ISD Battlewagon

[nightmare]

They'd have to use non-hull-hugging shields in a open body craft like the LAAT due to the inherent harmful shield interactions, dipshit.

It's not the only example, pal.

Stop whining and bitching.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If a....2 kiloton energy bolt exploded its energy, it would create a 2 kiloton blast. "Flakbursts" are equal to maybe a grenade or a pack of chemical explosives.

Conservation of energy asstard.

Last time I checked, turbolasers are not bombs. The energy has to go somewhere, sure.. but you assume a number of things here, including that we can see all of it.

Besides, if you want to box in a target, you shoot normal bolts around it. If you want to hurt a target, you shoot it, itself.

2 kilotons in a spherical blast would be enormously less efficient than the 2 kiloton bolts.

Thus, supposed flakbursts do not observe the characteristics that should be associated with a flakburst (equal energy as carrier bolt) and are completely useless and no one would design such a thing.

Ahem. Point defence.

The only other available conclusion is that they are shield interactions.

If shield interactions are harmful, the only thing you could do in an open body craft like the LAAT is have non-hull-hugging shields.

And in some cases possibly mass-driver projectiles (as GAT suggested).

Don't bullshit without thinking again.

What makes you think I did.. teenager.

I'm leaving this thread, since I didn't want a) a thread hijack b) a flame war c) pointless reharsh of old arguments leading nowhere.

Sure, I knew someone most likely would consider it bait, but I was still hoping to get a rational argument in response. It's not like your arguments get better when you add flames to them.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Last time I checked, turbolasers are not bombs. The energy has to go somewhere, sure.. but you assume a number of things here, including that we can see all of it.

"It magically goes somewhere"

Ahem. Point defence.

Geonosian fighters are point-defense weaponry?

What makes you think I did.. teenager.

Ad hominem. What makes you think that I care how many years before I did you popped out of the womb?

One theory (flak bursting) suggests affects without a mechanism like plasma and other such nonsense and that nearly 100% power from flakbursts magically vanishes when the bolts "knows" when to explode.

The other assumes interactions between shields and energy beams causes destructive interactions. This is an inherent affect and in an-open vessel, you'd expand the shields away from the target to prevent this from harming occupants. The mechanism is simple DET.

Ad hominem. Sure, I knew someone most likely would consider it bait, but I was still hoping to get a rational argument in response. It's not like your arguments get better when you add flames to them.

You bitched without presenting an actual theory. I found that annoying.

Naturally you fall back to the snide little therapist, "oh I planned this from the beginning of course and a little thing beneath me like you couldn't see that" shit. Right.

You still haven't proposed a better theory than DET and shield interactions, just whined about things.

[nightmare]

Very well then. I will make my POV perfectly clear before I ditch this thread.

"It magically goes somewhere"

Not magically. It could be mostly neutrinos for example.

Geonosian fighters are point-defense weaponry?

No. It would be the logical use for exploding turbolaser bolts.

Ad hominem. What makes you think that I care how many years before I did you popped out of the womb?

What makes you think I find your argument better when you add flames to them?

One theory (flak bursting) suggests affects without a mechanism like plasma and other such nonsense and that nearly 100% power from flakbursts magically vanishes when the bolts "knows" when to explode.

The other assumes interactions between shields and energy beams causes destructive interactions. This is an inherent affect and in an-open vessel, you'd expand the shields away from the target to prevent this from harming occupants. The mechanism is simple DET.


You bitched without presenting an actual theory. I found that annoying.

Naturally you fall back to the snide little therapist, "oh I planned this from the beginning of course and a little thing beneath me like you couldn't see that" shit. Right.

You still haven't proposed a better theory than DET and shield interactions, just whined about things.

I don't NEED a theory since the evidence speaks for exploding turbolaser bolts. You do.

"They reacted speedily, and soon energy bolts were racing at the attacking ships in a steadily increasing volume. Occasionally one would explode near one of the onrushing Y-wings, jostling it without real damage." - Star Wars IV: A New Hope Novellization

LET ME NOW MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR WHAT I MEAN ONCE AND FOR ALL

It makes little sense that turbolaser bolts should explode, if they are based on energy. But they do, that is canon FACT. Even if you call it shield interactions, they explode.

The difference between our positions is only if they can explode on their own or if they must hit a shield first. The latter make no more sense then the first.

The former theory explains all the visuals we see, the quotes, and it doesn't require any external factors added. "flak bursts" or whatever you chose to call them, also has a valid use - point defence against starfighters and warheads.

The latter theory requires extended shields in visuals at several occasions where there is no reason they should be extended, and good reasons why they shouldn't. Such as ISD extended shields in mid-battle. It also adds an external element, shield interaction.

When I see ACTUAL EVIDENCE against my position, I will say "Hm, looks I had it the wrong way. Oh well.", and be on my jolly way.

I didn't write all this before because it's well milled already. That enough for you?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Very well then. I will make my POV perfectly clear before I ditch this thread.

"It magically goes somewhere"

Not magically. It could be mostly neutrinos for example.

If you believe that, that sums it all up for me anyway.

Neutrinos are irrelevent BECAUSE they do not interact with anything.

If they're neutrinos they might as well not be anything since the bolt still is only giving off energy that will interact w/ the target equal to a small conventional explosive detonating. Tell me what use is a weapon that gives off most of its energy in a method that will cause it to go through the target?

Flakbursts observed would not damage SW fighters AT ALL since they can shrug off 2 kt blasts easy (AOTC).

It is these reasons that Trek photon torpedoes have been reconsidered to only be a few kilotons in energy MAX.

Torpedo usage against starships has never been countered, at anytime, in any publication with supposed "flakbursts."

If you can explain to me what good a flakburts equal to less than a ton of TNT would be against SW materials-science, fine.

Until then, they make no sense.

[nightmare]

Neutrinos are irrelevent BECAUSE they do not interact with anything.

If they're neutrinos they might as well not be anything since the bolt still is only giving off energy that will interact w/ the target equal to a small conventional explosive detonating. Tell me what use is a weapon that gives off most of its energy in a method that will cause it to go through the target?

How do you know it will pass through RAY SHIELDS unhindered? Besides, it's not the point.. I did bring up neutrinos exactly because they are a waste product. If you use exploding bolts against fighters for example, you only need to use enough power to take them out, or it would be a waste in the best case, in the worst, you could hurt a friendly ship with it. Minimal firepower use makes sense.

Flakbursts observed would not damage SW fighters AT ALL since they can shrug off 2 kt blasts easy (AOTC).

It is these reasons that Trek photon torpedoes have been reconsidered to only be a few kilotons in energy MAX.

Torpedo usage against starships has never been countered, at anytime, in any publication with supposed "flakbursts."

If you can explain to me what good a flakburts equal to less than a ton of TNT would be against SW materials-science, fine.

Until then, they make no sense.

I don't give a damn about Star Trek torpedoes, and I don't need to explain 1 KG TNT explosions. It's like saying the AT-AT is weak beacuse its bolts barely scorch snow, and dismissing what happened later. Or do you think that quote from ANH means the Death Star's turbolaser towers can only fire with 1 KG TNT power? Besides, even 1 KG TNT explosions could set off missiles.

Now, torpdoes have been countered with point defences before. It doesn't mention doing so by flak bursts explicitly, I give you that. It doesn't say it didn't either.

Are we done here yet? We can call it a stalemate if you wish, since there's no explicit evidence either way.

[nightmare]

Oh btw, before you go "neutrinos are particles", I'd like to point out it's not that simple. Photons, alpha and beta radiation are particles too. Neutrinos pass thorough nearly all matter unhindered, but not water. This is just a sidetrack anyway, it has nothing to do with the point.

[Illuminatus Primus]

How do you know it will pass through RAY SHIELDS unhindered?

Fine, the megatons of neutrinos... ...will tear down the shields and promptly....do nothing to the ship itself.

Besides, it's not the point.. I did bring up neutrinos exactly because they are a waste product.

It is exactly the point. How the hell is your invisable firepower going to hurt something it passes through. If you're right, IT IS waste, but that doesn't change the fact that the couple pounds of TNT worth of radiant energy is not going to hurt anything.

If you use exploding bolts against fighters for example, you only need to use enough power to take them out,

Find a flakburst in the movies that puts out a flash indicating firepower neccessary to shoot down starfighters according by the firepower thread you linked earlier today.

or it would be a waste in the best case, in the worst, you could hurt a friendly ship with it. Minimal firepower use makes sense.

Minimal firepower does not make sense when it is observed to be so weak it would not hurt armored starfighters of SW make other than burn paint off the hull.

quote from ANH means the Death Star's turbolaser towers can only fire with 1 KG TNT power? Besides, even 1 KG TNT explosions could set off missiles.

Visuals from the movies show useless blasts right next to shielded vessels. The blasts do not demonstrate yields that are harmful to anything in SW. Thus it stands that they're probably not purposeful flakbursts.

The novels have been overriden by visuals AND by later retconning before.

Now, torpdoes have been countered with point defences before. It doesn't mention doing so by flak bursts explicitly, I give you that. It doesn't say it didn't either.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

Simple DET, esp. when that HAS been explicitly stated before, should be the de facto conclusion, wouldn't you say?

Oh btw, before you go "neutrinos are particles", I'd like to point out it's not that simple. Photons, alpha and beta radiation are particles too. Neutrinos pass thorough nearly all matter unhindered, but not water. This is just a sidetrack anyway, it has nothing to do with the point.

Unless you're going to try and claim that somehow megatons' worth of neutrinos are going to "interact" with SW ships enough to damage them, its irrelevent.

[nightmare]

Oh well, I guess we're still not done here.

I don't need to put up any explanation of any of those. You see, I don't dismiss the existance of shield interactions. Clearly, turbolaser bolts/lasers/blasters hit shields and are diminished by it, be it by absorption, dispersion or whatever. Obviously it exists, for example when R2 is hit by Vader's TIE. That little droid may be rugged, but I doubt it can take a KT hit by itself. Most likely it was shield bleedthrough just as it gave up, and a little energy went through.

Wether striking a shield causes TL bolts to explode or not is irrelevant; my position simply is that I don't rule out the existance of TL bolts being able to explode on their own. No more. No less. Are we clear on that now?

The quote I presented you is overruled nowhere, mind you. As far as DET goes, we already know it. Laser or TL bolt hits, target go boom, no chain reaction involved anywhere. This has nothing to do with exploding TL bolts whatsoever. You are either reading something into what I'm saying that I never intended, or you are deliberately trying to sow distractions.

Let us focus at the core argument for once, shall we? It's all very simple. You don't have any evidence that TL bolts can't explode without shields, not counting that you don't like it, that is. TL bolts are seen to explode when shields should not be extended. TL bolts are described to explode while not striking anything. End of story.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

I don't need to put up any explanation of any of those. You see, I don't dismiss the existance of shield interactions. Clearly, turbolaser bolts/lasers/blasters hit shields and are diminished by it, be it by absorption, dispersion or whatever. Obviously it exists, for example when R2 is hit by Vader's TIE. That little droid may be rugged, but I doubt it can take a KT hit by itself. Most likely it was shield bleedthrough just as it gave up, and a little energy went through.

Well if the bolt can get through, why would it explode? Answer: it wouldn't. If the bolt has enough energy to get through the shields than it will cause damage instead of harmlessly exploding upon impact.

The quote I presented you is overruled nowhere, mind you. As far as DET goes, we already know it. Laser or TL bolt hits, target go boom, no chain reaction involved anywhere. This has nothing to do with exploding TL bolts whatsoever. You are either reading something into what I'm saying that I never intended, or you are deliberately trying to sow distractions.

Said quote is: ""They reacted speedily, and soon energy bolts were racing at the attacking ships in a steadily increasing volume. Occasionally one would explode near one of the onrushing Y-wings, jostling it without real damage."

So instantly a bolt "exploding" equals flak? In case you didn't notice bolts also "explode" when they interact with shields! It could mean either asswipe. But the odds are against you. As Mr.Connor MacLeod taught me, semantics = crap.

Let us focus at the core argument for once, shall we? It's all very simple. You don't have any evidence that TL bolts can't explode without shields, not counting that you don't like it, that is. TL bolts are seen to explode when shields should not be extended. TL bolts are described to explode while not striking anything. End of story.

And you don't have any evidence that they do flak burst. If they have such an almighty flak bursting ability, then why wasn't it used at Geonosis? A laser "flak bursting" with KILOTONS of energy over an army would've pretty muched wiped out much of their infantry, pretty convienient eh? Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Because they can't flak burst. Also explain why it isn't used at Endor.

Let me just start with this, TPM-lasers exploding on Gungan shield. Explain why the fuck they would've flak bursted, considering it applies LESS energy to the target. Because they didn't? And the explsions were bolt/shield interactions? Yep. Second AOTC-The gunship is literallycrawlingacross the terrain when compared to the Geonosisan fighters. The LAAT has almost NO chance to avoid fire, and plenty of the time the Fighters are lined up directly onto the ship. Why would they be flak bursting a flying brick a few hundred feet ahead of them? Answer: They wouldn't. Their bolts are too weak to penetrate its shields at first, and they have to wear it down. After the gunship drops of the group at the hangar, its shields are gone, and it is destroyed shortly there after.

I would like to personally thank Mr. Connor MacLeod for enlightening me on thsi subject, after a long, pointless debate.

[nightmare]

Well if the bolt can get through, why would it explode? Answer: it wouldn't. If the bolt has enough energy to get through the shields than it will cause damage instead of harmlessly exploding upon impact.

Did I say it exploded perhaps? We can see it didn't in the movie. I was talking about shield interactions, which is more than just bolts exploding. Why is it that no one is getting what I'm actually saying and instead reading something else into it?

Said quote is: ""They reacted speedily, and soon energy bolts were racing at the attacking ships in a steadily increasing volume. Occasionally one would explode near one of the onrushing Y-wings, jostling it without real damage."

So instantly a bolt "exploding" equals flak? In case you didn't notice bolts also "explode" when they interact with shields! It could mean either asswipe. But the odds are against you. As Mr.Connor MacLeod taught me, semantics = crap.

In case you didn't notice, I don't dismiss bolts exploding against shields. The keyword here is ALSO. Keep your insults to yourself, "pal". And YES, I don't care if you call it "flak bursts" or cucumber. a) TL bolts can explode. b) Some of them hit shields when they do. c) Some of them don't.

And you don't have any evidence that they do flak burst. If they have such an almighty flak bursting ability, then why wasn't it used at Geonosis? A laser "flak bursting" with KILOTONS of energy over an army would've pretty muched wiped out much of their infantry, pretty convienient eh? Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Because they can't flak burst. Also explain why it isn't used at Endor.

Did you perhaps notice that you just killed your own argument? Thoughtful of you, then I don't need to. As for Endor, there may be all kinds of reasons, including that TLs were not used against small targets. Lasers don't explode in that fashion. It only takes one, you see.

Let me just start with this, TPM-lasers exploding on Gungan shield. Explain why the fuck they would've flak bursted, considering it applies LESS energy to the target. Because they didn't? And the explsions were bolt/shield interactions? Yep. Second AOTC-The gunship is literallycrawlingacross the terrain when compared to the Geonosisan fighters. The LAAT has almost NO chance to avoid fire, and plenty of the time the Fighters are lined up directly onto the ship. Why would they be flak bursting a flying brick a few hundred feet ahead of them? Answer: They wouldn't. Their bolts are too weak to penetrate its shields at first, and they have to wear it down. After the gunship drops of the group at the hangar, its shields are gone, and it is destroyed shortly there after.

I would like to personally thank Mr. Connor MacLeod for enlightening me on this subject, after a long, pointless debate.

For the third time, I'm not against TL bolts exploding against shields. It fits the evidence. I simply don't buy that it's the end of it, since it doesn't fit all the evidence.

I don't see any reason to continue this. It eats up my time, and I'm not interested in winning debates - what I want is to collect all the data I can, and thereby form as correct and complete picture I can. In other words, I don't throw out things just because it suits my tastes.. it takes a bit more than that.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Did I say it exploded perhaps? We can see it didn't in the movie. I was talking about shield interactions, which is more than just bolts exploding. Why is it that no one is getting what I'm actually saying and instead reading something else into it?

What "other" shield interactions are you talking about then? And why are they relevent to flak vs interactions?

In case you didn't notice, I don't dismiss bolts exploding against shields. The keyword here is ALSO. Keep your insults to yourself, "pal". And YES, I don't care if you call it "flak bursts" or cucumber. a) TL bolts can explode. b) Some of them hit shields when they do. c) Some of them don't.

So if you don't dismiss them exploding against shields, but you call them flak...kinda contradicting yourself. Yes they do explode, yes shields are always there when TL bolts explode. If they don't explode they have A.) bypassed the shields. B.) missed the shields. C.) Don't have enough energy to explode in such a fashion (TPM handguns didn't create explosions on Droidekas shields).

Did you perhaps notice that you just killed your own argument? Thoughtful of you, then I don't need to. As for Endor, there may be all kinds of reasons, including that TLs were not used against small targets. Lasers don't explode in that fashion. It only takes one, you see.

Care to explain how I "killed my own argument" without being so painfully vauge as to not saywhy.

One I was refering to the ground battle, flak bursted At-ST lasers would've been superb for killing hordes of Ewoks. Second, flaking TLs would be ideal for killing fighters, if they delivers MT level power ina wider radius anyways. But alas, they do not. And what does "lasers don't explode in that fashion" mean? How do they explode then?

For the third time, I'm not against TL bolts exploding against shields. It fits the evidence. I simply don't buy that it's the end of it, since it doesn't fit all the evidence.

So you're trying to accept both theories? Even though there's obvious evidence for one, while the other you have to invent weird mechanisms that we've never observed, while simultaneously ignoring evidence of them not flaking when it would have been ideal to do so. Doesn't that seem a bit far fetched to you?

I don't see any reason to continue this. It eats up my time, and I'm not interested in winning debates - what I want is to collect all the data I can, and thereby form as correct and complete picture I can. In other words, I don't throw out things just because it suits my tastes.. it takes a bit more than that.

Then leave, I'm not asking you to stay.

[Helm]

So, I was smoking this crack right...

Well, despite all this debating on the flak talk...

Here's my two pennies on this whole "ISD Battlewagon" topic. ISD's were designed for controlling planets. They were traveling orbital weapon platforms so to speak. They had the firepower from space to kill ya and the troops to enslave you. It's what makes the Empire work, being able to do not just a little bit of everything... but a great deal of everything.

If you take all the "guts" out of the ISD (the troop garrison/barracks, the at-at's, etc) then it can only do one thing and that is fleet engagement and orbital bombardment. Sure, it could be assumed/hypotheized that replacing these vital components with more weaponry, power, and shielding would make the ISD a even more formiddable warship...

But why would you... you can't take over a planet anymore. You can only destroy it's installations.

It's not cost effective and feasible. But hey, to all their own and all that.

[nightmare]

Well, now that I've had a bit of sleep, I will offer an unrelated example of what I'm talking about.

I don't like bridge domes being shield generators; it doesn't make sense, while it makes good sense that they are sensors.

However, fact says they are shield generators. This is something I can't avoid. Interestingly enough, there are also facts that say they are sensors.

Now, these two facts are not automatically exclusive, and another source says they are both. I can come up with various explanations for why they shouldn't be shield generators, but in the end of the day, they are both. The facts say so. I don't need to come up with an explanation of it; they just are.

Turbolaser nature is unknown. We only know some of its properties, such as that they damage what they hit. There are facts that say that TL bolts explode against shields. Now, energy bolts shouldn't explode, but it is fact. I also have facts that say TL bolts explode, no shields involved. Those two facts are not exclusive, no matter how much I would like one over the other, or whatever theories I come up with trying to explain either (It's not like I think neutrinos would be involved, it was just something I offered as an explanation while trying to get through my message).

I hope I finally got through with what I mean.

I think I have to agree with His Divine Shadow.. he said something to the effect that you can't get to a correct, in-universe analysis while vs debating.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

I don't like bridge domes being shield generators; it doesn't make sense, while it makes good sense that they are sensors.

However, fact says they are shield generators. This is something I can't avoid. Interestingly enough, there are also facts that say they are sensors.

Now, these two facts are not automatically exclusive, and another source says they are both. I can come up with various explanations for why they shouldn't be shield generators, but in the end of the day, they are both. The facts say so. I don't need to come up with an explanation of it; they just are.

Have you read Saxton's comments on it? They pretty much debunk the shield dome brain-bug.

Turbolaser nature is unknown. We only know some of its properties, such as that they damage what they hit. There are facts that say that TL bolts explode against shields. Now, energy bolts shouldn't explode, but it is fact. I also have facts that say TL bolts explode, no shields involved. Those two facts are not exclusive, no matter how much I would like one over the other, or whatever theories I come up with trying to explain either (It's not like I think neutrinos would be involved, it was just something I offered as an explanation while trying to get through my message).

Yes there is evidence pf a bolt/shield explosion, TPM come smost prominantley to mind. But do you care to provide this "evidence" on when they explode without shields?

I think I have to agree with His Divine Shadow.. he said something to the effect that you can't get to a correct, in-universe analysis while vs debating.

Well duh. For all we know magical hyperspace fairies plant TNT next to shields and detonate them whenever laser bolts strike. So instead of just making up wild and irrational claims, you look at the evidence, and derive the conclusion that makes the most sense from it.

[His Divine Shadow]

Is this flakbursting bullshit about to pop up again?

EDIT:
I see it shit has already hit the fan
*groans*
I really thought this fucked up notion was pretty much destroyed in the last thread where it got it's ass pounded to dust.

[nightmare]

The unknown property is turbolaser bolts exploding. However, this problem is sidestepped since it is canon fact.

Theory A Involves a shield (also of largely unknown properties). When a TL bolt of largely unknown properties strikes a shield, it may explode, however not always.

Theory B means that the a TL bolt may explode by its own due to an unknown property already mentioned. Again, not always.

This means Theory B is inherently superior, since it introduces less unknown factors.

However! I recognise the fact that there is more circumstancial evidence supporting Theory A. Unless someone can point out a flaw in my reasoning, or present factual evidence that one theory is not only intrinsically superior over the other, but actually disproves the other, I have to accept both as possibilities. This does not mean that they coexist.

I would actually be grateful if you could solve this dilemma and leave the flames where they belong, but I don't think it's possible. I find that the more the singular events are discussed, the core argument is lost along the way. Such can at best present a best case theory, but not dismiss either. I find it very distracting.

And yes, Darth Gnome, I have read Saxton's page regarding shield domes and I heartily support it. Unfortunately, I can't make the other evidence disappear.

I hope I made my reasoning clear.

[His Divine Shadow]

An analogy would be DarkStar saying the chainreaction theory is superior because of the rings that appear.

So by that logic Darkstars theory is superior because it addresses the unknown factor, other problems, like the theory being completely up the wall(just plain scientifically speaking also) on multiple occasions doesn't come into play.

Like say how actual flakbursting would have totally altered the movies shown sofar, hundreds of kt level aa weapons on the Cores hips and they did not use them when a single flakburst would have fucked up the whole clone army?.

And we also have EU evidence, like how the Errant Venture goes to greath lenght to fool Yuuzhan Vong pursuers into a dense asteroid field so it can use it's weapons to turn the asteroids into gigantic exploding grenades, seems awfully risky and complicated when a few flakbursts could totally circumvent the Yuuzhan Vong Dovin Basals.

And turbolaser bolts do not explode, visual evidence pounds that to pieces, look at the explosions, it's hardly a few megajoules of explosive force, better just chuck the ICS out the window now.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And turbolaser bolts do not explode, visual evidence pounds that to pieces, look at the explosions, it's hardly a few megajoules of explosive force, better just chuck the ICS out the window now.

I said as much, to which was said that the left over energy became neutrinos.

Nevermind that doesn't change anything because neutrinos wouldn't damage anything, so the flakbursts would still be useless.

[nightmare]

Well know, DarkStar's theory introduces another unknown factor to explain the first one with. That's hardly superior to DET, particularly since with the suporting evidence he ignores. But that's a sidetrack, I don't have anything to do with Star Trek, even though I find his pages nutty to say the least.

The reason for not using flakbursts at AOTC would be the same as for not using nuclear weapons.

IP, I don't buy conversion to neutrinos myself. I was just trying to show you that you can't automatically disregard things from what they appear to be. A valid argument is to show that "flakbursts" don't do any damage, preferably to inert objects.

I WOULD like to study the visual evdence further, but I simply don't have that much time. I will be here even less than previously from today on.. if at all.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well know, DarkStar's theory introduces another unknown factor to explain the first one with. That's hardly superior to DET, particularly since with the suporting evidence he ignores. But that's a sidetrack, I don't have anything to do with Star Trek, even though I find his pages nutty to say the least

This also introduces an unknown, unscientific thing, he calls it chainreaction, you call it flakburst, both of them doesn't make an iota of sense anyway.

Energy weapons that flakburst... the very idea pisses me off, an atrocity is what it is.

The reason for not using flakbursts at AOTC would be the same as for not using nuclear weapons

Pwah! Hell. No.

There where zero reasons not use flakbursts, beyond the fact that they're a scientifically disgusting fanboy theory that I loathe as much as the chainreaction theory or the Young Earth theory, I treat them both as they deserve.

This kinda theories might go at SB or some other forum, but not here.

They had zip, zero, nada reasons not to use a flakburst, it would have won the battle at once, but they didn't.

And the nuclear weapon analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

IP, I don't buy conversion to neutrinos myself. I was just trying to show you that you can't automatically disregard things from what they appear to be. A valid argument is to show that "flakbursts" don't do any damage, preferably to inert objects

A valid argument is that the flakburst theory is an insipid fanboy wankfest made for vs. arguments only, thats it's sole reason for existing, and thats a very bad, very stupid reason, and it makes no sense in the context of the SW universe nor from the scientific perspective for that matter.

Valid reasons are that they are energy weapons and energy weapons do not flakburst.

I WOULD like to study the visual evdence further, but I simply don't have that much time. I will be here even less than previously from today on.. if at all.

You might as well not, visual evidence is not going to say anything of value, and why bother?

It's bunk anyway, flakbursts can kiss my ass, why don't we just start making up infinite improbability devices while we're at it and inventing technobabble?

Argh I get so pissed everytime I see this crap.

Someone oughta tell Saxton to make it say that TL's don't flakburst.

[His Divine Shadow]

Christ, I'm NOT GETTING INTO THIS SHIT AGAIN!

I'm going to link to this old discussion and that'll be it:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... +flakburst

Anyone who tries to argue pro-flakbursting is anathema to the purpose of Sd.net

[Illuminatus Primus]

The reason for not using flakbursts at AOTC would be the same as for not using nuclear weapons.

Area-affect missile weapons (nukes) can be shot down and would leave hardened/armored targets unaffected. All troops still aboard the LAAT/i's and Acclamators and AT-TEs would be left unharmed. Area-affect weapons are also unused once your ground troops have engaged the enemy to avoid friendly fire.

However, if they had non-missile weapons (thus could not be shot down) one would just secure their droid troops and obliterate the disembarked clones w/ flakbursting.

Additionally your theory does not have fewer unknowns, as the shield IS the mechanism for creating an explosion. Unlike the delusional flak burst (which requires something else to not only trigger it, but to create the spherical detonation). We HAVE proof that shields can trigger bolt explosions. You have yet to prove that the bolts can explode in thin air or in empty space or that flakbursting in the novel MUST refer to TLs. Your argument has no legs to stand on.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Christ, I'm NOT GETTING INTO THIS SHIT AGAIN!

I'm going to link to this old discussion and that'll be it:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... +flakburst

Anyone who tries to argue pro-flakbursting is anathema to the purpose of Sd.net

PUT IT AWAY! I WAS YOUNG AND NAIVE! DO NOT JUDGE ME BY THIS, FOR I HAVE SINCE CHANGE MY WAYS!

[consequences]

ARRR Captain, thread hijackers off the port bow, stand by to repel boarders.

I completely concede the point on flakbursts, there are to many places they would have been useful and weren't used once I gave the matter more than a moments thought.

Back on topic, to make a comparison, build a naval ship, with one third of a battleship's broadside, a fifth of a supercarrier's fighter capacity, the ability to land a fully equipped brigade of troops, and a giant cargo hold in the middle of the ship, and you have the modern version of an unmodified ISD. The multiple missions compromise its ability to accomplish any one of them with true effectiveness.
Take three ships of the same size, build one as a battlewagon, fill one with literallly thousands of fighters, and have the third as a straight troop transport.