StarDestroyer.Net BBS

After much reading, Im still unable to get a really clear idea of how long these two vessels would last in a one on one duel. Im not really concerned with who wins, but more how long it would take approximately for one to destroy the other.

My other question is, is a ship basically invulnerable until its shields come down? Thus until a shield is dropped, no components or weapons systems can be effectively destroyed, removing the vessels combat effectiveness. Or even if the shield isnt destroyed, can the concussion of the blasts damage and disable system?

Also in a capship battle, would a commander direct all fire to one point on a shield facing, or would he order groups of batteries to focus fire on certain areas where crucial systems where, essentially allowing the gunners to destroy multiple systems in very quick order, based on a target package with the targets main weaknesses pinpointed? IE focusing fire on a Neb B's spine, trying to break the vessel in two

Apologies if this has been covered.

Well, the reason the Nebulon B's "neck" is such a lovely target is often because the Frigate is fighting something that outguns it tremendously. An ISD can knock out a Nebulon B's shields in one or two volleys, then break that "spine" with the third one, and the ship's space junk.

In a fight between an ISD and a MC-80B, it would make more sense (to me) to concentrate firepower on a specific point in the shield, in the hopes of knocking that shield out quickly and getting through to do some serious damage before the ship can roll and present a fresh shield facing--or in the case of an Mon Cal Cruiser, reinforce its shielding, which may be as quick or quicker than rolling ship.

Once again, in a fight between equals, instead of targeting various systems in the hopes of knocking a few of them out, it makes more sense to target one area--the bridge or the engines in particular--in the hopes of knocking out an extremely vital system quickly, thus ending the fight before your opponent can cripple or kill your vessel.

As far as I know a SD v MC80 from what I heard it would take any where from 5 to 30 minutes for one to be destroyed (most likely MC80) as far as concentrating fire on one spot the ships are always manuvering but it would intialy effective if you want to destroy it.

But considering the power of an ISD's guns, would it require a full synchronised broadside to bring the shields down, or is one blast from a single HTL enough to signficantly drain the shield? If it is, you could feasibly target and destroy multiple systems in a very rapid amount of time IE taking out CnC, firecontrol, and Comms to render the ship relatively harmelss, due to the rapid rate of fire HTL are quoted as having (2 second intervals)

pellaeons_scion wrote:But considering the power of an ISD's guns, would it require a full synchronised broadside to bring the shields down, or is one blast from a single HTL enough to signficantly drain the shield? If it is, you could feasibly target and destroy multiple systems in a very rapid amount of time IE taking out CnC, firecontrol, and Comms to render the ship relatively harmelss, due to the rapid rate of fire HTL are quoted as having (2 second intervals)

Wattage threshold requires full-broadsides.

set_stupidity=100

ok, on broadside, how is it exactly defined. I checked dictionary.com and it defined it as a simulatenous discharge. So thats all guns firing at the same instant? And are volleys and salvos just different words for a broadside?

Ok the wattage level needs to be breached before any damage can be applied to the systems. Is there even concussion from the blasts that can damage systems, whilst the shield remains?

pellaeons_scion wrote:set_stupidity=100

ok, on broadside, how is it exactly defined. I checked dictionary.com and it defined it as a simulatenous discharge. So thats all guns firing at the same instant? And are volleys and salvos just different words for a broadside?

Ok the wattage level needs to be breached before any damage can be applied to the systems. Is there even concussion from the blasts that can damage systems, whilst the shield remains?

Volley = a series of shots (one emplacement with multiple shots, or mutliple emplacements with one shot)

Salvo = several shots (from a group of emplacements)

Broadside = all weapons on that side fired at a single target

EDIT: and for the hell of it...

Fire at Will = All weapons in range open fire until the target is obliterated to satisfaction in terms of the mission.

Ta RTN. Finally I have a clear idea of those terms. Dictionary.com, you suck..

pellaeons_scion wrote:Ta RTN. Finally I have a clear idea of those terms. Dictionary.com, you suck..

NP. Nautical stuff is a specialty of mine.

IIRC you hav to exceed the shields energy threshold before you damage the shield...after you do that, the shield starts weakening then you start damaging systems...I could be wrong.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:IIRC you hav to exceed the shields energy threshold before you damage the shield...after you do that, the shield starts weakening then you start damaging systems...I could be wrong.

That would imply given infinite time, a corvette sized ship would never wear down an ISD's shields because the total firepower would never be greater than shield threshhold. It just doesn't seem right to me.

RTN wrote:That would imply given infinite time, a corvette sized ship would never wear down an ISD's shields because the total firepower would never be greater than shield threshhold. It just doesn't seem right to me.

And yet (according to the EpII ICS), that's the way it is.

Agreed. Granted any fool who takes a corvette to a ISD one on would be annhilated, but to say that the weapons onboard do almost squat in combat seems odd to me. Even some amount of firepower directed at a shield should have some kind of reduction capacity of the shield? Else in a combat, anything without the big guns wouldnt even bother firing at an ISD or MonCal

pellaeons_scion wrote:...but to say that the weapons onboard do almost squat in combat seems odd to me. Even some amount of firepower directed at a shield should have some kind of reduction capacity of the shield? Else in a combat, anything without the big guns wouldnt even bother firing at an ISD or MonCal

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

pellaeons_scion wrote:Agreed. Granted any fool who takes a corvette to a ISD one on would be annhilated, but to say that the weapons onboard do almost squat in combat seems odd to me. Even some amount of firepower directed at a shield should have some kind of reduction capacity of the shield? Else in a combat, anything without the big guns wouldnt even bother firing at an ISD or MonCal

It is possible that the power curve is non-square and contains a sharp peak, where the bulk of the blast energy is released over a very short pulse. During this pulse, you could theoretically achieve a very brief shield bleed-through, which would wear down the system. Think of it as a fatigue situation; eventually, hundreds or thousands of such bleed-through incidents could damage the system and cause a breakdown.

Please note that unlike Trek, we never hear any canon descriptions of shields being at 70%, or 40%, or any other precise figure. Instead, they seem to hold up until they've been hit too hard or too often, at which point they either fail or the system detects imminent failure ("One more hit and we're done for"). This is a bit like shooting a car engine with a handgun. It will keep running for a while, but if you keep shooting it, it will eventually start coughing and running poorly, and then stop completely (of course, if the weapon is too weak, it's more like shooting it with a BB gun).

A capital warship is extremely well-protected from weapons fire; notice how Piett was standing calmly on his bridge during the Battle of Endor. No panels blowing out of the walls, no bursts of flame or smoke or debris, no crewmen strapped into their seats so they won't be thrown across the room, etc. The only mild shake was when an actual part of the bridge tower was blown clean off!

Darth Wong wrote:
Please note that unlike Trek, we never hear any canon descriptions of shields being at 70%, or 40%, or any other precise figure. Instead, they seem to hold up until they've been hit too hard or too often, at which point they either fail or the system detects imminent failure ("One more hit and we're done for"). This is a bit like shooting a car engine with a handgun. It will keep running for a while, but if you keep shooting it, it will eventually start coughing and running poorly, and then stop completely (of course, if the weapon is too weak, it's more like shooting it with a BB gun).

Or you yank out your desert eagle and crack the block with one shot, it will stop rather instantly. Basically what happens when you use and HTL on something very small. The original SWICS mentions heavy turbolasers being used to "overload deflector shields"

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:
Please note that unlike Trek, we never hear any canon descriptions of shields being at 70%, or 40%, or any other precise figure. Instead, they seem to hold up until they've been hit too hard or too often, at which point they either fail or the system detects imminent failure ("One more hit and we're done for"). This is a bit like shooting a car engine with a handgun. It will keep running for a while, but if you keep shooting it, it will eventually start coughing and running poorly, and then stop completely (of course, if the weapon is too weak, it's more like shooting it with a BB gun).

Or you yank out your desert eagle and crack the block with one shot, it will stop rather instantly. Basically what happens when you use and HTL on something very small. The original SWICS mentions heavy turbolasers being used to "overload deflector shields"

Overload shields and punch holes in the most heavily armored hulls in a single shot, IIRC.

Darth Wong wrote: It is possible that the power curve is non-square and contains a sharp peak, where the bulk of the blast energy is released over a very short pulse. During this pulse, you could theoretically achieve a very brief shield bleed-through, which would wear down the system. Think of it as a fatigue situation; eventually, hundreds or thousands of such bleed-through incidents could damage the system and cause a breakdown.

Its also possible that shields, being composed of many individual sections or segments (remember how they could open a brief hole in the planetary shields in TESB without bringing the whole thing down?) and that sections can have weak points in them some small capital ships can exploit.

Its also quite possible that they rely on bigger ships (such as other star destroyers or Mon CAl Cruisers) to "weaken" sections (either through direct bombardment or forcing a ship to divert energy from one section to another.) - in order to allow their weapons to breach through. I believe that the only time we've seen the smaller ships ever have any real chance against a much larger ship has been in such situations (Where there were other big ships present to assist.) Its much the same as the
idea with fighters - they work, but only in support of a much larger ship.

A capital warship is extremely well-protected from weapons fire; notice how Piett was standing calmly on his bridge during the Battle of Endor. No panels blowing out of the walls, no bursts of flame or smoke or debris, no crewmen strapped into their seats so they won't be thrown across the room, etc. The only mild shake was when an actual part of the bridge tower was blown clean off!

And he wasnt concerned until the shields were actually brought down.

HDS has actually identified in ANH the starboard brim trench quad-HTL being used to kill the Blockade Runner's shields right before the successful MTL hit.

I always thought that the quad batteries in the trenches was designated a quad laser cannon, not a turbolaser at all. Meh, maybe the terms are interchangeable depending on an authors preference.

Also, the idea of shield segements sounds interesting. Perhaps thats where the broadsides really come into play, perhaps not bringing a whole facing down, but eliminating segments to allow further fire to strike the ship, whislt shield operators shift segments of undamaged shield to reinforce those areas that have failed. Would be an intensive process for shield operators though, to watch where the fire was coming from, and then place your freshest elements of shielding there.

So basically with a cruiser size vessel, until the shields have holes in them, or have failed, lighter vessels have little to no chance of damaging the cruiser classes and up. And that it takes the raw power of a HTL barrage to effectively weaken and destroy the shield sections of those types of vessel.

Mikes idea of bleedthrough I can understand. IE the shield can deflect/diffuse a certain amount of energy with no damage to the shield or the ship. But when that threshold is overcome, the shield doesnt fail totally, but starts to degrade (components failing, shield strength weakening) and allows gradual more and more energy through to attack the hull. Would kinda explain the vast amount of firepower SW cruisers and battleships are equipped with to overcome an enemys defences.

Also FettKyle mentioned that it can anywhere from 5-30 mins, dependant on manuvering. I was fairly sure that manuvering didnt play that much of a part, as in the movies the capships seem to have very little manuverability. I thought survivability was due to shield strength and ull durability rather than manuvering?

Quad turbolaser MUST be different than quadlasers in my opinion. Quad Turbolasers are are exactly the same as the normal ones except they have four barrels. Heavy Quad Turbolasers are towers just like heavy Turbolasers, except they have four barrels. But in both cases, these must be different from quadlasers because the Falcon is armed with a pair of quadlasers.

RTN wrote:Quad turbolaser MUST be different than quadlasers in my opinion. Quad Turbolasers are are exactly the same as the normal ones except they have four barrels. Heavy Quad Turbolasers are towers just like heavy Turbolasers, except they have four barrels. But in both cases, these must be different from quadlasers because the Falcon is armed with a pair of quadlasers.

Well, judging just by eyeball from the original ICS, the barrel size of teh quads are just as large if not larger than the HTLs in the turrets.

I came to the same conclusion. The quad trench guns appear to be as large as the primary HTL turrets.

I find it odd that they were removed. If one wishes to fire all weapons, they can still do so even with some HTLs in the brim trenches, albeit a steeper angle must be reached (although, if there was a cutout foreward so that the trench HTLs could fire directly foreward...). Broadside fire is similarly unaffected. However, the ISD could direct 4 HTLs nearly anywhere in the lower arc.

I'd have kept some HTLs in the brim trenches.

pellaeons_scion wrote:Agreed. Granted any fool who takes a corvette to a ISD one on would be annhilated, but to say that the weapons onboard do almost squat in combat seems odd to me. Even some amount of firepower directed at a shield should have some kind of reduction capacity of the shield? Else in a combat, anything without the big guns wouldnt even bother firing at an ISD or MonCal

That's much the way modern armor works. You could fire tens of thousands of machine gun rounds at a tank and never even weaken its protection. As you go upward you begin have minor bits of damage until finally you get high-end weapons, which will go clear through with one shot. I see no problem with shields working much like this.

That's much the way modern armor works. You could fire tens of thousands of machine gun rounds at a tank and never even weaken its protection. As you go upward you begin have minor bits of damage until finally you get high-end weapons, which will go clear through with one shot. I see no problem with shields working much like this.

So the way you see shielding working is on a principle similar to armor, ie if the weapon doesnt have the punch to get through, it will never, or at least take a unfeasibly long time to weaken the defences. Thus that would say to me that the only weapons that have the power to defeat and actively damage a similar sized cruiser-scale vessel are the HTL's, and anything else would be like shooting spitwads at a tank?

bad analogy I know, but I just woke up