What if the Empire invaded modern day Earth?

[Sinanju]

The same reasoning as above, combined with watching the scene. If there was a cubic meter of vaporized material, there would have been a cubic meter of material missing from the Death Star (conservation of mass). The screenshot I picked on page 6 was the final shot in a series - no visible damage!

Funny, because when you actually watch the scene you see big plumes of smoke and flashes of light and by the time they're dying down the camera has already blown past. I'm sure those couldn't possibly have obscured the after-effect of the shots.

It isn't necessarily a limit, but it is a direct observation.

Okay, cool. We've successfully established that a damaged fighter may or may not have been moving at full thrust and may or may not have been moving quickly in relation to background objects. Good job, you get a gold star for proving absolutely nothing.

They go down the line and wait for the pilot to make a mistake. They had some twenty guns, and only had to deal with 3 x-wings at a time.

So, basically, you've back-pedaled from 'they could easily calculate an interception if they weren't retarded' to 'well, if they're lucky...'. Nice.

Indeed I am: I'm watching the movies George Lucas made, you're watching the shit in your head. In the Lucas films, the fighters travel mostly in straight lines, with some graceful turns mixed in.

That's pretty funny considering you supposedly watched the opening dogfight in RotS close enough to calculate how big a boom their missiles made (supposedly) and didn't even notice what they were actually doing, and also apparently missed things like:

• Anakin and Obi-Wan flying close enough to a Venator that they have to weave to avoid turrets and other projections on its surface.
• Anakin and Obi-Wan travelling the length of the Venator in around ten seconds (a velocity of around 100m/s), then pulling off a ninety-degree turn in two seconds
• Etc. etc. and this is just the first thirty seconds of the movie.

So yes, I do think you're not watching the same movies as everybody else, or you're just watching them with an axe to grind because the numbers don't 'feel' right to you (see: your bitching about the ICS, or the proton torpedoes' turn in A New Hope).

[Stofsk]

Yeah, it looked like it got briefly confused by the debris. It was smart enough to disregard it later and do an evasive maneuver (like it did when flying through the asteroid field: that's way beyond any of our current missiles, which can tell flares and chaff from fighters, but can't dodge debris and reacquire their targets)

It strikes me as bizarre because the missile is capable of some impressive agility (according to wookiepedia, they're proton torpedoes - I don't know about that to be honest, they look nothing like proton torpedoes we see in Star Wars). Yet when it evades, it overshoots quite roughly and winds up plowing straight into an asteroid. On the other hand, it couldn't determine the spare parts were harmless to it and fly either right through it or just nudge itself out of the way.

Honestly I'm not impressed by it at all. Like I said above, if Obi-wan had said something like 'launch countermeasures' I wouldn't have a problem, because at least then you're talking about a dedicated defensive system.

They could've had large stocks of them, that particular fighter could have simply been carrying a few for years (remember, none of the Jedi were attacked by another swarm of buzz droids again), or it might've been an experiment to try and "cheat" l337 Jedi skills. The point is that a military is not this super-perfect machine incapable of doing weird or stupid things which in retrospect had a reason.

Alright. So I'm gonna just come out and say the CIS was stupid.

They already have turbolasers in the trench, why not missile launchers? Missiles can be used against capships just like turbolasers are, so they're not solely anti-fighter defences but simply weapon systems you'd think the Empire would equip their most important battle station with.

Because their defences were oriented against capital ships?

Dude, you quoted me - didn't you read where I said missiles can be used against capships as well as fighters?

Fighters which are space superiority in role, just like the X-wing is. So if the X-wing has them, why don't TIE Fighters? Or TIE Interceptors?

Uh...let's see, because the fighters chasing the Falcon were a random bunch that followed it straight from a battle? The question would be good if they launched straight from a hangar.

Well presumably they did launch straight from a hangar. Though your point that some fighters would have likely expended their ordnance during the early part of the battle is interesting.

It's not about anticipating a fighter attack at all. It's basically outfitting your space superiority fighters with space superiority weaponry.

I was talking about DS1.

Ok. Even so, the DS1 should have the best equipment available to it simply due to the level of prestige it would have. That's why we see TIE Fighters with shields even though other sources say TIE Fighters aren't equipped with them. But the mainline space superiority fighter in the Empire's arsenal only has two laser cannons, no shields or hyperdrive, and not even internal life support (the pilot has to wear a vacc suit, though frankly I'm not perturbed by that), nor an astromech co-pilot to affect emergency repairs during battle. The Rebels, who are cash strapped and rag tag outfit, have a fighter that has all of the above. I'm scratching my head wondering why.

The point I am making is that the Rebels have them but in small quantities because of their price, something which shouldn't affect the Imperials but they don't have them, especially in situations where they'd be useful to have.

We never really get a good, solid sight of fighter-on-fighter combat, just random cuts and glimpses. The longer sequences like the ROTJ tunnel chase happen after the battle has been going on for a while.

Yes but so what? We see enough fighter on fighter combat in my opinion where we should have seen it happen at least once.

[Sinanju]

Dude, you quoted me - didn't you read where I said missiles can be used against capships as well as fighters?

I should point out that proton torpedoes come in a wide variety of sizes and yields, such as the Venator's "heavy proton torpedo" turrets and the ones used by Torpedo Spheres to bring down planetary shields. I don't think it's a given that these would be just as useful on fighters as the larger and immobile (or very slow) targets they were designed for.

[Bounty]

# Anakin and Obi-Wan flying close enough to a Venator that they have to weave to avoid turrets and other projections on its surface.
# Anakin and Obi-Wan travelling the length of the Venator in around ten seconds (a velocity of around 100m/s), then pulling off a ninety-degree turn in two seconds

Travelling at 360KPH and doing a turn is hardly as impressive as you seem think it is.

[PeZook]

It strikes me as bizarre because the missile is capable of some impressive agility (according to wookiepedia, they're proton torpedoes - I don't know about that to be honest, they look nothing like proton torpedoes we see in Star Wars). Yet when it evades, it overshoots quite roughly and winds up plowing straight into an asteroid. On the other hand, it couldn't determine the spare parts were harmless to it and fly either right through it or just nudge itself out of the way.

Yeah, but it's still a very smart missile. So what if it couldn't instantly determine the spare parts were harmless? If it wasn't for the asteroid, it would've evaded them and continued on its merry chase.

Honestly I'm not impressed by it at all. Like I said above, if Obi-wan had said something like 'launch countermeasures' I wouldn't have a problem, because at least then you're talking about a dedicated defensive system.

Sometimes, doing something unexpected is more effective than dedicated countermeasures, since missile designers usually analyze those to death while programming their missile. Still, if it wasn't for the ridiculously dense asteroid field, Obi-Wan would've been toast. It could certainly kill any single fighter we have today, since none of them would be able to pull off the shit Obi-Wan did during the chase.

And that's really the context of the thread, isn't it?

Alright. So I'm gonna just come out and say the CIS was stupid.

Maybe, maybe not, depending on the explanation we decide to use, but the point is that it wasn't any more stupid than what real-world militaries do all the time (Like "Oh hey we don't need armor on our hummvees!" Or, for that matter, "let's invade Iraq!")

Dude, you quoted me - didn't you read where I said missiles can be used against capships as well as fighters?

Not if they're stuck inside a trench. You can put big, nasty anti-capship missiles with a wide field of fire on the surface, rather than splitting them between roles (thus reducing the warheads and fuel supply). If you design defences to defeat capital ships, you usually place them optimally for the role.

Well presumably they did launch straight from a hangar. Though your point that some fighters would have likely expended their ordnance during the early part of the battle is interesting.

Yeah, exactly my point. By "straight from a hangar" I meant they pursued the Falcon immediately after launch.

Ok. Even so, the DS1 should have the best equipment available to it simply due to the level of prestige it would have. That's why we see TIE Fighters with shields even though other sources say TIE Fighters aren't equipped with them. But the mainline space superiority fighter in the Empire's arsenal only has two laser cannons, no shields or hyperdrive, and not even internal life support (the pilot has to wear a vacc suit, though frankly I'm not perturbed by that), nor an astromech co-pilot to affect emergency repairs during battle. The Rebels, who are cash strapped and rag tag outfit, have a fighter that has all of the above. I'm scratching my head wondering why.

The rebels are more strapped for manpower than materiel ; They build and operate huge space cruisers, after all. Their pilots, on the other hand, can't be made in factories: they are also expected to operate far from bases and fight in raids more than stand-up battles: so, hyperdrive, shields (which are really not much: TIEs penetrate them in a couple shots) and a dedicated life support system.

Imperials are expected to have the benefit of a base or mothership close by and are concerned about treason and pilots going AWOL. It's not like they can't make small fighters that outperform X-Wings ; They just picked one suited best for their perceived role and doctrine.

And, well, it kinda worked. Vader and his few wingmen did a real number on those 30 rebel fighters in a stand-up fight, after all...

Yes but so what? We see enough fighter on fighter combat in my opinion where we should have seen it happen at least once.

The movie wasn't really concerned with showing us missile launches explicitly, but it didn't do anything to explicitly contradict the existence of that weapon system, either. We never see Han Solo taking a shit ; Does it mean SW humans don't need to?

Of course it doesn't mean we should invent capabilities, either. No other source says TIEs are usually equipped with missiles, so maybe they aren't and let TIE Bombers carry them exclusively. It would be a weird doctrine, but there's been plenty of those in history.

[Sinanju]

The picture I posted also shows a clear shot of where the previous 6 shots had hit. No visible damage.

Bullshit. I've watched that scene repeatedly just now instead of cherry-picking a screenshot and lying about it, and the camera is moving along the same line the X-Wing is taking. By the time he's made the last shot in the run the others are well off screen.

Megajoules per shot is consistent with this result. Gigajoules is not - it would have caused that support beam to explode, not glow.

Again we come to 'I picked this number because it feels right, DON'T YOU DARE CALL ME ON IT'. When are you going to actually start providing some evidence without me having to rub your nose in it first? I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post because it's more vague sulky 'well I don't LIKE this' shit.

Although I would like to point this out:

I haven't said anything about the proton torpedo's turn (Mike's number is wrong, but I haven't dug into them yet). In fact, I accepted and ran with it!

Bull-shit you did. Here's the exchange with actual quotes just for posterity:

Because you assume that Star Wars missiles are equivalent to modern missiles. Do you really think modern missiles could make the 90-degree turn into the Death Star's exhaust port?

Who cares? In RotS, they couldn't shake a 1-3g missile, except by confusing their retarded guidance systems. That's the most advanced missile ever seen used against starfighters. If one of those proton torpedoes were used against a starfighter, they'd win.
...
There's one more important thing you're missing: the SW missiles have acceleration less than modern missiles. They couldn't shake SW missiles, and SW missiles are inferior to real missiles. Therefore, by the transitive property, they can't shake real missiles either.

Wow, that was a really pretentious way of saying 'ass-pull' wasn't it? Do you want me to point out the proton torpedoes making a 90-degree turn into the Death Star's exhaust port again? Oh look, I just did.

Yeah, if proton torpedoes were in general use, fighters would be completely worthless, since they are apparently fast and nimble enough to accomplish anything. Their only downside is tied to the unadulterated shit that is Star Wars targetting, and that they are apparently quite rare.

Hint: You really shouldn't lie in a forum that disables editing of your posts. It tends to make you look like an idiot. Oh, and just in case it wasn't already obvious:

They have a pathetic track record of taking fighters down in the movies, even when it should have been easy.

(Or, if you're in the Imperial military, eyeballs and math dropouts track... wait, I take that back, sports players are sometimes math dropouts and they are able to do a better job than those Imperial fuckwits.)
...
They have plenty of time to see it coming. I guess their communication, command and control is pure shit too.
...
They go down the line and wait for the pilot to make a mistake.

So first we go from 'it should have been easy' to 'it's pathetically easy math' to 'well if the pilot makes a mistake...' all in your own words.

Are you one of those people who has to lie? Like, can't help it? Because it's not like you had any hope of fooling anybody.

[Ford Prefect]

I hate to say it, but that exchange doesn't prove what you think it does. You say 'proton torpedoes can do this craaazy turn that real missiles couldn't' and then he retorts with 'yeah, too bad in fighter combat they use these other missiles which absolutely worthless'. He even says 'if they used those more often they would absolutely dominate fighter to fighter combat'. You quoted it right there.

[Stofsk]

It strikes me as bizarre because the missile is capable of some impressive agility (according to wookiepedia, they're proton torpedoes - I don't know about that to be honest, they look nothing like proton torpedoes we see in Star Wars). Yet when it evades, it overshoots quite roughly and winds up plowing straight into an asteroid. On the other hand, it couldn't determine the spare parts were harmless to it and fly either right through it or just nudge itself out of the way.

Yeah, but it's still a very smart missile. So what if it couldn't instantly determine the spare parts were harmless?

You seem to be hung up about how it didn't instantly disregard the spare parts and continue chasing down Obi-wan. That's not the point. I wrote above, and you even quoted me, that when it evades, it overshoots pretty roughly and hits a huge asteroid it would have to be blind not to see, when previously it had demonstrated superior agility. So it can navigate a dense planetary ring, but when it encounters a floating tool box it cracks the shits and plows right into an asteroid?

And sure, we don't have anything that can do what it does. What we have is missiles that continue to accelerate until they get close enough to hit their target. This missile accelerates to the point where it gets within 5-8 metres of Obi-wan, then doesn't close the remaining distance to detonate. During that whole scene Obi-wan was juking his fighter left and right and the missile demonstrated impressive agility by matching those manoeuvres, yet it can't seem to close a gap of 5-8 metres?

Sometimes, doing something unexpected is more effective than dedicated countermeasures, since missile designers usually analyze those to death while programming their missile. Still, if it wasn't for the ridiculously dense asteroid field, Obi-Wan would've been toast. It could certainly kill any single fighter we have today, since none of them would be able to pull off the shit Obi-Wan did during the chase.

The spare parts canister contained very small items in comparison to the rocks it was evading as part of its pursuit. It makes no sense at all.

And that's really the context of the thread, isn't it?

If we go by the OP then the Empire doesn't have those missiles on their fighters anyway. This is a tangential discussion.

Maybe, maybe not, depending on the explanation we decide to use, but the point is that it wasn't any more stupid than what real-world militaries do all the time (Like "Oh hey we don't need armor on our hummvees!" Or, for that matter, "let's invade Iraq!")

Real world militaries can do stupid things too. I agree. But what's the point you're making? Are you actually defending the CIS for outfitting horribly stupid weapons on their droid starfighters? Are you saying stupid things are ok if they're intentionally stupid? Militaries don't have to be super perfect, but if they're going to design a weapon the least one should expect is for that weapon to have a purpose beyond something stupid like 'dump some droids on a starfighter'.

Not if they're stuck inside a trench. You can put big, nasty anti-capship missiles with a wide field of fire on the surface, rather than splitting them between roles (thus reducing the warheads and fuel supply). If you design defences to defeat capital ships, you usually place them optimally for the role.

Just like those turbolasers that are designed to fight capships are optimally placed for their role, right? In fact the turbolasers would be at more of a disadvantage, as they need line of sight to hit a target, which is difficult to accomplish with those trench walls interfering with their vision, while missiles can manoeuvre towards a target and could fire over the trench wall, and could rely on sensor targeting from other parts of the Death Star.

So those turbolasers in the trench are solely anti-capship emplacements, and are in a horrible, sub optimal position for that role, or they're designed to counter small starfighters from approaching the thermal exhaust port. Either way, the Death Star would not have been disadvantaged if there were missile batteries along that trench, either in addition to or in place of the turbolaser turrets.

The rebels are more strapped for manpower than materiel ; They build and operate huge space cruisers, after all. Their pilots, on the other hand, can't be made in factories: they are also expected to operate far from bases and fight in raids more than stand-up battles: so, hyperdrive, shields (which are really not much: TIEs penetrate them in a couple shots) and a dedicated life support system.

Imperials are expected to have the benefit of a base or mothership close by and are concerned about treason and pilots going AWOL. It's not like they can't make small fighters that outperform X-Wings ; They just picked one suited best for their perceived role and doctrine.

Well, that's pretty stupid then. If they're more concerned about their pilots being traitors than they are of actually giving their pilots the most survivability and weaponry possible, then they deserve to have their pilots defect to whoever they can.

And, well, it kinda worked. Vader and his few wingmen did a real number on those 30 rebel fighters in a stand-up fight, after all...

Vader and his wingmen shot 3 Y-wings and 4 X-wings which were making a bombing run, not dogfighting with any of them. It was the other TIEs that engaged the X-wings of Red Squadron, and they weren't enough to stop the Rebels or prevent the X-wings from making their attack runs. Sure they took down an X-wing (I seem to remember at least one), but for the most part they were wiped out by Red Squad.

The movie wasn't really concerned with showing us missile launches explicitly, but it didn't do anything to explicitly contradict the existence of that weapon system, either. We never see Han Solo taking a shit ; Does it mean SW humans don't need to?

That's an obtuse thing to say. The movies show us dogfights between various starfighters so yeah, I would expect to see all manner of weapons being used to depict spaceship combat and space opera. Interestingly enough the prequels do show missile launches against starfighters, and they're totally ineffective.

Of course it doesn't mean we should invent capabilities, either. No other source says TIEs are usually equipped with missiles, so maybe they aren't and let TIE Bombers carry them exclusively. It would be a weird doctrine, but there's been plenty of those in history.

Why should we be making excuses for them? When we go 'that's a weird doctrine' about something in history, do we mean that in a nice way? Oh they have a weird doctrine, that's why they got their asses kicked - is that a good thing?

I mean christ, the Rebels are no better - their fighter pilots don't even wear vacc suits for fuck's sake. Apparently you can eject from an X-wing but lord knows why you would want to. Rogue Squadron approached the AT-ATs at Hoth head on, right in their line of fire, rather than, y'know, approaching from their sides where there wouldn't be any guns pointed at them. Stupidity is still stupidity, even if there is a reason to it.

[Sinanju]

I hate to say it, but that exchange doesn't prove what you think it does. You say 'proton torpedoes can do this craaazy turn that real missiles couldn't' and then he retorts with 'yeah, too bad in fighter combat they use these other missiles which absolutely worthless'. He even says 'if they used those more often they would absolutely dominate fighter to fighter combat'. You quoted it right there.

He said he 'accepted and ran with it' despite doing nothing of the kind. Instead he basically blew it off and said that Star Wars missiles "can't" do more than 1-3Gs. I included that bit at the end because I read it as another of his passive-aggressive 'lol stupid Warsies' shots, but I could have easily left it off and made the same point.

I suppose I could have mis-read it, though. Tone on the Internet and all that.

EDIT: Added quote.

[Sinanju]

There's one thing that might be evidence of damage: the dark part to the right of the middle. It might also be a shadow of the round thing in the foreground, or it could be scorch marks from the shot.

So I'll take back that there's no damage visible at all, there's a little bit there. Most certainly not 1 m^3 missing though!

Because, of course, when you see a black scorch fly by you just know there couldn't be any kind of hole in the middle of it (which would also be black)...why?

Let me ask you a question then: what exactly do you think is causing those flashes of light and vapor?

I'm curious, do you have even the slightest clue as to what these numbers mean?

You're talking, but all I'm hearing is 'argument from incredulity'. Aren't you supposed to back your shit up when you start throwing numbers around here? So, let me ask you again: where are you getting megajoules from? Again, you're trying to argue against numbers with 'that doesn't FEEL right waaaaah!' and it's getting pretty damn tiresome.

Learn how to read. I granted that proton torpedoes are fast and nimble. (accepting it) They display impressive firepower too - if they were used against fighters, they could chase the fighters down and destroy them with ease. (ran with it)

And then you immediately segued into how they "can't" do more than 1-3Gs. If you agree that something can be done and then immediately say it can't you obviously didn't really agree to begin with. Part of this might be because you keep making hysterical sweeping generalizations like "Star Wars missiles" (as if you're talking about all of them) when you meant 'the missile in this scene' or 'this type of missile'. If you cut that out maybe your arguments would be clearer.

It should have been easy in the movie, because it is pathetically easy math.

IF, again IF, the fighters were randomly dodging (they were not), they'd have to take up zone defense and wait for the pilot to make a mistake.

And here we are, going in circles again...

[Sinanju]

Could be friction of the bolt driving a hole, could be Tibanna gas from the bolt, or it could be a small amount of plasma from little potholes in the armor. Most likely, it is a combination of all three.

So here we go again with 'well you could be right but I don't really feel like admitting it'. Notice how at least two of your proposed solutions also involve a hole but you're willing to quibble about how big it is from a quick flyby?

Did you know that just two kilograms of carbon dioxide has a volume of one cubic meter? (get a block of dry ice and watch the fog!) If Tibanna gas is similar to carbon dioxide, a small amount of it being released from the shot explains a large amount of smoke.

And yet the smoke is coming from the impact point, not the X-Wing's cannons where you would expect to find unexpended Tibanna. Hmmm.

The sparks we see are easily explained by heated - not vaporized - metal being shot up, or even plain electricity sparks.

Electricity sparks? Enough to create a cloud of gas bigger than an X-Wing? This isn't like Star Trek, you know, where they basically run high-explosives everywhere they need power.

So, you don't know the answers, so you have no idea what these numbers represent. No wonder you are seeing things that aren't there.
...
I'm being generous based on what we actually see in the movies. The explosions are nothing like a GJ explosion in real life. The damage is nothing like that magnitude does in real life.

So, basically, you don't have any calculations and you're just a bullshitter. Good to know. Well, maybe not: how about those numbers, other than some vague mumbling? I've got plenty of time, y'know.

In case you're not realizing the problem here: you can mumble about how it's 'megajoules' all you want, but what if I say 'no it is gigajoules'? I can't argue with your math because you haven't provided any, but you can't argue with my math either because I didn't provide any either. And thus we're at an impasse. You honestly don't see how dumb this is, turning the argument into a game of Cops and Robbers ('I shot you!' 'Nuh-uh!')?

The proton torpedo can do better, but nothing else seen can, and the pt is a rare beast indeed.

I'm curious what you think the proton torpedo launchers on starfighters are for if they're as rare as you seem to think.

[Sinanju]

Yes, there may be a hole, and there most likely is one. But no, that hole cannot possibly be the 1 m^3 claimed on the main site, which is the source for the tens of gigajoules number Warsies wank to.

Based on your 'feelings' again, I take it?

There has to be matter in the laser bolt (what causes it to glow? Why does it move so slowly? Why does it invariably kick up gas when it impacts? The most consistent explanation is it is made out of a gas). Whatever the fuck the EU calls it, that's the most likely explanation.

And yet since we see hand blasters blowing holes in walls and creating flashes of light and smoke in the process it's not unreasonable to assume that happens on a larger scale. So we see blaster bolts create a flash of light and a puff of smoke and a hole when they hit walls and you think unexpended gas is the most reasonable conclusion to go to?

Now, that cloud of gas isn't made from the X-Wing's weapon alone anyway. It can't be - the X-Wing weapons are used over and over again - the screenshots above show it right before the gas cloud - no gas cloud. And, I showed the tower that glowed. Again, no gas cloud. If the weapon delivered the energy itself, we should see it consistently. We don't. Therefore, it must have another cause.

I went ahead and cropped one of your screenshots for you. You know, the screenshots that you claim don't show a gas cloud?



Hm, what is all this fuzzy grey stuff around the flashes of light? Could it be smoke? Perhaps...gas?

God damn it, I show you screenshots and comparisons, and you call it an argument from incredulity (LOL). I go ahead and put numbers on it and you.... demand numbers.

Here you go lying again. You didn't provide shit when I called you on the argument of incredulity, and you haven't provided any yet. 'Megajoules' isn't a number you lying sack of shit.

Mike Wong did that on the main site. That's why I've been talking about a cubic meter of iron vaporized - a number he pulled straight out of his ass, despite all the evidence against it. We can see the damage caused by that X-Wing shot. There is most certainly not a cubic meter of material missing. Therefore, it is completely impossible that a cubic meter of material was vaporized. It simply is not possible.

And if Mike Wong jumped off a cliff would you do it too? Come on, this is basic Grade 5 logic here. You really are determined to feel superior to the rest of the board aren't you? Kinda funny you can't seem to back it up...

As rare as they are in canon. If there's inconsistencies in the canon, don't blame me. Blame the writers who just didn't give a flying fuck.

So, a fair chunk of the galaxy's starfighters have proton torpedo launchers and you're proposing that they're flying around empty based on what? A single quote that says they're "rare"? Since you seem to trumpet movies-uber-alles so much I suppose I should point out that every Rebel starfighter on Yavin IV had proton torpedoes and used them, the N-1 Starfighters used by a single planet's government were all fully equipped with proton torpedoes and used them....

[D.Turtle]

Why are you guys trying to calculate the firepower from a scene involving unknown material with unknown shielding, while there are scenes involving asteroids that are a lot better for calculating lower limits (AOTC asteroid scene and ESB asteroid scene)?

[Sea Skimmer]

For all you folks talking about using proton torpedoes against Starfighters… did any of you address how absurdly slow they accelerate relative to the X-Wing already? All the missile agility won’t count for shit if you can’t overtake the target at more then ~25mph which is what we see in the movie (exact speed doesn’t matter, a real missile would be out of sight in a half second).

I can see no plausible way in which such a slow weapon would be a threat to another fighter craft, even a large warship might be able to evade them unless the attacker fired them a point blank range which is probably the idea. The proton torpedoes in The Phantom Menace are a little faster accelerating, but effectively no different. The ICS book in any case shows a proton torpedo as actually being a warhead fired off by a cartridge too, which doesn’t suggest much for its sustained flight capabilities or ability to make repeated turns. This does however make a fair bit of sense for attacking fixed targets. It’s kind of obvious that the proton torpedo is more like a Maverick then a Sidewinder kind of missile.

Making anti fighter missile that works against fighters that perform like those of Star Wars which absurdly rapid acceleration and no effective speed limit would be damn hard. Air to air missiles in real life are kind of predicated on the target being unable to use all dimensions of flight equally well, and on the missile being a couple times faster then the target at all times. In space you’ve have much different constraints at work and all of them are unfavorable to a small missile.

[Sinanju]

Based on the fucking OBSERVATIONS. Christ, this is getting old.

Considering I've now proved at least twice that you're no Hawkeye, I don't think your vague mumbling about what you think 'looks right' is worth shit.

Here, let me just skip forward a bit:

Um, yes it is. How old are you? Have you taken middle school science yet?

Here, I'll give you a tip that will make you look smart on that first day of class. The prefixes "mega", "kilo", "giga", etc. actually mean a specific number!

I know you're used to hearing them used generically. "That is mega-cool!" or "Megadeth rocks!" But, in science, they do, in fact, have a number attached.

Here, I'll list them out. Memorize these and you'll really impress your teacher - you might even get a sticker! Stickers are like the kilocool.

(see what I did there?)

Kilo = 103
Mega = 106
Giga = 109

What's that weird number up above the ten for? That's called an exponent. You'll learn how exponents are like multiplication, but done over and over again. (Remember, multiplication is like addition done over and over again! Pretty sweet, huh?)

That number tells you how many times to do it. So 103 is 10 * 10 * 10. See how there's three tens?

10*10*10 = 100 * 10 = 1000.

Some students like to think of powers of ten (when something has an exponent, it is called a "power", not to be confused with power from physics) of the number of zeroes on the end. This works for the simple case, but not all. With decimals, they think of it as how many spaces to move the little dot. That's a little more general. But the most general form is to just think of it as multiplication repeated.

So we have here that "kilo" something means 1000 of those somethings.

OK class, your homework is to tell me how many of something there are when you say "mega-something".

Would you like to learn more?


TIPS AND SUMMARY:

1) The progression of prefixes generally goes with 3 powers of 10. 10^3, 10^6, 10^9, and so on. That means a 1000x difference, so anything between one and nine hundred can use the same prefix.

2) Exponents are repeated multiplication.

3) Scientific prefixes mean actual numbers


Remember to do your homework. This will be a graded assignment. It is due on your next post.

When you cite X-Wing firepower as 'megajoules', I ask for the math you did to reach that number. You reply with:
- repeating 'megajoules'
- a snarky questionnaire
- this latest post.

I'm not seeing any actual, you know, numbers. Or math. At this point since I've asked way more than once (which is really more than necessary), I'm just going to assume that you're conceding the argument on X-Wing firepower.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

7000 kg is closest in mass to (a), a truck. If the laser bolts actually flash vaporized 1 m^3 of armor, a single shot should be able to blow up a truck sized object - vaporize the entire truck, instantly, causing a severe overpressure that blasts everything around it into little tiny pieces. This never happens in all of Star Wars fighter or ground action, not on fighters getting hit, not on the Death Star getting hit, not on Hoth. Therefore, their weapons do not have gigajoules of energy. Case closed.

I don't have the movies on hand to check, but don't attacks by fighters and the Millenium Falcon against TIEs fall under this category? I recall that upon being struck by weapons fire, the TIEs tend to immediately turn into fireballs with almost no debris, while collisions leave more debris from the TIE.

[Cykeisme]

Uh, at what point was it established that the Death Star's hull was made of iron?
It could be an alloy (or possibly even a non-metallic substance) with a much higher specific heat content and melting/vaporizing point.
Also, it may superconduct heat, thus spreading out the heat that's been input by the weapon hit, and causing the vaporized material to come off from a larger surface such that there isn't a localized hole.
Iirc at some point the Death Star is referred to as an "armored space station", after all.

7000 kg is closest in mass to (a), a truck. If the laser bolts actually flash vaporized 1 m^3 of armor, a single shot should be able to blow up a truck sized object - vaporize the entire truck, instantly, causing a severe overpressure that blasts everything around it into little tiny pieces. This never happens in all of Star Wars fighter or ground action, not on fighters getting hit, not on the Death Star getting hit, not on Hoth. Therefore, their weapons do not have gigajoules of energy. Case closed.

Therefore, it might be a good idea to avoid using the damaging effects of weapon fire on targets made of Star Wars materials, especially if they're military vehicles. Aside from what I stated in the above post (armor made of advanced materials etc), it's also established that they have shields that negate or reduce the effects of weapon hits. I mean, hell, advanced materials may be so cheap and common that even the Star Wars equivalent of a military truck (whatever that may be) may be able to absorb significant amounts of energy without being vaporized (even if it sustains a mission kill).

You might want to stick to scenes showing the effects of hits on objects that also exist in the real world, particularly natural objects such as hits on the ground, ice, asteroids, etc.

[Thanas]

Why are you guys trying to calculate the firepower from a scene involving unknown material with unknown shielding, while there are scenes involving asteroids that are a lot better for calculating lower limits (AOTC asteroid scene and ESB asteroid scene)?

This.

[Ghost Rider]

Bring up two points because D.Turtle did bring it up.

To the first of "Why not use asteroids?". Actually since DXIII is so focused on anything but quite a few have done so, and laid the math out. This is relevant because this is where Greg Wilkens and Brian Young to name a couple and many others derived what the firepower for the light turbolaser would come from. They demonstrated quite clearly the size of the object, some interesting ideas of turbolaser properties and such not. Do a search, there are some debates still in PSW that go into further detail from here and with a shitload more math then the naysayers demonstrate so far.

Now, why use Iron? Because it has a definite melting/boiling point rather then steel. This is why people considered it easily a magnitude or more below what it is likely because of the stress needed for said vessels and what Iron or such metal could not withstand.

[Sinanju]

Hey, it only took near two pages of constant nagging to get you to finally do something you should have done up front. Congratulations, you get a silver star for almost getting it right.

That support beam is nowhere near a solid 1 m^3; it is mostly hollow, and not very thick. The nose of an X-Wing is about 2 meters wide. That whole tower takes up as much space on screen as the nose of the x-wing, and the red hot portion is about 1/10 the size of the whole. Let's call it a cube of 20 cm. It is in the distance, so it is actually smaller, but let's be kind.

You're actually going to try and guesstimate the size of an object in the background from something that's right in front of the camera? Oh dear. Well, at least you were honest about that (for once). I actually measured and you were right about how wide the red hot part was, though. The width, anyway.

Because I think it's obvious from your own screenshot that the area which was glowing red hot was much, much longer than it was wide.


Here's a pair of screenshots I made, super-imposed over each other. The darker X-Wing in the middle is the same one whose nose we saw in your first screenshot. So, the tower is about two meters wide, and I'm guessing if the X-Wing were stood upright the line would be at least as long as the X-Wing. So, now we're talking about a rectangular solid of around 20cm in width (you were actually right about something you reported seeing! Shock!) and around 12 meters in length. How deep is it? Who knows?

I'll go with 1m. It's a space station, and it's armored. Also if I were being very generous and going with your (very tenuous) theory that the lasers caused an internal explosion they would have to have radiated heat deep enough to reach a fuel tank or power cell or something. Which could very well be seperated by air too, but eh. Whatever. This is around 2 cubic meters of iron. Notice that's 10,000 times bigger than your guess? Hmmm.

So, let's add that oversight back in. When you're talking about megajoules you're actually talking about 100 megajoules (or 100 million joules). Add two zeros to that , as you say, and we get 10 billion joules which is clearly megajo...oh, wait a second. That's ten gigajoules.

Hm. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot there.

Uh, at what point was it established that the Death Star's hull was made of iron?
It could be an alloy (or possibly even a non-metallic substance) with a much higher specific heat content and melting/vaporizing point.
Also, it may superconduct heat, thus spreading out the heat that's been input by the weapon hit, and causing the vaporized material to come off from a larger surface such that there isn't a localized hole.

We're being conservative and going with a lower limit. If it were iron, and it would take <x> amount of energy to do <y> then we know blasters (or phasers, or anything you please really) can put out at least <x>.

[Sinanju]

I did do it up front, you fucking retard. The problem is that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured that since you were questioning firepower numbers, that you had a clue as to what those numbers actually meant. But, you don't - as your two failed quizzes prove.

And yet again, another lie. You did no such thing; you just kept blustering 'megajoules' as if I was going to trust your eagle-eyes and lightning-brain after all the basic stuff you've already fucked up. If you had done all this up front I wouldn't have had a problem and we would be having this discussion now instead of two pages later.

We both fail arithmetic. I made an arithmetic error, and you calculated based on that error, but you didn't catch it. You demanded an explanation, but you obviously didn't actually look at it with a critical eye, so why did you want it in the first place? Posturing, no doubt.

Because I was being very, very charitable and giving you quite a bit of leeway by leaving all of your other assumptions alone and fixing the one that was glaringly wrong. It's kind of fun to bludgeon someone with their own words, y'know? You make it so easy! I mean, really, all that lying in a public forum where you can't even be sneaky and fix your posts later. I also like how you're trying frantically to deflect part of the blame onto me because you apparently don't know your way around a calculator after all your blustering. Well, fine.

Since you apparently can't do math I'll start from the ground up as if you weren't here. I get the feeling that this would make for a much more intelligent thread somehow, if it were true.

So, let's go with the figure from the Asteroid Calc page that it takes about 1.28 MJ/kg to melt iron. I'm assuming this is acceptable to you since you started with that number as well? Now then. Two cubic meters of iron weighs 15740 kg and this works out by those numbers to 20147 MJ. Hm, around 20,000 megajoules. Why, that's...gasp...gigajoules!

[Sinanju]

Actually, uhm, it gets worse. I just watched the scene frame by frame for a third time (I'm using Youtube so this is kind of a pain) and you know what I noticed? That glowing line is colored the same as a blaster bolt, and it comes from off screen. So, uh, I think we just wasted a whole lot of time.





Oh well. Just think, we could have had this cleared up pages ago!

[Star Wars 888]

@PeZook:

In case if you missed it, I responded to your rebuttal.

[Sinanju]

So 1 MJ, give or take, might be a legitimate consensus on Walker cannons. Why don't we see rain in ESB, since this is enough to melt 3 liters? Perhaps the heat didn't spread evenly, so it vaporized a small amount at the impact point instead. That vapor had enough pressure to shoot snow into the air, but it happened too fast to melt it.

That's not impressive lethality compared to the real world, especially considering it is all heat - no shrapnel, which explains why they didn't slaughter the Rebels with those near misses in their trenches.

At 2:23 in the video you linked we see an AT-ST is still in the battle, and every time they cut to an AT-AT firing the chin guns are shooting at an elevation (at the base? The generator?) while the lighter guns (medium repeating blasters) are firing towards the ground.

I should point out that medium repeating blasters are light enough that they can also serve as infantry weapons with a crew of two, and/or a tripod.

This is kind of like looking at footage of a tank and trying to use the coaxial gun to draw some kind of conclusion about the main gun.

[Darth Hoth]

This thread is still up and running?

Maybe I am missing something, but my understanding of things is that the debate has gone something like this:

DESTRUCTIONATOR: The Empire loses horribly to modern Earth. The movies base their battles on WWII footage, blasters use tibanna gas, and Mike Wong's calcs are all the bunk.

VARIOUS OTHERS: The ICSes and other canonical EU material support numbers similar to or in excess of those Mike Wong derived.

DESTRUCTIONATOR: Saxton cheated on his lab report and did not watch teh real movies that George Lucas made, so that obviously doesn't count. Next.

VARIOUS OTHERS: Hey, that doesn't work.

DESTRUCTIONATOR: Like I said, he cheated on his lab report. Star Wars has single gees acceleration and megajoules per shot of fighter weapons. Lookie here at this, and that, and then we have this here, and that there, and something else here, and another thing there . . . [Quotes movie example of low end]

VARIOUS OTHERS: Hey, you made movie calc this or that wrong. And then there is this other thing here, and another there, and so on, and so forth . . . [Forget all about the EU and ICSes while trying to counter calcs]

DESTRUCTIONATOR: No, that doesn't work. You are obviously uneducated and have no idea what you're talking about. Look here, and then here, and here's another thing . . .

[Rinse and repeat in a merry go 'round]

Just trying to sum it up briefly, so my apologies to anyone who felt that his position was strawmanned or oversimplified.

So, anyway, my question is: Has anyone actually proved that the ICS is explicitly contradicted by the films on essentials of firepower, acceleration, and so forth? Because otherwise, it is canon. Examples of low-end performance from the films do not invalidate higher-end performances in the EU, unless said low ends are specifically shown to be upper limits. If that then requires convoluted explanations why, for example, max power is not use in X situation, then so be it.

No one is claiming it is realistic, or that any real scientific thought ever went into the franchise (apart, perhaps, from the ICSes and assorted books by Saxton). But annoying as it is to some, the canonical numbers remain, which say that modern Earth cannot compete with Wars technology.