitions, its probable there are kinds of proton torpedoes and concusson missiles that are gigaton-range as well (if not teraton range!). B-wings at least would carry those (B-wings are supposed to carry firepower comparable to a Corvette according to the SWTJ, and the Torps are their heaviest weapon!)

Even more, assaulting a capital ship like an ISD (or the Lusankya in Bacta War), or even a mere VSD (to say nothign of even smaller vessels) also requires access to gigaton-range warheads.

However, such missiles would be optimized for use against big ships and at cl ose ranges (because they tend to pack more explosive power into the same shell, which limits both guidance and propellant. At most, the torps might be somewhat longer, but that may very well limit carrying capacity.) Anti-fighter torps (or ground attack variants) coudl be megaton range or even kiloton range (for fighters - they might trade off a lighter warhead for greater mobility/tracking skill).

[SPOOFE]

Whoever said that the Death Star was NECESSARY? Tarkin wanted a big toy. He GOT a big toy.

Remember, an M-16 is a lot more terrifying than a Derringer, even if both can make you Just As Dead.

[Cpt_Frank]

Whoever said that the Death Star was NECESSARY? Tarkin wanted a big toy. He GOT a big toy.

Remember, an M-16 is a lot more terrifying than a Derringer, even if both can make you Just As Dead.

That analogy is not flawless, an assault rifle like the M16 may be more terrifying than a small pistol but it's also much more powerful, and that's necessary since you can fight at ranges of hundreds of meters with it which you can't do with a derringer.
The Death Star's purpose is to blast through the planetary shield, it's not just a big useless toy.