StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm looking for ways to establish the scale of the generator for scaling the AT AT's maximum firepower. I recall some old scalings based on the ~17Km distance but I'm not sure on the math, but perhaps there are some maps in the EU. Ideas?

What in Valen's name has the size of the shield generator got to do with AT-AT firepower?

Because the lasers caused fireballs which can be scaled against the generator.

Not without knowing how far from the generator those fireballs were. And I seriously doubt the AT-ATs killing the shield generator gives us that.

I'm talking about the bolts that actually hit the shield generator; the fireballs would be right on top of the structure.

Just so I'm not accusing you of doing something you're not, what exactly are using to determine the yield of those fireballs ?

Well a lower limit could be taken from Saxtons explosions page. However being a beam weapon the actual energy would be much greater, especially considering that beam weapons consistently melt and vaporize large sums of stuff without fireballs similar to to bombs of similar energies. Recall Qui Gon Jinn melting the blast doors, tens of megawatts, localized collateral.
http://www.galacticempirewars.com/raygun-phenomenon

Here's the make and model, at least. I was hoping Wookieepedia had a citation for one of the Essential Guides or something, but no such luck.

Perhaps there are cross sections in the DK series?

Apparently if the AT AT fired upon the shield generator from a distance of 17.6 kilometres then the structure would have to have been ~1Km in length, meaning the fireballs would be ~1Km wide. If this image is used then the fireball would only a few tens of meters across. I'm sure I've seen a cross section of the structure, too, but cannot find on google. http://www.starwarsmmo.net/cms/wp-conte ... 7582_o.jpg

This very exact thing has been scaled before in threads oh, a decade old now, maybe older, been a long time, and was used to make claims of a AT-ATs packing firepower like a small atomic bomb. The forum search function sucks though so I'm not even going to bother to try to find it right now.

The reason why I don't bother is because its fairly useless approach to measuring firepower anyway. No means exists of determining how much of the blast was from the AT-AT mounted cannon and how much was from the giant power generator exploding. We know all sorts of power sources in Star Wars can and do explode violently when damaged, we know the AT-AT guns are at least partly directional in impact effects because we see this over and over again in the battle and other blaster use, which is no surprise since about any beam weapon ought to be. The end result is without more data, which will never exist, its impossible to conclude much useful in terms of AT-AT firepower. We can't even really assume the explosion is merely an upper limit, because the bolts actually could have passed clear through the shield generator and burned far into the glacier behind it. The way a mine clearing line charge explodes, looks much smaller down its length then from the side, because its a long thing exploding, can be taken as a demonstration of the problems you get from potentially linear explosive effects from blasters.

EU material BTW represents the shield generator at multiple different scales. I'd stick to the movie only if you want to do anything.

I disagree. The initial white fireball clearly reaches an apex after the initial blinding light begins to retreat. The fireball and mushroom cloud later seen from the cockpit is many times larger and has a completely different aesthetic. I don't see how these fireballs could be one and the same, so it would be most logical to conclude that the first was caused by the energy bolts and the second was the reactor. They can't both be either one or the other because they are both different.

0:40 onwards

Which means-the shield generator didn't kablooey in one go, nothing more. Bolt hits, whatever component of the generator complex got hit explodes, a moment later the whole complex goes wherever good machines go when they die. That doesn't mean you can use the initial fireball to determine AT-AT firepower even if that worked to begin with. Which, as Skimmer explained, it doesn't.

Indeed the only thing we clearly see in the clip is that part of the power generator blew up, and then in the next shot the entire thing is engulfed in an explosion. Nothing can be proven from this, not even that it really is two different explosions because the shot cuts while the explosion is clearly still expanding, then comes back to... a more expanded explosion. Meanwhile the power generator has multiple discreet pieces and a large underground component, which you see on a monitor when Vader is first informed of locating the rebels. Large complex things can and often do blowup multiple times and in different ways as it is.

The most logical thing to conclude is that the evidence is not specific enough to draw real conclusion from.

Yeah the main problem with using stuff like power generators or starships to draw firepower numbers is that they're "active" targets meaning they can contribute to their own demise.

the Asteroids blasted by the ISD are easier cause we can consider them to be "passive" targets meaning they're unlikely to contribute to their demise and thus mess our numbers?

Yeah the main problem with using stuff like power generators or starships to draw firepower numbers is that they're "active" targets meaning they can contribute to their own demise.

This.

Think about Star Trek and about people who think one photorp can destroy a starship. In fact, it takes several to destroy a starship without an active warp core, since the shitty design of the Federation warp core is what really gets you the pretty explosion.

Or for a much more realistic and practical example, look at the destruction of the HMS Hood by the Bismark. Is it really plausible to think that a single shell from the Bismark (or any battleship for that matter) is enough to shatter an entire battlecruiser into tiny pieces? Nope...can't happen unless...wait for it...the shell hits the fucking magazine.

Yeah fair enough, I'm convinced. Thanks guys for saving me from wasting my time creating a flawed page on this example. There's plenty of others to look at in the clone wars to look at anyhow.

That's a better approach to take, if you can compare multiple example and you find similarities then you can make a lot more reasonable assumptions even if no one example is very good alone.

Borgholio wrote:

Yeah the main problem with using stuff like power generators or starships to draw firepower numbers is that they're "active" targets meaning they can contribute to their own demise.

This.

Think about Star Trek and about people who think one photorp can destroy a starship. In fact, it takes several to destroy a starship without an active warp core, since the shitty design of the Federation warp core is what really gets you the pretty explosion.

Tbh even batch 1 Galaxies generally need more then 1 torp hit on an unshielded hull in fact I can remember only 1 ship that was 1 hit killed for certain by hitting unshielded hull and that was the Klingon BoP in generations and the Enterprise-E took major beating from the Scimitar (both torps and disruptors IIRC)

And SW ships also have things that can contribute to the demise, like warhead magazines for example.

Sea Skimmer wrote:This very exact thing has been scaled before in threads oh, a decade old now, maybe older, been a long time, and was used to make claims of a AT-ATs packing firepower like a small atomic bomb. The forum search function sucks though so I'm not even going to bother to try to find it right now.

In case you are wondering that thread is here:
http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/v ... hp?t=10360&

For what it's worth(very little) he estimated a range of 16 KT for the initial explosion and 130 KT and 3.4 MT for the subsequent explosions.