StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is there actually any functional difference between proton torpedoes and concussion missiles? As far as I can tell from limited EU reading and not-so-limited playing of the games, they're used more or less interchangeably. Rogue Squadron uses proton torpedoes for dogfights and antiship work, for instance.

Clearly there are differences in the technobabble, but do those differences extend to practical ones comparable to the difference between real life anti-air and anti-ship missiles?

Simon_Jester wrote:Clearly there are differences in the technobabble, but do those differences extend to practical ones comparable to the difference between real life anti-air and anti-ship missiles?

From the cross sections, proton torpedoes have much more of their mass devoted to warhead as opposed to engine and have a compact shape with a lower moment of inertia and wider spacing of the thrusters. I would expect concussion missiles to have a much longer range (or rather, delta V) at the expense of maneuverability. This is supported by the extreme maneuverability that Luke's torpedoes demonstrated in the destruction of the DS1, compared to the fairly straight path that the Falcon's missiles followed when destroying the DS2. The guidance systems probably also differ.

Accoring to Wookiepediam concussion missiles can penetrate armor and detonate inside, a feature that proton torpedoes (supposedly) lack.
This would make concussion missiles better against armored targets, especially if you do not target surface weaponery/sensors/whatever.

Wookiepdia wrote:Each concussion missile featured an armor-piercing tip that penetrated a target's hull before igniting the missile's compact energy pack, causing more devastating results than single-shot turbolaser cannons.[2] The impact would trigger the missile's warhead, which like proton torpedoes, was either nuclear or thermonuclear in nature. A concussion missile did not necessarily need to impact in order to detonate, however, some could be set to explode at a preset proximity to the target.

Against snubfighters, surface turrets or thermal exhaust ports, this is propably not all that important, since you can cause sufficient damage without penetration.

The only main difference I can think of is that proton torpedoes basically shoot charged particles at the target (often in a shaped charge manner) while concussion missiles have "blast" effects (which I assume refers to nuclear "blast" effects, or making it more akin to the Seismic charges we saw from AOTC.) Basically two different kinds of "kinetic" attack.

As far as the 'armor piercing' bit goes: IIRC the ROTJ novelization (or the comic, or the radio drama, or whatever) has specified that concussion missiles had better armor penetration as Serafina said (Wedge noted his PT couldn't have hurt it whereas the Falcon's concussion missiles could. That might have been payload, tho if the EG's are to be believed the FAlcon's usual concussion missile payload is equal to a proton torpedo in yield.

The only other difference I can conceive of is that proton torpedoes may have some relation to ion weaponry and the shield disrupting plasma torpedoes - we know some protorps can be designed for greater effect against shields (EG Torpedo sphere munitions.) Payload can be variable, they can unleash their yield in various ways (omnidirectional or more focused), and other properties like the missile's accelerative capabilites, endurance, and guidance can probably vary as well.

Interesting. My main familiarity with the weapons is from the games, where they are functionally interchangeable, or where it is by no means obvious what the functional difference is. Concussion missiles are typically portrayed as less damaging than torpedoes, for that matter...

On a marginally related question, has anyone heard of capital ship grade assault concussion missiles?
[That's a Wookieepedia link]

I'm specifically interested in the cluster missile variant that launches a large number of fighter-weight missiles; does anyone remember seeing those in original source material? They're certainly not in anything I own, and the website only lists game book references.

I don't know what games you were playing, but in X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter and XWA they were not in any way interchangable, proton torpedoes being slow anti ship missiles incapable of hitting anything remotely fast of manueverable and vulnerable to defensive fire while concussion missiles were anti fighter weapons that were very fast and agile but with payloads that were ineffectual against captital ships.

Patroklos wrote:proton torpedoes being slow anti ship missiles incapable of hitting anything remotely fast of manueverable

Really? 'cause, er, I've got a fair number of kills with proton torps against fighters.

I'm not absolutely convinced about missiles being less manoeuvrable, considering what Jango Fett used in the asteroid chase in AOTC were apparently missiles- less peak agility maybe, I'll admit that (down the exhaust port we go...) but sustained chase, turn and burn, good enough to nearly catch one of the fastest and nimblest fighters of it's day flown by a Jedi Master.

I wish my TIE Fighter concussion missiles had that kind of performance. I do think it's likely- compare the sizes of the X-wing's protons to Han's concussions- that the Falcon was simply firing a larger and more powerful concussion missile than edge was a torpedo, and size for size protons hit harder.

As far as I know the antifighter cluster warhead was in one of the later X-wing books, and fed into the game material from there.

Both are pretty maneuverable - Lukes proton torpedoe made a turn that is more than sufficient to catch any fighter.

The only way how one could be unsuitable against fighters is electronic warfare, and the torpedoes/missiles lack of countermeasures. Other than that, and payload, both can easily hit a fighter.

Patroklos wrote:I don't know what games you were playing, but in X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter and XWA they were not in any way interchangable, proton torpedoes being slow anti ship missiles incapable of hitting anything remotely fast of manueverable and vulnerable to defensive fire while concussion missiles were anti fighter weapons that were very fast and agile but with payloads that were ineffectual against captital ships.

Rogue Squadron games, Empire at War. They're not identical, but they're not all that overwhelmingly different in those games, either.

Also, it's noteworthy that this characterization (protons are antiship, concussion missiles are antifighter) is the exact opposite of the one Serafina describes... which is kind of my point. We've seen both concussion missiles and proton torpedoes portrayed as the armor-piercing antiship missiles, and we've seen both portrayed as the one you want to use against fighters. Certainly, Rogue Squadron never hesitates to use their torpedoes in dogfights in the X-Wing books.

My natural instinct is to throw up my hands in disgust and say that there's no really fundamental difference between the types except the nature of the warhead, and that all other properties are up in the air to the point where there's no way to predict which will be best for a given mission.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Patroklos wrote:I don't know what games you were playing, but in X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter and XWA they were not in any way interchangable, proton torpedoes being slow anti ship missiles incapable of hitting anything remotely fast of manueverable and vulnerable to defensive fire while concussion missiles were anti fighter weapons that were very fast and agile but with payloads that were ineffectual against captital ships.

Rogue Squadron games, Empire at War. They're not identical, but they're not all that overwhelmingly different in those games, either.

Also, it's noteworthy that this characterization (protons are antiship, concussion missiles are antifighter) is the exact opposite of the one Serafina describes... which is kind of my point. We've seen both concussion missiles and proton torpedoes portrayed as the armor-piercing antiship missiles, and we've seen both portrayed as the one you want to use against fighters. Certainly, Rogue Squadron never hesitates to use their torpedoes in dogfights in the X-Wing books.

My natural instinct is to throw up my hands in disgust and say that there's no really fundamental difference between the types except the nature of the warhead, and that all other properties are up in the air to the point where there's no way to predict which will be best for a given mission.

Games have always been the lowest canonical source, and Connor has demonstrated they have some different properties from a couple canon sources.

No arguement about the level of cannon, but on a personal note one of the things I like about the games (especially the flight sim ones) is that whatever way they portray things they actually have to work that way consistantly in game play (within the same game of course). Too many times authors simply make every gadget work in whatever way they want as a convenient plot device regardless of any previous performance, many times contrary to other descriptions within the same boot.

When I play XWA my photon torpedoes work and act the same way, everytime. No momentary wanking, no crazy out of spec behavior.

Of course games have other problems, like themselves manipulating how things work for performance/gameplay reasons even if they are consistant throughout a single game.

Bah! The hell with the entire EU!

My sources were mainly the DK books with the essential guides. That said, let's ignore that and look at proton torpedoes and concussion missiles from a size/volume standpoint. For a given size of a missile/torpedo you have a fixed internal volume. You have different considerations: propulsion (accelerative capability and endurance- ie fuel), guidance systems and other relevant electronics (sensors and target tracking, possible shield penetration tech, countermeasures, etc.), and of course the warhead. There are probably others I'm missing too - I'm just grossly oversimplifying this to make a point. Now, with just those three options, you face certain tradoeffs. You cna put in a really big warhead, but that will cut into one of the other two (IE a powerful, but dumb and slow munition.). Or you could make a fast missile, again with tradeoffs.

Of course, you can also increase the size of the missile, but that carries tradeoffs all its own (mass, ammo capacity, cost, etc.)

If we chose to read anything into the names, we might guess that proton torpedoes as a rule are stronger - RL torpedoes tend to be powerful but slow moving and iwth shorter range than missiles - but also have certian advantages over missiles due to their underwater approach. A concussion missile to have longer range would need greater acceleration/endurance and probably a better guidance system, which will dictate limits on warhead size. To get a comparable torpedo yield you need a bigger overall missile (which is whta the EG hint at with the Falcon.)

I suppose we could speculate that concussion missiles are better at armor, and proton torpedoes are also better at shields, but that is as I said speculation and only marginally supported.

The Games and even the "guides" tend to abstract the weapons into "types" (the EG's are partly based on video games and RPGs after all, love that or hate it) and those are just game conveniences (you have powerful slow munitions, fast weak ones, etc. Many games have those things) and the names are irrelevant.

Patroklos wrote:Of course games have other problems, like themselves manipulating how things work for performance/gameplay reasons even if they are consistant throughout a single game.

Like starfighters flying at around 100 m/s, rather than 2.1 km/s (observed from ANH) or being able to continuously accelerate at 3500 Gs?

Bah! The hell with the entire EU!

Now you're learning.

Ghost Rider wrote:Games have always been the lowest canonical source, and Connor has demonstrated they have some different properties from a couple canon sources.

I'm hung up on the fact that proton torpedoes seem to be multirole weapons, myself. The guides indicate they're the "slow and powerful type," which would make great sense as an antiship weapon, and I don't deny that... but I'm still stuck with Rogue Squadron using them in dogfights like they were Sidewinders, and doing so with considerable success. That's from the novels, not the games.

And that is about where I start wanting to throw my hands up in disgust, because it seems to me that the waters have been badly muddied by people who didn't really care what the difference between the two weapons was. I'm still hoping for a clear-cut difference here, but I'm still confused on that front.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:Games have always been the lowest canonical source, and Connor has demonstrated they have some different properties from a couple canon sources.

I'm hung up on the fact that proton torpedoes seem to be multirole weapons, myself. The guides indicate they're the "slow and powerful type," which would make great sense as an antiship weapon, and I don't deny that... but I'm still stuck with Rogue Squadron using them in dogfights like they were Sidewinders, and doing so with considerable success. That's from the novels, not the games.

And that is about where I start wanting to throw my hands up in disgust, because it seems to me that the waters have been badly muddied by people who didn't really care what the difference between the two weapons was. I'm still hoping for a clear-cut difference here, but I'm still confused on that front.

Then they have different payloads and builds but in SW slang they are proton torpedos and some are concussion missles and their difference is known by the pilots and people of that universe but not always defined to us, the observational viewer. It's not hard to reconcile, given the evidence at hand can be claimed for inaccurate sources because who's telling us what.

Particle shielding will deflect proton torpedoes, however, proton torpedoes are highly effective against ray shielding.

It seems that concussion missiles/bombs are effective against both types of shielding and also have armor piercing qualities. Their concussive blast damages delicate instruments and equipment.

Proton torpedoes shouldn't NEED to be highly effective against ray shields what with them being able to IGNORE those on account of being physical projectiles?
And how would concussion missiles damage delicate equipment they can't HIT on account of the shields/armour being in the way?

Batman wrote:Proton torpedoes shouldn't NEED to be highly effective against ray shields what with them being able to IGNORE those on account of being physical projectiles?
And how would concussion missiles damage delicate equipment they can't HIT on account of the shields/armour being in the way?

I have absolutely no idea what these imaginary weapons can do, i'm just telling you what the books say.

I do remember, from the Hutt Gambit, them saying that concusion missiles were extremely expensive and hard for non military types to come by.

Batman wrote:Proton torpedoes shouldn't NEED to be highly effective against ray shields what with them being able to IGNORE those on account of being physical projectiles?

Depends. If ray shields can burn a target then there's a chance that strong enough ray shields could melt and/or otherwise fry a munition too. Depends entirely on the technobabble properites of the shields.

And how would concussion missiles damage delicate equipment they can't HIT on account of the shields/armour being in the way?

Shock waves propogating through matter and force/momentum. Take your pick.

Ghost Rider wrote:Then they have different payloads and builds but in SW slang they are proton torpedos and some are concussion missles and their difference is known by the pilots and people of that universe but not always defined to us, the observational viewer. It's not hard to reconcile, given the evidence at hand can be claimed for inaccurate sources because who's telling us what.

That brings us to more or less the point I'm at after throwing up my hands in disgust: "I have no clue what the difference is."

I'm still hoping that someone here has it figured out, which is why I asked in the first place. I'd think there ought to be a visible difference if there's a difference at all, but at this point I'm entirely prepared to believe that the functional differences are small enough that missiles and torpedoes can reasonably be considered interchangeable, at least in that for any mission a torpedo can do there is some missile that can probably do it and vice versa.

Shock waves propogating through matter and force/momentum. Take your pick.

Which can only happen if there is matter between where the shields make the weapon explode and the hull. We know that the shields are along the hull of SW ships, but there must be some physical space between the shield effect and the hull. Welcome to the stupidity of the "seismic charge."

Patroklos wrote:

Shock waves propogating through matter and force/momentum. Take your pick.

Which can only happen if there is matter between where the shields make the weapon explode and the hull. We know that the shields are along the hull of SW ships, but there must be some physical space between the shield effect and the hull. Welcome to the stupidity of the "seismic charge."

Or the shields itself carrying the shockwave... although I have to say that conservation of momentum is not a strong point in neither SW nor ST.

Patroklos wrote:

Shock waves propogating through matter and force/momentum. Take your pick.

Which can only happen if there is matter between where the shields make the weapon explode and the hull. We know that the shields are along the hull of SW ships, but there must be some physical space between the shield effect and the hull. Welcome to the stupidity of the "seismic charge."

We've seen the Millenium Falcon shudder under turbolaser impacts that did not penetrate the shields, so there has to be some coupling.

Simon_Jester wrote:We've seen the Millenium Falcon shudder under turbolaser impacts that did not penetrate the shields, so there has to be some coupling.

Shields in SW (unlike, say, ST) are a volumetric effect (i.e. they get "stronger" the closer you get to the source; presumably a shield projector)*. It would seem to me that this would further affirm the idea that they're coupled, with the shields being "densest" abutting the hull, or projector source. Patroklos is, I believe, incorrect about the required physical space between the shield effect and the hull.

* Exception: Gungan theater shields.