Darth Garden Gnome wrote:You've said flak can mean a short burst fo AA fire. So it fired lasers and a short burst of AA fire? Same thing. And so then why does mentioning bolt and beam in the sam eentry grant it special recognition?
Two different kinds of weapons fire mentioned, two *known* different kinds of weapons are mounted on a walker. No explicit mention of bolts exploding like bombs. You do the math.
"Evaded" as in past tense, as in they already moved out of the way of something. Doesn't matter if they activley meant to dodge said attack, only that they DID.
Reread the quote. Evasion means you only avoid getting hit. It does not neccesarily imply active movement. And you've yet to justify that snowspeeders (or SW humans) can actually dodge out of the path of a high-velocity beam weapon (especially one reputed to move at lightspeed.)
And what energy release would that be? And remember they still have to evade something. The other point is adressed below.
The bolts *do* emit energy (the visible glow that is a side effect of the beam). Nothing says that teh energy release has to be all at once, or the total energy of the beam.
As for the "Evade" bit, I remind you that it does not require actively MOVING out of the path of the weapon, which is impossible for human reactions to accomplish anyhow.
Are oyu going to base your entire argument upon specific semantical interpretations of dialgoue and visuals, or what?
And how convienietly didn't mention what that certain something is?
They don't mention directly that the bolts explode like bombs, yet you somehow draw that conclusion. I remind you that the "explosion" coming from something they hit would be a simpler rationalization than devising some bizarre mechanism to explain the bolt exploding like a bomb (which is utterly inconsistent with the visuals of the flashes, I remind you yet again.)
Then by all means, explain to me how it "works."
We see a bright flash that does not result in tremendous releases of energy (which would create rather noticable effects due to said large release of energy) that would be required if the weapon exploded like a bomb. Simple enough for you to understand? Besides which, you yourself said it worked. Unless you can provide proof to back YOUR specific interpretation of the scene, any potential interpretation could work, and it loses any value as supporting material for your argument.
So? How exatlcy does this mean anything? A blaster can be called a projectile weapon. Hurray.
Projectiles are physical, and can be designed to explode like a bomb (high explosive shells, for example.) (And please keep in mind we're discussing the novel events, unless a particular novel event you cite can be matched to a movie event)
So blasters could include projectile weapons as well, by canon. Since Walkers carry blaster cannons, it can be argued that those are projectile weapons. Just another one of those MANY different interpretations on the "Evidence" you have posted that I have provided (and you have yet to establish any clear, uncontradicted evidence that energy beams explode like bombs)
Funny, when I watched the movie many of the alleged flak bursts came straight from the head of the AT-ATs head. Even if you could use it to explain some of them, you could not all of them.
We were talking about the novel incidents and their alleged "flak burst explosions", remember? Do you have proof that the novel incident in contention is actually SEEN in the movies? Or is this a deliberate misdirection?
Those flashes could be interpreted as ANYTHING, including flak bursts or shields. The fact that these books say that the T-47 doesn't have shields eliminates one of them.
It also says they don't need them because of their heavy armor (and their speed). Armor has superconducting/dispersive effects as well (Witness AT-ATs getting hit by Rebel fire).
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/zs/tesb/atathit1.jpg
Anyhow, the canon fact that there is a lack of any substantial energy release in a spherical fashion I(which would cause a rather large disturbance of the nearby air.) disproves the theory that its a flak burst (not to mention the fact that the Flak burst is a far more complex theory.)
But as you say, it can be anything, which I can accept just as readily. That simply means that its invalid as proof of flak bursting
As an addendum, I did notice some interesting things when I re-watched TESB. For one, we see white flashes that look alot like some of those "flak bursts" occur when Walker armor is hit (why would Rebels be "flak bursting" against Walker armor? They can't penertrate it with the concentrated energy of their weapons fire!). Also just before Luke's speeder goes down (a white flash goes off in front of his ship, and soon after he's said he's been hit.) Also some of these flashes seem to come out of nowhere (no bolts nearby to cause them).
I also saw some walker fire hit close/on the speeders that might be construed as flak bursts, although the energy output wasn't very high (they didnt shake the speeders even slightly, and there were no atmospheric disturbances to accompany any such discharge of energy.)
Seems that the Flak burst theory isn't quite as airtight even if we disregard all MY theories... of course shield interactions might explain it
(and its not like its the first time official information has been overriden by canon observation - The Executor scalings and Millenium Falcon scalings come to mind. If canon neccesity dictates ignoring it, it must be ignored. Much as we ignore the fact the gunships are not given shields in official evidence even though we canonically can observe such effects and they are stated in the novel. Similar theories have been posited by Brian Young that the TIE fighters destroyed by the Falcon on their escape from the Death Star had shields.)
And what of a concentrated blast? I believe I've brought this one up before.
If it delivers its energy on impact in a concentrated manner, its identical to what a beam weapon does already (and the "flak burst" becomes meaningless.) If you're talking about an "energy burst" that explodes some distance from the target but STILL concentrates its energy towards the target... what the fuck are you smoking. That makes your theory even MORE complex (you not only have to account for the "detonation" mechanism, you have to account for the concentrating effect.)
Do you even understand WHAT the difference between a beam weapon and a projectile weapon even is?
Actually I was presuming it would have significantly more. It would most likley have more firepower than the AT-TEs projectile cannon, otherwise such a thing would have been included on the AT-AT.
Not neccearily. Projectiles have other advantages over beam weapons in other regards (the reason missiles might be used ratehr than beam weapons on the Gunship)
The cannon was supposed to be much more powerful than the other cannons, which were for, anti-infanty duties. The fact that see the projectile cannon being used against enemy armor supports this. However the book does not tell us how powerful said gun is, do to the variable ammo that could be used for it. If we use the LAAT missles for comparison, than they are much more powerful than the other cannons. And then by that token the AT-AT is more powerful than the AT-TE. You can see where this is going...
Not really, but its irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that the AT-AT carries far more power than the AT-TE. I've seen figures that put the AT-AT at fighter-scale KT damage, and that would indirectly be supported by their ability to tangle with X-wings without significant difficulty, burt as I said, its beside the point.
Besides having no evidence of this than yes. Further, when we know that the TLs can kill these fellas on one hit, it makes the idea more fanciful, that they hav ebeen significantly damaged, if at all.
They were being fired on by the Death STar's own defenses. Even the quotes you posted indicated they were getting hit occasionally in the trench. Unless you want to argue that those "explosions" that rocked the Y-wings were pathetically weak (weaker than the Guns on Vader's TIE) - and these are supposed to be TURBOLASERS (again, by your logic.)
Besides which, they could have bypassed the shields or hit weak points:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/techno ... index.html
"Since smaller ships have limited power with which to generate deflector shields, they often only protect set areas, or arcs, of the vessel and rely on maneuverability to avoid fire. "
And:
Lando Calrissian and the Starcave of Thonboka, page 391:
"Fighter shields were notoriously porous, there just wasnt enough ship -
or engine - to support them. That's one thing that made a vessel the size of the Falcon so handy."
Fighters can have trouble generating full shielding to cover all arcs (And there are gaps that fire can slip through, consequently) compared to larger vessels like the Falcon.
Not my point.
Then what IS your point?
Then you need to bring evidence of this volumetric kind about, than don't you? I'll buy that the Gungans, Naboo, and TF share these "plasma shields" (or whatever they're called).
Only if you go by it ass backwards. I posted Mike's response (with his permission, I might add) in my second REbuttal to Nitram. I suggest you read it. Occam's razor supports the volumetric shield theory, not the flak burst theory. (hint the volumetric shield theory requires fewer unknowns.)
Burden of proof is on you to disprove volumetric shields (not that you've been all that successful where "burden of proof" is concerned anyhow.)
One ship out of ammo does not translate into lots of ships out of ammo. And what could be a bigger target than a heaping helping of battle droids which you claim could be so easily destroyed in such a manner. The Core Ships? That worked out well......
The Techno union starships, for one. Ground batteries.
Tradefed battle droids can be taken out by low MJ (if we assume at max power) or less blaster fire from clonetrooper blaster rifles. vehicle weapons easily carry hundreds of times the MAX output of the blaster rifle, can fire as fast/faster (especially the micro-superlaser), and carry far more ammo (beam weapnos require less mass per shot than a missile - thats the intrinsic benefit of beam weapons, aside from lower recoil.) You have not proven a legitimate reason they could not use flak bursts. Ergo, they cannot flak burst their weapons.
And if they could, they would be laughably pathetic flak bursts.
Read teh ICS again, it states there are an enormous amount of missle variants. Are you telling me that one of those variants wouldn't have simulated the proper effect of a "flak bursted" laser? Or one of those regular missles with a increased degree of deployment.
I am aware of that effect. However, if they employed those kinds of missiles, they were of a pathetic yield for their size.. and we STILL didn't see any substantial "area effects". IF they weren't directed, they were weak.
Explain. They weren't using flak bursting missles, so no it didn't happen. What exactly does this prove?
You tell me. You brought up the missiles as "flak burting" devices, not me. I fail to see what rationale that has to do with proving whether or not the lasers can.
Because you can only have so many speeders dingus. I thought that might have been obvious.
So why not throw out the waiting pilots in X-wings? Why send them in piecemeal? IF they had reserve forces they WOULD have tossed them forward.
Then do you care to explain why they didn't deploy their full arsenal?
TESB Radio drama. Vader was incensed with Ozzel for turning a "simple act of conquest into a needless and costly battle." He was deliberately conserving forces, for whatever reason (but that doesnt prove that was all they had, although that's one possibility.) But its clear Vader wasn't intent on throwing all his forces in at once.
The Ewoks didn't but you are still forgetting Chewie did! And there is no way an AT-ST could begin races through the forest at 90kph, and not expect to trip fall and die. Again manuverin gspace was tight, adn secondly we don't know how long it would've taken them to turn around!
Chewbacca didn't do any damage until he was IN the walker. Outside of it on the ground he could do nothing against one on his own. And an AT-ST need not travel at full speed.. even a brisk 5-6 meters per second (90 km/hr works out to 25 m/s top speed) would be sufficient to outrun an Ewok. IIRC, a good movement rate for a human is 3 meters per second.
And manuvering space is not nearly as tight as you imply. Ewoks could fly hang glinders in the forest without much trouble, arrows and rocks could be flung without any obstruction, etc. Maybe not enough for a flat out top speed run, but you can still manage something faster than a human and not tip over (and ewoks are smaller than humans)
Then it's obvious that the figures, no matter how staggeringly high, are WRONG. Since I could very well toss you the same question, of why they didn't use a direct attack capable of killing dozens of Ewoks.
I see. So the flak burst theory can't be wrong, its the numbers that are wrong?
Riight. Those 30 MW figures were based on the knonw effects on trees that we OBSERVE IN THE MOVIE. (its from Brian Young's Turbolaser commentaries -did you even bother LOOKING at the link?) Calcs > flak burst. You lose.
They were damaging the Falcon, see TESB (Cloud City too).
Which according to Saxton are shield interactions of bolts hitting the shields, not flak bursts. Doesn't prove a thing if someone else can draw a different theory from the same evidence, even if we disregard the possibility of Saxton's theory (which we have no reason to.)
So? It is human error for not lining it up correctly in the cross-hairs, or for firing the shot after the target has moved. Either way you can, and they do, still miss.
So why were they only firing SOME as bolts and some as flak bursts. If they were having any substnatial trouble targeting where indirect fire would work better, why were they not firing all of them as flak bursts?
Yes it did, mostly before Han actualy says that he can outmanuver them. After he does, he starts showing off, and in doing so the fighters miss him!
So why were they still firing bolts then, rather than relying entirely on flak bursts?
Yes you can, which is why you would be catious of how much energy you divert from the one part and put it into the other.
But shield strength is ultimately a finite resource. If you angle against attacks from one direction, at least one (if not multiple) other areas are correspondingly weakened, leaving them vulnerable to attack. Are you saying all four TIEs constantly attacked from the direction of the STRONGEST shield facing? Proof of this?
Are you saying that as you put power into shields they get further from the hull? I would suppose so, as it provides a larger space for the energy to dissapate onto.
Thats what the EVIDENCE says. I posted this bullshit long ago, and for soem reason you're STILL arguing its not good enough to disprove a flak burst. (I remind you again taht even if MY theory on shielding is wrong, there is still Mike's volumetric shielding theory, which puts the burden of proof on YOU to disprove because it involves fewer unknowns.)
How so?
Too many unknowns. Did you not try using the original reference as a counterargument?
Which means had they done twice the damage, they may have disabled the Falcon then.
A flak burst would be delivering at BEST half, and thats assuming it lands almost next to the target. Ideally, we're talking 1/6th or less, delivered over a far larger surface area (which basically means lower intensity, and is therefore less effective than a more concentrated attack.)
And again, how exaclty do you know that this flak bursting wouldn't penetrate the Falcons shields, even delivering a smaller portion of energy, you'd still be hitting the target. Heck if they'd flak bursted more often, then they might have tooken the shields down. If they missed half the shots, anyways.
All speculation. I have pointed out we have proof that TIE guns repeatedly required multiple hits to even get THROUGH the FAlcon's shields in a concentrated fashion, and you're arguing that an attack that delivers at best HALF that same energy (if not less) to the target, over a much larger surface area, will be more effective. Concentrated attacks would result in a greater liklihood of penetration, and hamper dispersion efforts. Do you not understand what INTENSITY is?
Shield operation has been described before. Any value equal to or less than the peak shielding value iwll not get through. Anything pst that gets absorbed into the shield for later reradiation. (the "peak shielding" value could be considered to represent the intanteous dissipation capacity of the shields - how much of an attack they can get rid of in a given timeframe) To bring down the shields requires concentrated attacks on a particular segment or facing (to create "holes", either temporary or permanant) or large volumes of fire to overload the heat sink capacity (deliver the energy at a rate faster than the shields can dissipate it.)
Do you have any proof the "Flak bursts" - if they were that - were doing more damage (that doesnt rely on using evidence that is explainable by more than one theory) than concentrated bolts? Can you provide proof explaining why they didnt use flak bursts exclusively if they were having such trouble targeting the Falcon?
I don't believe it would be difficult to adjust the settings on a TIEs laser cannons seperatley. They weren't all firing flak burst because they do less damage. Alternating between the two means you can miss with one and still hit, and you can hit with the other but if you do miss, you're screwed.
So how is the bolt to know when to flak burst? And not all the TIE pilots were doing this (And some of those were still missing) I watched that scene and at most one or two bolts "exploded" like the flak bursts you claimed they are - a far greater majority missed (some by a fairly significant margin.) If they were missing so consistently, they should have switched over to flak bursting.
The reason Han wasn't manuvering earlier when the Avenger was chasing them is because Han was getting jump coordinates again, and then once he couldn't get the hyperdrive to work, he started doing all sorts of crazy stuff.
Some rolls and slight shifts. The TIEs had no trouble keeping with the Falcon.
but even if we assume they're accuracy required them to flak burst weapons, why did they use so few flak bursts when they were missing with botls so consistently?
And also, if you'd like to talk evasive manuvers, check out the asteroid scene again, some of it is just straight line running, but when we do get to actually see the Falcon, it does some pretty interesting things.
Except they weren't fired on until they got to the big asteroid (where they missed with regular bolts pretty regularly, rather than flak bursting.)
I also bring up how manuverable the thing must have had to be to pull around the Avengers hull and land on the back of the bridge tower (Mike goes into detail about this on his site).
So if it was agile enough to make regular targeting impractical, I ask again WHY WERE THEY NOT USING FLAK BURSTS MORE FREQUENTLY, IF THEY WERE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE THAN THE STANDARD BOLTS?
I know its something you cannot answer, nor can you prove. Concession accepted.
No, if you can force an enemy into a certain into a certain space, say by discouraging them by flaking around them, then you can rain concetrated bolts on their exposed position. But the Falcon seemed to be too fast/manuverable for them to execute such a plan.
Oh, so now they're using flak bursts to "box them in?" I though it was supposed to be "better deliver a little energy than none at all."
If they were using Flak bursts to box them in, they should have used them far more than the regular bolts (they didn't.) The so called "flak bursts" occured rather rarely between the time Han evaded the STar Destroyers AND the time he shook the last TIE.
Did Piett decide to hold back when the A-Wing was going to crash into the bridge? I should hope not! Anyone would've targeted that fighter with one of their laser cannons, but didn't. This would show that even with these alleged lasers they're defense network still has trouble killing fighters.
Because it was too late. He'd only given the orders when he spotted the A-wing (the man who spots it even says "too late" after Piett orders the increase in forward fire) It can take time to relay orders, aftrer all, and so close to the bridge/ship itsself, turrets can have a harder time tracking than they do at a distance.)
Again, they still did a pis-poor job of targeting fighters! What Piett said be damned when hsi neck was one the line! He said something like increasing the forward firepower, he didn't want anything to get past it. Where were his anti-starfighter guns then? Not that I'm contestign their exsistence, only their effectivness.
Again, I point out the fact that only seconds passed when Piett gave the orders (even if we ignore the possibility of time cuts for the shifts between the Executor Bridge and the A-wing in question)
********
I'm going to simplify this. As I've quoted from Mike, the volumetric shield is a simpler theory than the flak burst theory. I've presented said theory as one of several (many) and the burden of proof is on you to disprove it (since Flak bursting requires moer unknowns than the volumetric shield theory) - Disprove it, or concede. I've repeatedly challenged you to disprove something and you have yet to do so.
):
