The WhiteStar Vs the Falcon

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2002-09-16 06:04pm

The Defiant and the Falcon debate is going on, and everyone is saying the Defiant would loose, would the WhiteStar fare any better?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-16 06:13pm

Two Mega-tons where enough to put the White-Star away...

Falcon carrys 100 Mega-ton Missles

Whats next Red-Shirt VS Falcon?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-16 06:47pm

How about SG-1 versus the Falcon?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-16 06:48pm

How about SG-1 versus the Falcon?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-16 06:49pm

Ah Shit! I accidently hit the back button, and put myself back into preview mode. Forgetting that I already submitted, I pressed submit again. The double post phantom has struck again.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-16 07:19pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Ah Shit! I accidently hit the back button, and put myself back into preview mode. Forgetting that I already submitted, I pressed submit again. The double post phantom has struck again.

So your solution was to post once again?

Anyway, Whitestar dies from the first missile strike.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-16 07:32pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:So your solution was to post once again?

Of course, where do you think half my post count comes from?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-16 10:14pm

The White Star is crushed easily by the Falcon. It does not even have the firepower and shield capabilities of the Defiant.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-17 12:01am

As much as I'd like to say White Star it is simply over-powered by the Falcon.

But the White Star has several inherent advantages
- reliability and damage control (I don't believe we ever see one disabled and when they are damaged it isn't for long).
- newtonian physics based movement. It could theoretically keep the guns on the Millenium Falcon no matter where the Falcon is.
- it has the capacity to carry fighters.
- it just looks cooler.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-17 12:05am

Let's look at these:

1. So? Its reliability and damage control are moot points. The Falcon would need neither to beat up on the White Star. A single shot would almost certainly destroy it. The White Star has never been up against anything (with the exceptions of the Planet Killers) that has firepower comparable to the Falcon.

2. More or less irrelevent. The books reveal that the Falcon also uses Newtonian physics. The Falcon's quad guns can track the White Star at least as well as the White Star can track the Falcon, and the Falcon has better weapons and shields.

3. Fighters are similarly irrelevent. The Falcon is easily more powerful than the White Star. Fighters would not make a difference in the battle.

4. It does look cooler, but coolness does not win wars. Firepower, speed, maneuverability, protection, range, sensors, and other systems win wars. The White Star, while looking cooler, could not defeat the Falcon.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-17 01:04am

Master of Ossus wrote:Let's look at these:

-I KNOW THAT THE FALCON WOULD WIN, I'm merely pointing out some aspects of the White Star that would give it the edge if one was to assume equal weapons power etc.

1. So? Its reliability and damage control are moot points. The Falcon would need neither to beat up on the White Star. A single shot would almost certainly destroy it. The White Star has never been up against anything (with the exceptions of the Planet Killers) that has firepower comparable to the Falcon.

- Reliability on the Falcon is not a moot point. It has been shown to have regular system failures that can take anywhere from seconds (banging a panel with a fist) to days (Hoth/Bespin) to fix. What happens if/when one of these failures happens to be weapons/shields/sublight engines?

2. More or less irrelevent. The books reveal that the Falcon also uses Newtonian physics. The Falcon's quad guns can track the White Star at least as well as the White Star can track the Falcon, and the Falcon has better weapons and shields.

-I know that it is countered by the quad-guns, but it would allow for a more concentrated fire than the quad-guns. Again this advantage would only really be seen in a battle where the White Star had equal weapons and shields.

3. Fighters are similarly irrelevent. The Falcon is easily more powerful than the White Star. Fighters would not make a difference in the battle.

-Yes, fighters are irrelevant, but they would make a good distraction. And again in an "equal" universe they would DEFINATELY swing it the way of the White Star seeing as the fighters we see it carring are Nials.

4. It does look cooler, but coolness does not win wars. Firepower, speed, maneuverability, protection, range, sensors, and other systems win wars. The White Star, while looking cooler, could not defeat the Falcon.

-Awwww...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-17 01:08am

You assume that because the Falcon's hyperdrive has reliability issues, and the generators have difficulty starting in extremely cold conditions, that the ship is unreliable as a whole, and that all of its systems are one step away from failure. This is invalid. We have never once heard of in the EU, or seen in the movies, a failure of a weapons system or a sublight engine on the Falcon.

I did not realize that you were talking about a universe in which weapons were equal. Sorry about that. The rest of your post I agree with.

Isil`Zha · Post by **Isil`Zha** » 2002-09-17 01:18am

Wait... you're saying the falcon could beat a whitestar...

The same Whitestar that takes on dozens of t-bolts at once without taking damage.. no damage from the same t-bolts that can take down vorlon fighters... vorlon fighters which can fly through the middle of a 500 MT blast and not even be knocked off course....

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-17 07:37am

The same Whitestar that takes on dozens of t-bolts at once without taking damage.. no damage from the same t-bolts that can take down vorlon fighters... vorlon fighters which can fly through the middle of a 500 MT blast and not even be knocked off course....

And yes is destroyed by 2 Mega-tons of damage

Whoada thunk it?

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2002-09-17 08:05am

And yes is destroyed by 2 Mega-tons of damage

Whoada thunk it?

when did a vorlon fighter get destroyed by a 2mt blast?.. (leaving aside that a pair of thunderbolts destroyed one/two)

or when did a whitestar get destroyed by one?..

also what are the outputs of the laser (or blaster) cannons of the millinium falcon...or ties for that matter since the their standard laser/blaster weapons are preferred to be avoided by han & co.

though i must admit that if the falcon is carrying missles/mines similar to the ones used by slave I in aotc, then the whitestar is would end up like the defiant.

as for minbari nials being irrelevant.. as shown in "meditations in the abyss" they did show some amazing manuverability/agility in a dense asteroid field.. and lennier even did a hard near 90 degree turn with one. Their firepower is also nothing to be sneezed at considering that (in the same episode) they were shown to be destroying (vapourising) rocks comparable to their size, with one shot, with regularity (like slave I was doing with its laser cannons when chasing obi-wans fighter).

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-09-17 08:32am

The Falcon has missiles, of what type I dunno, but prolly around the 100MT range.

But range?
Well, in the Destiny's Way preview we have them and some Coral Skippers coming in at a combined speed of over 90% of the speed of light and still being ten seconds away from each other.

The minimum of dividing the speeds up equally between fighters and missiles would yield .45c velocity for the missiles, wich would mean the missiles are expected to cover a range of atleast 2.25 Light seconds.

The upper limits(based on this example) would be 8-9 light seconds range.

Schmitty_Mgee · Post by **Schmitty_Mgee** » 2002-09-17 12:38pm

well since the whitestar has repeatedly shown is resiliance in numerous episodes of b5 and the falcon loses its shields and/or some other important part of equipment at some pivitol moment i do believe that the whitestar has the upper hand. other than those facts the whitestar does um... u know HAVE SHIELDS! just bcause there r no bubble shaped shields u ppl say .. no shields it has no shields.... god u ppl remind me of trekkies. now i would say that the quad laser turrets would prove an adversary the almost instant ability to manuever in space and track and target vessels and then continuously fire(no tibanna gas) also there is the size difference.. suure u ppl will say that the larger size of the whitestar would make an easier target BUT that also means more that u need to destroy.... the 475.6 meters of the whitestar easily dwarfs the falcon even when u bring up the pwer ratios... please dont even make me luagh it hurts my spleen. the mimbari beam weapons haveeasily sliced apart ships that(with both sides of the ship) have (also SHIELDS) at least 16 meters of armor (estimated as 20 times the strength and density of titanium) so please... dont underestimate what u do not understand[/quote]

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-09-17 01:09pm

...Learn to spell. The language is called English. You type like a l33t hax0r, the stupidest thing in the galaxy.

I love your condescending attitude. Typical of a Rabid Fiver. 'What you don't understand'. Well, we understand quite a few things, including the White Star's limitations, and the Falcon's weapons load. The White Star has some form of shielding, but it's certainly weaker than the Falcon's shields, which soaked up dozens of turbolaser direct hits.

So I reiterate the three reasons the Falcon wins.

1) Speed and maneuverability. Far superior to the White Star's observed speed and turning radius.

2) Firepower. The Falcon packs 100MT missiles. The quadlasers are just an afterthought.

3) Defense. The Falcon has absorbed multiple, repeated turbolaser strikes without trouble, in ESB.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-17 05:34pm

Incidentally, any one of the turbolasers that the Falcon withstood would have been enough to destroy a Sharlin class cruiser without problems.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2002-09-17 06:37pm

2) Firepower. The Falcon packs 100MT missiles. The quadlasers are just an afterthought.

though the only time saw the falcon fire missles was in the reactor chamber of deathstar ii

3) Defense. The Falcon has absorbed multiple, repeated turbolaser strikes without trouble, in ESB.

repeated turbolaser hits?..which types ot turbolaser?..or are they laser/blaster cannons (anti-starfighter weapons on isds)... considering that the falcon (pilots) also repeteadly prefers to avoid standard laser fire from ties..

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-17 06:41pm

In ESB, the Falcon withstood dozens of hits from light turbolasers and point defense guns. In RotJ, it took at least three hits from medium turbolasers.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-09-17 08:15pm

adam warlock wrote:
2) Firepower. The Falcon packs 100MT missiles. The quadlasers are just an afterthought.
though the only time saw the falcon fire missles was in the reactor chamber of deathstar ii

That was the only time appropriate for such weapons to be used. Against a SW capship, thats a fart in the wind.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2002-09-18 08:04am

In ESB, the Falcon withstood dozens of hits from light turbolasers and point defense guns. In RotJ, it took at least three hits from medium turbolasers.

where/when were they stated to be Ltls or mtls..
if so then why are han & co so concerned with getting hit by laser/blaster fire from ties?....even assuming tie laser/blaster firepower to be 10 times more than that of slave i's blaster cannons (2kt as stated by ics)..it would take thousands of shots just to equal an ltl, and even more so for an mtl.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-09-18 08:07am

LTL's most likely, they are some of the smallest weapons I know of that the ISD has at those positions.

I haven't seen anything that says they have smaller weapons.
And they where flakbursting those weapons around them indicating they where prolly too powerfull to dare a direct strike with at even at the weakest power setting

Schmitty_Mgee · Post by **Schmitty_Mgee** » 2002-09-18 12:23pm

by ur stupidity. u know as i type my non english, or as many call it INTERNET LINGO u incomprehensible fool.

Defense. The Falcon has absorbed multiple, repeated turbolaser strikes without trouble, in ESB.

now in esb there were no actual hits! the turbolaser blasts were all around the falcon not actually hitting it. and yes some blasts DID actually hit, but those were all fron TIE's which by the way DONT have turbolasers but cannons.

Speed and maneuverability. Far superior to the White Star's observed speed and turning radius.

well u know if u had even watched any b5 episode w/whitestars u wouldve seen that whitestars are capable of turning on a fuckin dime. a whitestar can literally turn 180 degrees and shoot back the other way at full speed(without mind u the entire crew leaning to one side or falling over from g forces)

Firepower. The Falcon packs 100MT missiles. The quadlasers are just an afterthought.

ya thats considering the falcon could even get a lock on a whitestar(remember that missles need a definate lock to fire) and exactly what are 100mt going to do to the whitestar? and dont even bring up the crap about the 2mt warheads destroying the blackstar. it wasnt the blast that destroyed the ship in the first place, it was the debris that was thrown from the asteroids the warheads were placed on that destroyed the blackstar.

and as i lie here reading ur stupidity and repeated ignorance i must take into thought, ur only a llama[/i][/b]

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The WhiteStar Vs the Falcon

The WhiteStar Vs the Falcon

consider this u ignorant f00ls

o im sooo impressed