Reconsidering firepower for the neu-Canon

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Another of the things that needs to be addressed is that without the wealth of material in the EU, including the Base Delta Zero, and with the contested nature of even the novelizations, we have to fall back on screen analysis of firepower. This means that the Incredible Cross Sections are quite gone. We're back to the old Turbolaser Commentaries and Mike Wong's analysis, and some of Curtis Saxton's which relied exclusively on what we saw in the films.

This tends to reduce the firepower of Star Wars ships down to conservative levels--the largest extrapolated firepower rating for a large turbolaser comes to 2 gigatons under this analysis. One question I have from that--as it was never clear to me in the old days--is if that was based on scaling up bolts expected to have come from an ISD-I or an ISD-II's heavy guns. The ISD-II of course has more numerous but smaller weapons, probably each one individually producing one-fourth the firepower of an ISD-I's, maybe more because of the lack of the notch guns and so on. Regardless, this would either set the firepower of the largest turbolasers at 2 gigatons per shot, or approximately 8 gigatons per shot, and the likely overall firepower output of an ISD, due to the typical one shot per two seconds timing of large turbolasers, at around 20 GT/S, or 80 GT/S.

I thought to start this thread for more discussion on that in light of the reversion to the neu-Canon and its more limited evidenciary background, which generally seems to represent through The Clone Wars a more conservative estimate of Star Wars firepower, anyway.

[Simon_Jester]

So, just to be clear, in the restricted canon (the movies, the novelizations of the movies, the recent TV series, and maybe a handful of other materials in print...) there is no reference to Imperial Navy ships delivering the sort of planetary crust-wrecking bombardment that goes by "Base Delta Zero?"

Obviously, the name itself is EU, just checking that we're proceeding on the basis that the concept is EU material.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, the term base delta zero is apparently in Rebels.

Here's a link to the page where this is discussed:

bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=159514&start=225

Edits: I tried to fix the link, but its part way down page ten of the current thread for Rebels for anyone who wants to check.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Unfortunately the term by itself without a description of what it does is not very productive. Even a 20 GT/S rated firepower output ISD could functionally destroy all civilisation on an inhabited world within an hour of firing, being 72,000 gigatons of energy distributed over approximately 126,000 discrete locations which can be optimized for the maximum effect.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. As a rule of thumb, I'd figure that the threshold for 'destroying' an inhabited world for practical purposes is going to work out to something on the order of one kiloton per square kilometer of populated land.

For reference to everyone:

One kiloton per square kilometer would equate to literally carpet-bombing the entire planet with Hiroshima bombs, the bombs falling an average of about four kilometers apart, with overlapping waves of blast, lethal radiation doses (assuming you get radiation from being near a turbolaser point of impact), and enough heat to cause third-degree burns pretty much regardless of where you stand on the face of the world.

It's theoretically possible for a civilization to weather that scale of bombardment if they have heavily dug-in subterranean bunker complexes with enough supplies and life support to live through an extinction-level event that wipes out any real semblance of an ecosystem in addition to killing basically everyone on the surface.

But yeah, at that point any more intense level of bombardment is just superfluous, unless you're dealing with something buried very deeply... and you can get to "one kiloton per square kilometer" levels of saturation bombardment across an entire planet, especially if one ignores obviously unpopulated regions and any parts of the ocean that don't conspicuously have a ship floating on them, with a total of several hundred gigatons.

Individually bigger bangs tend to make this process less efficient compared to smaller, more closely spaced ones, but the amount of firepower required is still NOT up into the teratons-per-second sustained bombardment for an hour or more that we currently associate with 'maximalist' interpretations of the EU.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

An actually interesting point assuming the reactors are the same size, which they are are, is that the ISD-II can spread its fire to four times as many discrete points from the heavy guns. So in addition to being able to engage more, smaller capital ships, it can also more effectively conduct a low-order BDZ. It's clearly a modification of the design to be optimized to the needs of fighting the Rebels: It's better at taking on swarms of small capital ships like corvettes, and better at BDZs, which are the policing role of the Empire fighting the rebellion, while the ISD-I is still pretty much aimed at hammering it out with equal-opponent separatist remnant fleets.

[Simon_Jester]

Given that a lot of turbolaser fire seems to miss, the reason more but lighter guns are better at fighting corvettes may be more because it allows you to deliver pattern fire into the entire volume around the enemy ship, thus achieving kills more quickly...

[Eternal_Freedom]

An actually interesting point assuming the reactors are the same size, which they are are, is that the ISD-II can spread its fire to four times as many discrete points from the heavy guns. So in addition to being able to engage more, smaller capital ships, it can also more effectively conduct a low-order BDZ.

How do you arrive at that four times as many discrete points figure? If we're just talking about the heavy batteries on the dorsal flanks, then the ISDII should only have a 30% advantage (8 turbolaser turrets against 6). The extra guns per mount shouldn't directly equate to more targets except at long range were one or two degrees of traverse or elevation would make a major difference. From what I can recall of the ISDII models, those eight-gun turrets don't look like the individual barrels can traverse separately from each other.

[Batman]

Depends-if the limiting factor on he number of targets a single HTL turret can engage in a given amount of time isn't limited so much by turret agility but per-barrel reload time, a turret with the same agility but a bigger number of smaller (but also faster-reloading) barrels could increase the number of targets they can engage in a given timeframe.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Good point. I assumed that Duchess meant the ISDII could engage four items as many targets simultaneously, as seemed to be implied by the multiple smaller capital ships section. After all, per-barrel reload time won't affect things if the whole turret only targets one vessel at a time.

[Simon_Jester]

At long ranges in space combat, it is entirely plausible that the same turret could engage multiple targets, since it's not unheard of for a turret's individual gun mounts to have a little capability for independent traverse. Sort of like the gun on a WWII tank destroyer; it could be moved a few degrees to the left or right without turning the vehicle, just not many.

So you could conceivably target several ships flying close together from thousands of kilometers away, even with only a few degrees of independent traverse.

However, this would rarely be efficient. What's more helpful is that with four octuple turrets (each firing individual bolts that are still highly lethal to such tiny enemy targets), versus three double turrets (firing individually far nastier weapons that are overkill)...

You can put 32-shot salvoes downrange, as opposed to six-shot salvoes. And you can probably do this at a higher rate of fire since you have individually smaller weapons. That makes it far more likely that you will actually score hits on a small maneuvering target at long range, thus making it more likely that the rebel scum in their blockade runner will be disabled before escaping with the princess.

[Adam Reynolds]

Given that a lot of turbolaser fire seems to miss, the reason more but lighter guns are better at fighting corvettes may be more because it allows you to deliver pattern fire into the entire volume around the enemy ship, thus achieving kills more quickly...

When does it miss that much in the films? Against maneuvering starfighters, the Millennium Falcon and Leia's corvette both of which they were trying to disable. Against fellow capital ships they are fairly accurate.

They only miss seriously in the Clone Wars cartoon, which has enough visual issues that it shouldn't be considered canon in the same sense as the films from an analysis perspective. Venator class destroyers are shown using their main guns against as the only weapons against starfighters(Cloak of Darkness is the first such example). Where were the lighter, faster tracking guns shown being destroyed by the Invisible Hand in ROTS?

The worst case of accuracy was against Malvolence. Republic Venator class destroyers miss as much against the nearly five kilometer long target as the Devestator does against the 150 meter long Corellian Corvette.

This is also the same series in which clones and droids alike both repeatedly shoot the same spot in the wall whenever their side is required to miss. The animators cheat to make things easier given their somewhat limited budgets. Though I suppose the same argument could be made about Star Trek and thus it is hypocritical to use one and not the other in that context. But in the case of Star Trek the films are consistent with the series for the most part. The same is not true with Clone Wars.

As for the ICS numbers being too high, I believe they were based on the Death Star scaled down to the size of a star destroyer rather than the other firepower estimates.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, I was referring to traverse-between-engagement and also the fact that you can use computers to select a series of elevation/declination shots as you traverse from the different barrels. I would also expect some limited sub-traverse from the gun barrels themselves. Perhaps 4 of those guns are collectively more powerful than a single ISD-I gun, but I'd expect that to be by on the order of 10%, not an amount which without some other kind of advantage would be worth the change. Why? Simple, Star Wars technology is very static and the reactor bulges are the same size. I've never bought the common trope that the ISD-II has significantly more firepower than the ISD-I. In fact, one would think with the way Star Wars shields work, the ISD-I is a better ship against enemy capships, so why the change? Well, fighting the rebels, even the ability to engage 50% more targets than an ISD-I with the heavy batteries simultaneously would be a huge improvement.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You can put 32-shot salvoes downrange, as opposed to six-shot salvoes. And you can probably do this at a higher rate of fire since you have individually smaller weapons. That makes it far more likely that you will actually score hits on a small maneuvering target at long range, thus making it more likely that the rebel scum in their blockade runner will be disabled before escaping with the princess.

Certainly the multiple-gun turrets might be more effective at hitting smaller, faster-moving targets, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can engage more targets simultaneously, which is what I was originally questioning.

[Simon_Jester]

Certainly the multiple-gun turrets might be more effective at hitting smaller, faster-moving targets, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can engage more targets simultaneously, which is what I was originally questioning.

You are fully correct.

Given that a lot of turbolaser fire seems to miss, the reason more but lighter guns are better at fighting corvettes may be more because it allows you to deliver pattern fire into the entire volume around the enemy ship, thus achieving kills more quickly...

When does it miss that much in the films? Against maneuvering starfighters, the Millennium Falcon and Leia's corvette both of which they were trying to disable. Against fellow capital ships they are fairly accurate.

Capital ships are bigger, less maneuverable targets, whereas ships like the Millenium Falcon and Leia's corvette are exactly the sort of targets an Imperial star destroyer is likely to spend most of its time chasing in the Rebellion era. It is reasonable to assume that small, agile ships in Star Wars do in fact possess the ability to evade individual turbolaser bolts fairly easily at long range.

So this is exactly the point Duchess and I are making. If a typical mission profile for your ISD is to fight large, powerful individual enemy ships (as during the Clone Wars), then by all means equip it with a small number of individually very powerful turbolasers. But when your enemies lack the industrial capability to produce significant numbers of heavy ships, and are constantly trying to slip past you in blockade runners and smugglers and corvettes...

When that happens, modifying the main battery to deliver a high volume of fire, at the expense of per-shot firepower, is a sensible response. It means you're less likely to get a massive, devastating hit on a well-shielded, well-armored target like a Separatist flagship, but you're more likely to land hits at all while chasing rebel scum.

Do you feel this is a subject that needs to be debated?

As for the ICS numbers being too high, I believe they were based on the Death Star scaled down to the size of a star destroyer rather than the other firepower estimates.

I think they were also influenced by the EU references to Imperial naval bombardments vaporizing the oceans or melting the crust of a planet. A bombardment on the order of one kiloton per square kilometer is enough to destroy pretty much all civilization on an inhabited world (unless everybody's living in well protected underground bunkers). But it takes vastly more firepower than that to boil off the seas or melt planetary crust to a depth of several kilometers.

Delivering such a bombardment in a timely fashion (a few hours) takes a LOT of firepower. Which is where you get teraton/second power outputs from, because you need to dump thousands or even millions of teratons of energy into a planet to destroy it that thoroughly.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Certainly the multiple-gun turrets might be more effective at hitting smaller, faster-moving targets, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can engage more targets simultaneously, which is what I was originally questioning.

You are fully correct.

That's a pleasant surprise

Seriously though, I wonder why the Imperial Navy never took these thoughts to the logical conclusion. They know the Rebellion mostly uses starfighters, and we know they built (In the Legends EU at least) the Lancer frigates to murderise said starfighters. The main problem with those ships was they lacked any punch against anything other than starfighters.

Why then did they not take the seemingly obvious step of either refitting existing ISD's (perhaps at the same time they convert them from I to II (if that's done anyway) or building new ships with a similar heavy anti-starfighter battery. I can't imagine that the 20 quad-laser mounts of a Lancer would significantly impact an ISD's power plants and/or hull space. That would give their bigger ships (which they apparently use to chase down blockade runners, as in the aftermath of the battle of Hoth) the ability to defend themselves against fighters and those mass torpedo barrages that are apparently so effective in the X-Wing books.

[Simon_Jester]

There are plenty of indications that the ISD does have light turbolaser, ion cannon, or other beam weapon batteries that are at least theoretically capable of handling a pretty respectable fighter attack. The fact that the characters in the X-Wing novels seem so effective at blowing up star destroyers with squadron-level fighter attacks seems to be more of a character shielding thing.

[Eternal_Freedom]

What are those indicators? From the neu-canon that is. I mean, if the ISD's do carry enough light guns to stop a decent sized starfighter attack, why bother building the Lancers at all?

I just find it strange that the Imperial Navy recognises mas fighter attack as enough of a threat to design and field a whole new class of escort frigate but doesn't make the logical step to "add those same anti-fighter guns to our ISDs."

[Batman]

The fact that the characters in the X-Wing novels seem so effective at blowing up star destroyers with squadron-level fighter attacks seems to be more of a character shielding thing.

More of a 'let's take our lead from the X-Wing games and ignore that them being able to even touch a Star Destroyer is purely game balance' thing.

[Crazedwraith]

What are those indicators? From the neu-canon that is. I mean, if the ISD's do carry enough light guns to stop a decent sized starfighter attack, why bother building the Lancers at all?

I just find it strange that the Imperial Navy recognises mas fighter attack as enough of a threat to design and field a whole new class of escort frigate but doesn't make the logical step to "add those same anti-fighter guns to our ISDs."

They probably figure the five Squadrons of space superiority fighters will do the trick.

Even in the X-Wing books where fighters are at their most effective. a squadron of X-Wings is not eating ISDs for breakfast. Most successful torpordo volleys are against smaller ships. Carracks and Strike Cruisers and at most Interdictors (that spend most of their energies against interdicting) and Dreadnoughts

Against ISDs they don't stand a chance. Even VSDs. They can drop a shield facing with a volley. But a good destroyer Captain rotates to take the next volley on a different set of shields. And X-Wings only get three volleys to do damage.

They either need CapShip support. (the Alderaanian frigate and an ISD in Bacta war. Solo's fleet in 'Iron Fist' and 'Solo Command') Or shit tons of fighters. (some thing like two dozen Squadrons in the Razor's Kiss battle in 'Iron Fist' missile frieghters in 'Bacta War') or operating from ambush (Impacable in 'Wraith Squadron', plus the hi-jinks with the pirate ruse in 'Iron Fist') to make an attempt on a Destroyer.

'Rogue Squadron' the book even implies the Imps panic after Yavin and drastically over estimated fighter effectiveness. Hence the Lancer.

[Simon_Jester]

What are those indicators? From the neu-canon that is. I mean, if the ISD's do carry enough light guns to stop a decent sized starfighter attack, why bother building the Lancers at all?

If we restrict ourselves purely to new-canon... did they bother building the Lancers at all? They certainly never appeared in any of the movies.

I just find it strange that the Imperial Navy recognises mas fighter attack as enough of a threat to design and field a whole new class of escort frigate but doesn't make the logical step to "add those same anti-fighter guns to our ISDs."

In the old EU, there are numerous sources describing star destroyers as having dozens if not scores of secondary weapons. Also, as noted by others, describing star destroyers as carrying their own fighter wings which (according to doctrine) really should be able to blunt the attack of a squadron or even wing-level fighter attack.

While we're at it, there is actual movie evidence for star destroyers having fighter capability- Death Squadron deploys fighters at Hoth

[Eternal_Freedom]

Fair points. With the neu-canon, we don't know if the Empire considered mass fighter attacks a threat.

Back to the main topic, if we are restricting ourselves to only the films and TCW, can we not still use estimates derived from the asteroid destruction in TESB?

[Batman]

While we're at it, there is actual movie evidence for star destroyers having fighter capability- Death Squadron deploys fighters at Hoth

So did the ISD delivering Vader to the DS2 in RotJ. What the new canon (and no, sorry, I'm not calling it 'neu-canon'. You want to use the german term for new, use it right. It's 'neue/r' Canon) doesn't tell us (at least per the movies, I don't recall what 'Rebels' had to say on this) is how many TIEs an ISDs carries. Of course the new canon also-barring TCW-hasn't any evidence of fighters being a threat to capital ships on their own.

[Rogue 9]

Rebels hasn't had anything to say about the fighter capacity of Star Destroyers, or even their firepower, since we have yet to see a Star Destroyer actually shoot at anything in the series, as opposed to looming threateningly.

[Simon_Jester]

Fair points. With the neu-canon, we don't know if the Empire considered mass fighter attacks a threat.

We have indications they didn't, prior to Yavin. It's still likely that their ships would at least carry some degree of antifighter defense; the Separatists used enormous fighter swarms themselves and it'd be absurd and wasteful to leave a star destroyer with no means of even trying to fight droid fighter swarms... even if said droid fighter swarms are not themselves much of a threat to an ISD.

Back to the main topic, if we are restricting ourselves to only the films and TCW, can we not still use estimates derived from the asteroid destruction in TESB?

I would think so; do they support teraton-level firepower?