StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have been thinking about this and I was wondering what anyone thinks of this as an idea.

I know some people think the shells mean the weapons were rail guns. But to me that makes little sense since energy weapons would be so much more effective.

So what if those shells were single use energy storage capacitors? The idea being that as long as you have ammo you can fire your weapons without drawing power from the ship. This means more power can be directed to shields and engines.

If the ship is well designed then the guns could be designed to draw power from the ships reactor when they run out of ammo with the downside of meaning less power for shields.

This would allow you to create ships that for as long as they still have ammo can have a heavier punch than a similarly sized ship that has to power everything from its reactor.

Opinions?

Linky. I'm sure there are some opinions in there somewhere.

Baal wrote:I have been thinking about this and I was wondering what anyone thinks of this as an idea.
I know some people think the shells mean the weapons were rail guns. But to me that makes little sense since energy weapons would be so much more effective.

Because-you say so. Since projectile weapons totally don't have KE and momentum in excess of anything a DEW could ever hope for. Oh wait.

So what if those shells were single use energy storage capacitors?

So what if they weren't? There's no evidence one way or the other.

The idea being that as long as you have ammo you can fire your weapons without drawing power from the ship. This means more power can be directed to shields and engines.

Which is sort of directly contradicting your earlier statement that energy weapons would be more effective.

If the ship is well designed then the guns could be designed to draw power from the ships reactor when they run out of ammo with the downside of meaning less power for shields.

Which is stupid like nobody's business and supported by nothing whatsoever, given that with the site of the ships depicted they can store those shells by the MILLIONS without making a dent in the storage capacity of the ship.

This would allow you to create ships that for as long as they still have ammo can have a heavier punch than a similarly sized ship that has to power everything from its reactor.

Presupposes the 'cartridges' have a higher energy density than the reactor fuel because if they DON'T storing the same amount of fuel for the reactor has the same effect

Baal wrote:I have been thinking about this and I was wondering what anyone thinks of this as an idea.
I know some people think the shells mean the weapons were rail guns. But to me that makes little sense since energy weapons would be so much more effective.

Because-you say so. Since projectile weapons totally don't have KE and momentum in excess of anything a DEW could ever hope for. Oh wait.

So what if those shells were single use energy storage capacitors?

So what if they weren't? There's no evidence one way or the other.

The idea being that as long as you have ammo you can fire your weapons without drawing power from the ship. This means more power can be directed to shields and engines.

Which is sort of directly contradicting your earlier statement that energy weapons would be more effective.

If the ship is well designed then the guns could be designed to draw power from the ships reactor when they run out of ammo with the downside of meaning less power for shields.

Which is stupid like nobody's business and supported by nothing whatsoever, given that with the size of the ships depicted they can store those shells by the MILLIONS without making a dent in the storage capacity of the ship.

This would allow you to create ships that for as long as they still have ammo can have a heavier punch than a similarly sized ship that has to power everything from its reactor.

Presupposes the 'cartridges' have a higher energy density than the reactor fuel because if they DON'T storing the same amount of fuel for the reactor has the same effect

Batman wrote:

Baal wrote:I have been thinking about this and I was wondering what anyone thinks of this as an idea.
I know some people think the shells mean the weapons were rail guns. But to me that makes little sense since energy weapons would be so much more effective.

Because-you say so. Since projectile weapons totally don't have KE and momentum in excess of anything a DEW could ever hope for. Oh wait.

So what if those shells were single use energy storage capacitors?

So what if they weren't? There's no evidence one way or the other.

The idea being that as long as you have ammo you can fire your weapons without drawing power from the ship. This means more power can be directed to shields and engines.

Which is sort of directly contradicting your earlier statement that energy weapons would be more effective.

If the ship is well designed then the guns could be designed to draw power from the ships reactor when they run out of ammo with the downside of meaning less power for shields.

Which is stupid like nobody's business and supported by nothing whatsoever, given that with the site of the ships depicted they can store those shells by the MILLIONS without making a dent in the storage capacity of the ship.

This would allow you to create ships that for as long as they still have ammo can have a heavier punch than a similarly sized ship that has to power everything from its reactor.

Presupposes the 'cartridges' have a higher energy density than the reactor fuel because if they DON'T storing the same amount of fuel for the reactor has the same effect

Wow, you should change your name because calling yourself Batman is really an insult to the comic.

Obviously my point went completely over your head asshat.

It does not matter in the least what the total capability or lifetime capability based on fuel would be for a reactor. My whole point is if your weapons have independent energy supplies then your ships total output at any given moment would then be higher jsut from a reactor. Replacing all those shells with more fuel for the reactor as your final statement suggests wouldnt do shit. It would allow the reactor to run longer between refuelings but it wouldnt increase its maximum output at any given moment. Or are you going to be an idiot and tell me your car is suddenly going to drive faster because you took out the 10 gallon gas tank and replaced it with a 20 gallon tank.

Baal wrote: Wow, you should change your name because calling yourself Batman is really an insult to the comic.

I hear that a lot. Usually from people who couldn't hit the ground if it weren't for gravity.

Obviously my point went completely over your head asshat.

No it didn't. Mostly on account of you not having one to begin with.

It does not matter in the least what the total capability or lifetime capability based on fuel would be for a reactor. My whole point is if your weapons have independent energy supplies then your ships total output at any given moment would then be higher jsut from a reactor.

You ARE aware this makes no sense whatsoever.

Replacing all those shells with more fuel for the reactor as your final statement suggests wouldnt do shit. It would allow the reactor to run longer between refuelings but it wouldnt increase its maximum output at any given moment.

That's completely correct and completely irrelevant at the same time.Do by all means show the 'energy cartridges' (the nature of which yiu have yet to establish) actually INCREASE TL firepower.

Or are you going to be an idiot and tell me your car is suddenly going to drive faster because you took out the 10 gallon gas tank and replaced it with a 20 gallon tank.

I'm sorry, but that's what YOU are arguing.

Baal wrote:My whole point is if your weapons have independent energy supplies then your ships total output at any given moment would then be higher jsut from a reactor.

Which as far as I can tell has exactly jack and shit to do with the issue of "energy cartridges" vs rail guns.

Dude, I'm pretty sure they are just railguns.

Why the fuck would you use a "ray gun with an ejecting casing?" as opposed to linking the gun directly to the reactor like STar Destroyer guns (and all the other guns on the ship) do? That's as ineffective as you purport railguns to be. (neverminding that railguns in Star wars have variable ammo types as well as variable mass/velocity of the projectile.)

The Visual Guide for ROTS says it's a mass-driver cannon with an ion cannon on top.

I remember there were a lot of exploding shells creating flak clouds over Coruscant during the ROTS opening battle. The railguns could not purely be a solid slug thrower. The slugs must be explosive shells filled with the required unobtainium required to give them shield busting punch.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Why the fuck would you use a "ray gun with an ejecting casing?" as opposed to linking the gun directly to the reactor like STar Destroyer guns

Are you just fucking stupid? I even tried to use small words but I guess you have your head too far up your fucking ass to understand what I said. A ship where everything is powered by the reactor is limited to the constant output of the reactor to power everything in the ship.

This means your reactor powers: guns, shields, engines, life support, gravity, EVERYTHING.

Now if you want to at least short term increase your ships power without building a new larger more powerful reactor you can do so by taking some of those systems and having them run by independent power supplies.

One example would be in ROTS where we see that the guns have an independent power source in the shells used to fire them.

So now the ships reactor has more energy to run the other systems.

Now if I remember right we see a Republic ship take a hit that appears to detonate some of these ammo shells. If the guns were simple mass drivers then the shells would be inert slugs of some sort. There would be nothing explosive about them. Now if they are some sort of volatile energy shell then it would make sense that they are exploding.

Baal wrote:Now if you want to at least short term increase your ships power without building a new larger more powerful reactor you can do so by taking some of those systems and having them run by independent power supplies.

Of course the INTELLIGENT person would just build secondary reactors, rather than use these ridiculous "energy cartridges" that have to be loaded and unloaded, taking up valuable time in the middle of a firefight.

One example would be in ROTS where we see that the guns have an independent power source in the shells used to fire them.

So now the ships reactor has more energy to run the other systems.

Now if I remember right we see a Republic ship take a hit that appears to detonate some of these ammo shells. If the guns were simple mass drivers then the shells would be inert slugs of some sort. There would be nothing explosive about them. Now if they are some sort of volatile energy shell then it would make sense that they are exploding.

One false dillema after another. So it must be pure "energy cartridges" or completely inert cannon balls with NOTHING in between? The "shells" can't POSSIBLY carry an explosive payload? Can't POSSILBY have any kind of propulsion system of their own (perhaps for targeting correction) etc?

Baal wrote: Are you just fucking stupid? I even tried to use small words but I guess you have your head too far up your fucking ass to understand what I said. A ship where everything is powered by the reactor is limited to the constant output of the reactor to power everything in the ship.

This means your reactor powers: guns, shields, engines, life support, gravity, EVERYTHING.

Now if you want to at least short term increase your ships power without building a new larger more powerful reactor you can do so by taking some of those systems and having them run by independent power supplies.

One example would be in ROTS where we see that the guns have an independent power source in the shells used to fire them.

So now the ships reactor has more energy to run the other systems.

Now if I remember right we see a Republic ship take a hit that appears to detonate some of these ammo shells. If the guns were simple mass drivers then the shells would be inert slugs of some sort. There would be nothing explosive about them. Now if they are some sort of volatile energy shell then it would make sense that they are exploding.

Rather obvious you never gave the idea much thought. If a starship wants "extra powe" to run through ist weapons has alot of other, more practical means to achieve this. Batteries or capacitors can provide a "short term boost" in power without the ridiculous setup you claimed. In fact, weapons already run on capacitors.

Alternately, as Servo says, you build a subsidary reactor (which is something other ships utilize as well, like an ISD.) Not only do the other reactors provide supplementary power, but also redundancy.

Your method is downright silly because it requires both ample storage space for your "independnet power sources" as well as loading and ejection
mechanisms for them (for no good purpose.) Using explosive warheads in that context would make FAR more sense.

Of course if by "power source" you mean an explosive warhead, a reactor and an explosive aren't the same thing, a nd its pretty ridiculous to treat them as such.

I should also note that weapons and engines are goign to be the MAIN draws on a reactor - artificial gravity, life supporrt, and probably most shield elements won't be anywhere near the level of power draw. In fact, it would probably make sense to run things like AG, life s upport, and shields off those "independent power sources" you crow about (or more practically, a reactor or battery or some other power storage medium.) - you still wouldn't need your ludicrous loading/ejection mechanisms.


As a parting shot demonstrating you haven't bothered researching the topic, we KNOW SW uses mass drivers with explosive warheads. The LAAT gunship's missile launchers are mass drivers, and the AT-TE's railgun can also fire explosive shells.

Baal wrote:If the guns were simple mass drivers then the shells would be inert slugs of some sort.

There is no reason for mass drivers to fire only "inert slugs of some sort". They're simply a method for accelerating a projectile.
In fact, they're the best candidate for the flak bursts we see over Corsucant: explosive projectiles fired from railguns.

Anyway, Connor's stated a few canonical sources of explosive shells fired from railguns in Star Wars itself, during the Clone Wars era to boot.


As for the one-shot-use battery idea, even if you had compact batteries to power the guns in that manner (which doesn't make sense in the first place), it would be more efficient to simply mount them all the batteries in a static position, and connect them to the gun with power cables.
Makes more sense than the complex loading and unloading sequence!


Edit: Extra reason why you might want to mix in railgun slugs with turbolasers - Star Wars has separate "ray shields" and "particle shields". Posing high-energy threats on both fronts might reduce the enemy's ability to resist either or both, somehow.

Baal wrote:If the guns were simple mass drivers then the shells would be inert slugs of some sort. There would be nothing explosive about them.

You do realise that an ordinary rifle is a mass driver, don't you? Are you now suggesting that rifle cartridges have no explosives in them?

As an aside, I notice that everyone seems to be treating railguns and mass drivers as synonymous. They in fact are not, and I see no need for a railgun to have anything resembling a spent shell casing. Not to say that they can't have one, I just don't see why they should.

Granted.
A rifle, and modern-day cannons, do indeed drive mass.

However, you must consider the energy levels we're talking about in Star Wars starship combat. Weapons using combusting chemical propellants to accelerate projectiles through thermal expansion in the bore/barrel won't cut it.

Thus, projectile weapons/mass drivers would either be railguns or some exotic form off propelling a projectile. Parsimony would have us treat them as the former, unless something comes up that demonstrates otherwise.

We treat it as a "casing" because we assume thats what it must be. We really don't know the purpose of the thing, otehr than it has something to do with the ammo - perhaps it is some sort of containment or shielding vessel if the ammo were normally unstable - but we know its probably not a capacitor.

Well, I was just wondering why a railgun would need any kind of casing seperate to the projectile itself, it seems like a waste of space and resources to me. It's not like a casing has to use a chemical fuel, though, it could be nuclear or, like you say, some exotic kind of reaction. I suppose I would tend to the latter, because don't nuclear devices tend to give of most of their energy as radiation, rather than internal energy of reaction products?

Just a quick question/suggestion:
Don't StarWars turbolasers need some kind of gas medium? I seem to recall hearing refrences to some form of artifically spun gasses in turbolaser usage.

Could these shells be canisters for this gas?

To my mind it makes more sense as we see both sides using these shells in their main turbolaser weapons.

JGregory32 wrote:Just a quick question/suggestion:
Don't StarWars turbolasers need some kind of gas medium? I seem to recall hearing refrences to some form of artifically spun gasses in turbolaser usage.

You're thinking of tibanna gas, but it is a naturally occuring substance.

Could these shells be canisters for this gas?

That was one of the running thoughts after RotS came out, but before the Visual Dictionary identified it as a mass driver.

To my mind it makes more sense as we see both sides using these shells in their main turbolaser weapons.

I don't believe we do. I recall seeing the Separatists using them, but the Republic didn't use or eject any casings after firing their weaponry.

they don't have these later, so it seems likely that they are specific to the weapon. in the trench run, we don't see anything dropping out of the turbolasers.

I have an alternative theory:

These were not the ship's main guns, these were in fact the ground artillery of the Venator's onboard Army assets, being poked through these convenient open decks to fire at the enemy, so as to give her additional firepower, which is especially decisive after these warships have been going at it full-blast for so long, and have depleted their energy reserves so deeply.

KlavoHunter wrote:I have an alternative theory:

These were not the ship's main guns, these were in fact the ground artillery of the Venator's onboard Army assets, being poked through these convenient open decks to fire at the enemy, so as to give her additional firepower, which is especially decisive after these warships have been going at it full-blast for so long, and have depleted their energy reserves so deeply.

Except the only one's that ejected casings were the CIS ships, which we already know not to be primary weapons but point-defense mass driver flak cannons.