StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Below is an analysis of the firing rates for Republic Star Destroyers (RSD) from Return of the Sith. Lets begin:

Example 1, taken from the opening tracking shot:




As the shot tracks the Jedi fighters, the camera also provides an overhead view of an RSD firing on a Separtist frigate. Three batteries are seen to be firing during the sequence. From left to right, I will refer to them as A,B, and C.

Battery A is observed to fire at 1:02:40:19,1:02:40:23, and 1:02:41:09. Assuming a frame rate of 30fps (US standard), the average firing rate for Battery A is 2 shots / 20 frames or 3 shots / sec . The instantaneous firing rate for Battery A is 7.5 shots / sec and 1.87 shots / sec.


Battery B is observed to fire at 1:02:41:00 and 1:02:41:08 which is a firing rate of 1 shot / 8 frames or 3.75 shots / sec.

Battery C is observed to fire at 1:02:40:15 and 1:02:40:21 which is a firing rate of 1 shots / 6 frames or 5 shots / sec.

Example 2, taken after the buzz droids attack the fighters.



As the shot follows the fighters, a closer view of the Star Destroyer is provided. Here four batteries are observed to be firing. From left to right, they are batteries A,B,C, and D.

Battery A fires at 1:06:21:15,1:06:21:19 and 1:06:24:00 which is an average firing rate of 2 shots / 75 frames or 0.6 shots / sec. The instantaneous firing rate is 7.5 shots / sec and 0.22 shots / sec respectfully.

Battery B only fires once at 1:06:23:11.

Battery C fires at 1:06:23:19 and 1:06:23:23 for a firing rate of 7.5 shots / sec.

Battery D fires at 1:06:23:26 and 1:06:24:0 for a firing rate of 7.5 shots / sec.


Example 3, the fighters overtake the camera which occurs after Anakin shoots the other fighter's wing off.



Two batteries are observed to fire in this sequence. From back to front, they are battery A and B.

Battery A fires at 1:06:07:29, 1:06:08:10, and 1:06:08:24 for an average firing rate of 2.4 shots / sec. Instantanous firing rates are 1 shot / 11 frames (2.72 shots / sec) and (1 shot / 14 frames) 2.14 shots / sec.

Battery B fires at 1:06:08:08 and 1:06:08:15 for a firing rate of 4.285 shots / sec.

So in ROTS, we see, for the main guns on the Republic Star Destroyer, time intervals between consecutive shots as short as 4 frames which translates into a firing rate of 7.5 shots / sec. Average firing rates taken over a given time will of course be shorter due to a wide variety of factors such as finding and tracking a new target.

Edit: Math Error for Example 1 - Time interval is 20 frames rather than 14.

Can we draw any conclusions of gun size relative to these figures? ROTJ turbolasers seem to have a lower fire rate, though that's just my opinion. It's not really possible to form an accurate opinion without seeing which guns are responsible for which bolts, and we don't see much of that save the Neb-B duel and anti-fighter fire. Oh, and before I forget: good job.

I believe there was a picture somewhere about which had a comparison-- Jedi Starfighter to the guns of the Republic and Separatists. Apparently an Republic turbolaser bolt is as big as a Jedi fighter...

That doesn't impress me much.

See the turbolaser commentaries Link for lengths of various turbolaser bolts in Empire. Medium shots tend to hover around 50 meters long while the heavy batteries fire bolts that are perhaps up to 200 meters long!

So yeah, I'm actually a little disapointed with the ROTS weaponry as it looks nothing like the weaponry used in the old trilogy.

EA is incorrect. The bolt is as big around as the Actis. AFAIK, no one has measured the bolt length yet.

Some more examples, this time from the broadside duel with Grievous's flagship.

Here, a long stationary shot of the Republic Destroyer and the Separatist Flagship is seen. At least four batteries are observed to fire. From left to right, they are batteries A, B, C, and D.



Battery A is seen firing at 1:15:54:11, 1:15:54:20, 1:15:55:18, and 1:15:55:26 which is an average firing rate of 2 shots / sec. The instantanous firing rate is 3.33 shots / s , 1.07 shots / s, and 3.75 shots /s respectfully.

Battery B is seen firing at 1:15:53:26, 1:15:54:06, 1:15:54:28, 1:15:55:06, 1:15:55:29, and 1:15:56:24 which is an average firing rate of 1.70 shots / s. The instantanous firing rate is 3 shots / s , 1.36 shots / s,, 3.75 shots /s , 1.3 shots / s and 1.2 shots / s respectfully.

Battery C is seen firing at 1:15:53:26, 1:15:54:14, 1:15:54:23, and 1:15:55:19 which is an average firing rate of 1.7 shots / s. The instantanous firing rate is 1.66 shots / s , 3.33 shots / s, and 1.15 shots /s respectfully.

Battery D is seen firing at 1:15:54:05, 1:15:54:21, 1:15:54:28, and 1:15:55:05 which is an average firing rate of 3 shots / s . The instantanous firing rate is 1.87 shots / s , 4.3 shots / s, and 4.3 shots /s respectfully.

Batteries A,B.C are the main guns along the top side of the ship whereas D is a trench gun. Note that a large flash and explosion is seen in the area of D and that following the explosion, the gun is no longer seen firing.

Example 2 is taken slightly later right before Grievious's ship begins its dive.



Two main batteries are seen here. From left to right, they are labeled A and B.

Battery A is seen firing at 1:16:03:16 and 1:16:04:19 for a firing rate of 0.90 shots / s .

Battery B is seen firing at 1:16:03:00 and 1:16:03:24 for a firing rate of 1.25 shots /s .

In this example, we see the main guns showing firing rates that are slightly lower than previous examples; this is most noticeable in that the instantanous firing rates are no longer as high as 7.5 shots / s. Note that by the end of the sequence, firing rates for all batteries except Battery D and A have dropped to around a shot / sec. Battery D, the trench battery, shows little-no decrease in firing rate up until its destruction.

By the second sequence, the main guns show firing rates of only a shot / sec. Perhaps gunners are choosing their targets more carefully. Perhaps damage to the Star Destroyer is finally taking its toil on the starboard main guns as large explosions are also seen on the hull. There is hardly enough sample points to really conclude anything, but I thought it was interesting that the firing rates are noticeablely smaller at the end of engagement.

Edit: +5 vs Grammer.

The Silence and I wrote:That doesn't impress me much.

See the turbolaser commentaries Link for lengths of various turbolaser bolts in Empire. Medium shots tend to hover around 50 meters long while the heavy batteries fire bolts that are perhaps up to 200 meters long!

Wow. That is very large.

We know from the ICS that the batteries have multiple power settings. It is likely that just how much raw firepower is being thrown at any one target is being carefully rationed. The battle is supposed to have been going on for some time, fuel supplies may be questionable since ships have been running at max power and engaged in fighting for hours. It would not surprise me if the batteries were very flexible in terms of firepower per bolt and number of bolts per volley.

Ok, but what would surprise me is if they have this capability and then fail to use it in a one on one fight. Consider, if the shorter bolts indicate reduced power levels, then might it make more sense to hit The Invisible Hand with fewer full power shots rather than more numerous shots at a lower setting?

There was no more need to conserve fuel for those two ships; either win or die was the situation, and arguably individually more powerful shots would have killed the Invisible Hand faster, meaning less energy expended afterall.

The Silence and I wrote:Ok, but what would surprise me is if they have this capability and then fail to use it in a one on one fight. Consider, if the shorter bolts indicate reduced power levels, then might it make more sense to hit The Invisible Hand with fewer full power shots rather than more numerous shots at a lower setting?

There was no more need to conserve fuel for those two ships; either win or die was the situation, and arguably individually more powerful shots would have killed the Invisible Hand faster, meaning less energy expended afterall.

However, General Grievious was known to use a modified Providence-class destroyer as his flagship. This would make a Providence with a noticeably enlarged hangar worth contemplating disabling rather than destroying outright since Grievious would want to keep the chancellor close by as a last ditch bargaining chip.

The Silence and I wrote:Ok, but what would surprise me is if they have this capability and then fail to use it in a one on one fight. Consider, if the shorter bolts indicate reduced power levels, then might it make more sense to hit The Invisible Hand with fewer full power shots rather than more numerous shots at a lower setting?

higher powered bolts would carry more momentum and require substantially more force-field bracing to prevent the turret from geting torn off. Such bracing inhibits its turning ability (and close up like that, the ability for a turret to rotate quickly is probably a major consideration.)

Technically there's not going to be any "effective" difference between sustained firepower if you spread it among 1-2 really powerful bolts or 5-8 less powerful ones (or more), so actual ROF doesn't matter as much (its not neccearily a linear relationship, but we already knew that decreasing output could increase ROF with the "splinter shot modes" - even on capital ships.

Longer range for heavy guns might also be a factor, though not in the ROTS battle.

Another factor could be that the ships are so close, more powerful bolts could damage your own vessel. If only from some of the energy being re-radiated from the enemy shield.

SCVN 2812 wrote: However, General Grievious was known to use a modified Providence-class destroyer as his flagship. This would make a Providence with a noticeably enlarged hangar worth contemplating disabling rather than destroying outright since Grievious would want to keep the chancellor close by as a last ditch bargaining chip.

I think I agree with this as well. After all, we see earlier examples of Star Destroyers destroying entire sections of Separatist ships. For example, in the first long tracking shot, one Destroyer fires a blue beam from its hanger that completely destroys and separates the entire forward section of a Separatist ship. Several other shots show this happening with the turbolasers as well (IIRC).

Considering that Grievious's flagship had lost its main shields, it does seem possible that the Republic Star Destroyer was attempting to disable / knock out the flagship rather than destroy it outright as we see relatively smaller explosions rather than entire sections being blasted apart.

I think Providence and larger classes of ship were flagged as possible holding sites for Grievious and Palpatine, hence the Venator docked with the Lucrehulk, presumably boarding it.

SCVN 2812 wrote:Hence the Venator docked with the Lucrehulk, presumably boarding it.

When does that occur? And which ships are the Lucrehulks? I am rusty on my ROTS terminology.

Dangermouse wrote:

SCVN 2812 wrote:Hence the Venator docked with the Lucrehulk, presumably boarding it.

When does that occur? And which ships are the Lucrehulks? I am rusty on my ROTS terminology.

Trade Federation Donut ships.

Connor MacLeod wrote: higher powered bolts would carry more momentum and require substantially more force-field bracing to prevent the turret from geting torn off. Such bracing inhibits its turning ability (and close up like that, the ability for a turret to rotate quickly is probably a major consideration.)

I have never, ever heard of this before, but it is interesting as an explanation. Where did you find evidence for this?

Technically there's not going to be any "effective" difference between sustained firepower if you spread it among 1-2 really powerful bolts or 5-8 less powerful ones (or more), so actual ROF doesn't matter as much (its not neccearily a linear relationship, but we already knew that decreasing output could increase ROF with the "splinter shot modes" - even on capital ships.

I'm inclined to disagree as less powerful shots are more easily absorbed by the shielding systems (if any were active at that point) and the armor per hit--the importance of this is that while average firepower might be the same, individually more powerful shots stand a better chance of overwhelming the the shields/armor locally and penetrating deep into the bowels of this ship.

The difference between a few deep stabbing wounds and massive lacerations; both can kill but one is better at causing a quick death.

SCVN 2812 wrote:However, General Grievious was known to use a modified Providence-class destroyer as his flagship. This would make a Providence with a noticeably enlarged hangar worth contemplating disabling rather than destroying outright since Grievious would want to keep the chancellor close by as a last ditch bargaining chip.

I find this makes the most sense to me of the offered explanations; however I still have to wonder why the gunners on the Invisible Hand apparently didn't use full power shots, especially when they started loosing batteries.

The Silence and I wrote:

SCVN 2812 wrote:However, General Grievious was known to use a modified Providence-class destroyer as his flagship. This would make a Providence with a noticeably enlarged hangar worth contemplating disabling rather than destroying outright since Grievious would want to keep the chancellor close by as a last ditch bargaining chip.

I find this makes the most sense to me of the offered explanations; however I still have to wonder why the gunners on the Invisible Hand apparently didn't use full power shots, especially when they started loosing batteries.

Probably because they had no shielding and did not want to destroy themselves. Full power shots have been seen to launch large chunks of the ship at high velocity (Munifiscent destroyed above Coruscant) or create massive plumes of vaporised hull over a kilometer long (Imperator destroyed above Endor). Since the two ships were within a couple hundred meters, either would cause problems for an unshielded attacking ship. It was a safer option to try to disable the attacking Venator than to try to destroy it.

Connor MacLeod wrote:higher powered bolts would carry more momentum and require substantially more force-field bracing to prevent the turret from geting torn off. Such bracing inhibits its turning ability (and close up like that, the ability for a turret to rotate quickly is probably a major consideration.)

I recall a quote that hardpoints to mount heavy turbolaser turrets required considerable structural reinforcement, but I don't think I've heard of Star Wars ships using "force-field bracing".

Cykeisme wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:higher powered bolts would carry more momentum and require substantially more force-field bracing to prevent the turret from geting torn off. Such bracing inhibits its turning ability (and close up like that, the ability for a turret to rotate quickly is probably a major consideration.)

I recall a quote that hardpoints to mount heavy turbolaser turrets required considerable structural reinforcement, but I don't think I've heard of Star Wars ships using "force-field bracing".

I believe that comes from one of the Boba Fett Trilogy books-- 'Slave Ship', IIRC-- in which Kuat of Kuat, observing the building of an ISD or some similar battleship, mentions that had it not been for said structural reinforcement the ship would rip itself apart firing a single volley. I don't remember the exact quote, sadly...