Star ship weapons range

[omegaLancer]

The range of SW weapons is basically base on several factors, the first is the max distant that the beam can go and still maintain effective. For the case of a Star destroyer it seem that this distant can be measure in light hours from the example of a Stardestoryer being able to fire from outside a solar system and hitting a Vong world ship.

From behind the Magic CD and the SW roleplaying game they assign it a max range of 75 space units. With a space unit being around 470,600km.
Meaning the range is reduce from these sources to 2 1/2 Light minutes.

This is possible if you consider that WWII battleships were able to target and hit target working with weapon delay time of 30 seconds, using analog computer to aid in calculating their target future location when the shell landed.

Taking in account that Vast different in computering power a max range in the light minutes should possible.

This range would be effective by Jamming, which according to varies sources reduces targeting to the use of visual means. So it could be any where to 2 to 24 light seconds under these conditions.

[His Divine Shadow]

We also have the fight in Destiny's way where the Falcon fires on Coralskippers at light second ranges.

[Master of Ossus]

And, of course, the Rebel Dream/Rebel Stand duology, in which an ISD can fire a beam weapon at a target from outside of the system, indicating light-minute ranges, and probably even longer ones.

[Kazeite]

The person who claimed this was none other than DarkStar.

No. The person who claimed this was none other than you. What you said below is incorrect. DarkStar said nothing about accurancy there, but then you said that "the accuracy of the Trade Federation battleship did not improve, even as the Queen's starship in TPM skimmed the hull. This is clearly indicative of a lack of accuracy independent of range. Since the accuracy did not improve as the range became smaller, it is a clear indication that the range had nothing to do with the alleged inaccuracy of the Trade Federation's ships."

So by claiming that TF ships are not accurate you actually wanted to say that they are accurate, right?

(and BTW, when do you plan to complete your rebuttal? You missed couple of pages that were already online by the time you started it.)

The fighter examples are all red herring.

Why? How is pointing out the fact that there were starfighter scale vessels in movies that lost one engine and didn't blow up a red herring?
Maybe you have some evidence that Naboo ships use completely different technology than X-wings? And besides, I didn't abandon queen yachts topic, so I don't understand why you should call my examples red herring.

the idea that blowing up the fucking engines is the best course of actions when you want to be absolutely sure you get the crew alive and well is quite frankly, moronic.

As opposed to idea that sniping droids will somehow force yacht to surrender?

And, your limited viewpoint is kinda disturbing... I didn't said that they absolutely, positively had to knock out the engines, or that "it was the best course of action". It was merely an example. In case you didn't noticed, I said "They had couple of seconds to, say, shoot at engines or something."

And look, Isolder74 pointed out other possibilities. (Besides the fact that he kinda missed my point I wonder what he would say if queens yacht had one engine )

And my apologies for going off-topic, but the original question was answered in first two replies (and one of the replies was mine, actually), so it's not like I'm diverting discussion or something

[Isolder74]

And look, Isolder74 pointed out other possibilities. (Besides the fact that he kinda missed my point I wonder what he would say if queens yacht had one engine )

And my apologies for going off-topic, but the original question was answered in first two replies (and one of the replies was mine, actually), so it's not like I'm diverting discussion or something

What would I say?

I would say it is now safe to aim for since knocking it out will not have a chance of unbalanancing the vesel and is sure to knock it out! On the other hand, it is possible that hitting this one engine could still cause the ship to have a catatrophic failure. When they wanted to stop the Tantive IV the Devestator did not aim for the engines either they aimed for a known week point in th corvette that would cause the shut down of the vessel. The Trade Federation may not have known where was the best place to hit the ship at ecept from their sensor scans.

[Kazeite]

I would say it is now safe to aim for since knocking it out will not have a chance of unbalanancing the vesel and is sure to knock it out!

Quite true. However, we are still dealing with multi-engined vessel. Consider this - there's no such thing as 'maneuvering thrusters' in SW universe (at least I don't know anything about that). I think that even mr Saxton concluded that all maneuvers are done via advanced thrust vectoring (If I'm wrong, correct me at once )

Rendering one engine inoperable would of course cause serious inbalance and disturbance to the flight path... and then what? Is thrust vectoring done manually, or is commenced with the help of computer? (I could use the F-16 example here, which is stabilized in flight by on-board computer, but Illuminatus Primus would surely call it red herring )
So, if we assume that one engine was rendered inoperative (which, I say again, is not the only option available), on-board computer would most likely cut the power to the damaged engine and correct inbalance as soon as possible.

The Trade Federation may not have known where was the best place to hit the ship at except from their sensor scans.

And yet, they knew where the hyperdrive was and they knew where the shield generator was...
If we asume that TF was shooting with the pinpoint accurancy, then it would be no problem for them to further damage shield generator or hyperdrive...
Instead they seemingly focused on droid sniping (when couple more shots could render shield generator completely inoperable), giving yacht time to close to the point-blank range... Like I said, it's like trying to stop speeding car by sniping its rear-view mirrors.

[YT300000]

Consider this - there's no such thing as 'maneuvering thrusters' in SW universe (at least I don't know anything about that).

In Rebel Dream, Jag Fel uses thrusters on his clawcraft when pushing ejected prisoners onto other vectors.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Maneuvering thrusters are described in EU material (the one I can think of right now is WEG, but there probably quite a few mentioned in the novels), although I could swear there might be at least a few in the films...

[Kazeite]

Ah, found it:

http://saxman.xwlegacy.net/Starfighters/X-wing.html

This is the page that describes X-wing in great detail. At one point author writes:
"Curtis Saxton at SWTC pointed out to me how this would work. With the engines located so far off-center, torque placed on the hull makes the ship want to turn when accelerating, particularly when the pilot deliberately causes a thrust imbalance (such as powering down the upper engines when the pilot pulls back on the stick. Saxton suggests that such deliberate thrust imbalance may be how the majority of craft in the Star Wars Universe maneuver given the lack of obvious maneuvering thrusters)."

And that's not everything about lack of thrusters (just see it for yourself).

[Lord Poe]

Maneuvering thrusters have been seen on the Falcon when it lands at Bespin in TESB.

Maneuvering thrusters have been seen on the Devastator as it passes ovr the camera at the beginning of ANH.

[Master of Ossus]

The person who claimed this was none other than DarkStar.

No. The person who claimed this was none other than you. What you said below is incorrect. DarkStar said nothing about accurancy there, but then you said that "the accuracy of the Trade Federation battleship did not improve, even as the Queen's starship in TPM skimmed the hull. This is clearly indicative of a lack of accuracy independent of range. Since the accuracy did not improve as the range became smaller, it is a clear indication that the range had nothing to do with the alleged inaccuracy of the Trade Federation's ships."

I know. I was responding to DarkStar's original point. Observe:

In The Phantom Menace, Amidala's royal yacht was fired on by a Trade Federation battleship as it ran the blockade. A somewhat quick-and-dirty scaling of the events suggests that the Trade Federation ships opened fire at about 60 kilometers. The shots were wild and inaccurate at that range, though (and didn't get much better, even as the yacht approached the battleship and passed right over the guns).

Note: This is an edited version of his original page. What I was actually responding to was this:

... Trade Federation battleship opened fire on the Queen's Royal yacht from 60 km's, but the accuracy was terrible, and didn't really improve as the ship got closer.

So by claiming that TF ships are not accurate you actually wanted to say that they are accurate, right?

No, not really, I was saying that the TF battleship lacked accuracy, but that its range was more considerable than Anderson was saying. I was also pointing out that there were other factors in that engagement that affected accuracy (like, maybe, the canonical things in the novel that were going on, at the time?).

(and BTW, when do you plan to complete your rebuttal? You missed couple of pages that were already online by the time you started it.)

I don't plan to continue. I think I've already destroyed DarkStar's credibility, and see no real reason to continue with the exercise.

[Kazeite]

Maneuvering thrusters have been seen on the Falcon when it lands at Bespin in TESB.

No, they haven't. These were landing thrusters. Can't you see (literally) the difference?

Maneuvering thrusters have been seen on the Devastator as it passes ovr the camera at the beginning of ANH.

What? Where? When? What are you talking about?

I know. I was responding to DarkStar's original point.

Oh, I see. I was confused by your choice of words (you sounded there like you agreed with DarkStar on this one ). I still am, actually, specifically to this:
"I was saying that the TF battleship lacked accuracy, but that its range was more considerable than Anderson was saying. I was also pointing out that there were other factors in that engagement that affected accuracy (like, maybe, the canonical things in the novel that were going on, at the time?)."

If you said that in your rebuttal then I am unable to find it.

I don't plan to continue. I think I've already destroyed DarkStar's credibility, and see no real reason to continue with the exercise.

Destroyed? Your rebuttal is incomplete, many of your points are based on false assumptions (like "a phaser has never been fired with two hands" or "ISD in ESB that suffered an impact to the bridge wasn't destroyed" or "it took several shots from Jango Fett's blasters to bring down one Jedi" (although this one is not yours) ), and, most importantly, you conceded on several important points, like warp strafing, 100 megaton photon torpedo, neutronium hull, or Romulan warp speed (and, coincidentally, you attributed TOS Romulans with the weapon capable of moving "at warp for a considerable distance," which would far exceed highest SW weapon range. But, enough about Star Trek )

Anyway, given those facts, I would hardly call your work "complete".

[Connor MacLeod]

Christ. This guy is back. And he's nitpicking not only sensor ranges, but ENGINES too?

Has he tossed out the EU examples yet?

[Kazeite]

Heh... I see yet another example of illuminatus primusis here...

Read my posts again, Connor. Maybe you'll be able to understand what I actually said, not what you want to hear.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Heh... I see yet another example of illuminatus primusis here...

Read my posts again, Connor. Maybe you'll be able to understand what I actually said, not what you want to hear.

Quiet idiot. You thought it was unreasonable for the Trade Fed to not want to blow engines off a ship who's passengers are needed alive and well.

You were rightly flamed, both by me for prior examples, and now by Connor.

[Kazeite]

You thought it was unreasonable for the Trade Fed to not want to blow engines off a ship who's passengers are needed alive and well.

You must be a powerful telepath indeed, for you seem to know better what I think than I do...

I'm going to repeat myself for the third time: I think it was unreasonable for TF to snipe droids in an attempt to stop queens yacht.

If you think that shooting at engines will surely cause them to blow up, then you must be amazed that TF even dared to open fire - after all, there are lots of potentially violatile equpiment installed on yacht...

[Illuminatus Primus]

If you think that shooting at engines will surely cause them to blow up, then you must be amazed that TF even dared to open fire - after all, there are lots of potentially violatile equpiment installed on yacht...

As opposed to blowing off major ship components and just hoping it hold together perfect. Yeah, that's what I would do.

[Kazeite]

As opposed to blowing off major ship components and just hoping it hold together perfect. Yeah, that's what I would do.

Who said anything about blowing off anything? Once again, Isolder74 pointed out that TF could try to aim at other vital systems that would disable ship. (and look, he even cared to explain why he thinks that X-wing example is bad.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Heh... I see yet another example of illuminatus primusis here...

Mirrors are wonderful things, aren't they?

Read my posts again, Connor. Maybe you'll be able to understand what I actually said, not what you want to hear.

And maybe you're just full of shit. Luke's X-wiong example is inapplicable because he expressly STATED that despite being hit it "was not bad". In addition, you're also neglecting Red Leader, who ALSO took hits to the engine and HE knew he was doomed (he even collided into the Death Star's surface, and refused any assistance from Skywalker and his wingmates. In other words, he knew it was serious damage.)

On top of that, lets ALSO ignore the fact that you are comparing damage inflicted by a starfighter on a starfighter to damage inflicted on a space transport/yacht (far larger than an X-wing) by a Capital ship's guns (which is itself VASTLY more massive than a single TIE fighter.) - both in terms of damage inflicted in the situations, targeting systems differences, etc.

Lets also not forget why they were targeting the droids: To keep the droids from repairing the damaged shield generator (you might recall that Ric Olie, the transport pilot, said that the 'shield generator had been hit' but it was not until later that he said 'shields were down/gone.' - whereupon very shortly after R2-D2 restored them.) Restoring the shields WOULD have made disabling the engines impossible (you can't damage what you can't hit - Captain Panaka even said that without the shields they would be sitting ducks.) And the shields weren't DOWN yet. H ence, they were targeting the droids in order to prevent them from repairing the shields.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I really don't understand the problem. So they felt that shooting vital systems wasn't worth the risk and erred on the side of caution. What's the problem with that?

[Kazeite]

And maybe you're just full of shit. Luke's X-wiong example is inapplicable because he expressly STATED that despite being hit it "was not bad".

Dude, I can't believe you said that. It absolutely proves that hitting engines will not make whole craft explode.

In addition, you're also neglecting Red Leader, who ALSO took hits to the engine and HE knew he was doomed (he even collided into the Death Star's surface,

Guess that - there was no Death Star in the orbit of Naboo.
If yacht was to suffer damage similar to Red Leader damage, it would certainly make it easy to retrieve it with tractor beams - Red Leader engine hit was not fatal - the crash was.

On top of that, lets ALSO ignore the fact that you are comparing damage inflicted by a starfighter on a starfighter to damage inflicted on a space transport/yacht (far larger than an X-wing) by a Capital ship's guns (which is itself VASTLY more massive than a single TIE fighter.) - both in terms of damage inflicted in the situations, targeting systems differences, etc.

Oh yeah - they want to disable queens yacht, so they fire with maximum firepower? Don't be silly.
(and what mass of attacking party has to do with anything? They weren't ramming yacht - they were shooting at it).

Lets also not forget why they were targeting the droids:

Because it abviously didn't occur to them that they could fire more shots at shield generator, rendering it harder to repair, or disable yacht with careful limited-power shots taking advantage of its vulnerability.

Either TF gunners have completely moronic programing, or they were unable to fire accurately enough.

[Connor MacLeod]

Dude, I can't believe you said that. It absolutely proves that hitting engines will not make whole craft explode.

Nice try at misrepresentation asshole. Point out one instance where I said that hitting or damaging the engines makes craft explode. I was specficially debunking your stupidity in claiming that the ANH battle proves that damage to an engine is not harmful to a starship (it was serious enough that Red Leader considered himself doomed and told Luke and the rest to forget him.)

And even if we disregard the Red Leader example (supported by the novel and script, incidentally), there is STILL the Y-wing example Isolder mentioned, which is in FACT more applicable (as he correctly points out) to the Naboo starship. In short, its been pointed otu your ANH example is in fact bullshit and does not remotely support your argument, despite the fact you blithely continue to assume it does.

Guess that - there was no Death Star in the orbit of Naboo.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the fact that the Red Leader example contradicts your claim from ANH (not to mention the Y-wing example you repeatedly ignore.)
The absence of the Death Star in no way alters or even is remotely relevant to that fact (nor is the crash itself, or its lethality.

If yacht was to suffer damage similar to Red Leader damage, it would certainly make it easy to retrieve it with tractor beams - Red Leader engine hit was not fatal - the crash was.

The loss of the engine LEAD to his collison with the planet's surface, idiot. Much like it did with Gold Five's Y-wing. If damage to the engines leads to Red Leader being unable to recover from his plunge into the death star, its fatal, despite your semantics-whoring to the contrary. Or is it you're arguing that the damage to his engine was completely unrelated to his crash into the Death Star?

Besides, this is yet again another red herring of yours.

Oh y+eah - they want to disable queens yacht, so they fire with maximum firepower? Don't be silly.

Dont' be a fucking idiot then. The Yacht is much bigger and more durable than an X-wing, and the Trade Federation ship's guns are MUCH more powerful than a TIE's guns. You're basically arguing that a starfighter damaging a starfighter is a COMPARABLE example to a capital ship damaging a target vastly smaller than it is.

(and what mass of attacking party has to do with anything? They weren't ramming yacht - they were shooting at it).

Bigger ship. Tougher to damage and bigger, more powerful shields. I would have thought that would be obvious to anyone (In your case it was rather clear I was overestimating your perceptiveness.) Or are you going to argue that the Queen's Yacht has the same durability as an X-wing?

Because it abviously didn't occur to them that they could fire more shots at shield generator, rendering it harder to repair, or disable yacht with careful limited-power shots taking advantage of its vulnerability.

Either TF gunners have completely moronic programing, or they were unable to fire accurately enough.

Yet ANOTHER misrepresentation of my argument! You snipped most of it in favor of that one fucking line, and then addressed IT as if it were the entirety of my claim. Nice try, asshole. But you completely dodged by the fact that the shields were still UP when they were picking off the droids, when you claimed they were knocked out. So in short, you're attempting to make my argument into something that it isn't, and your rebuttal is a complete red herring.

Your argument has been smashed (it was smashed the moment Isolder mentioned the Y-wing, but you ignored that didnt you?). Concession accepted.

[MKSheppard]

As opposed to blasting off the yachts hyperdrive?

Fucking idiot, this is reality where you can't just say "target his engines"
or "target his weapons" and szaaap, one moment later your enemy is
completely helpless

[Isolder74]

Your argument has been smashed (it was smashed the moment Isolder mentioned the Y-wing, but you ignored that didnt you?). Concession accepted.

Wow, My comments are the pivitol point in a argument! This is new! All my point was is that Engines are not the best target in this situation and I used a Example to prove it. And In ANH Luke never actually lost his engine it was hit but not bad! The Tie taged the Engine but it remained functional, I wonder what that says about X-Wing engine constructions?

[Kazeite]

Nice try at misrepresentation. Point out one instance where I said that hitting or damaging the engines makes craft explode.

Huh? You didn't said that, nor was I implying that. But I assumed that you have read previous post, since you decided to join. If not, then you shouldn't engage in discussion.

I was specficially debunking your stupidity in claiming that the ANH battle proves that damage to an engine is not harmful to a starship.

By presenting example that showed that damage to an engine is not harmful to a starship? Nice try at misrepresentation, Connor.

And I see that you quietly dropped the Luke example and focused exlusively on Red Leader example. Again, nice try at misrepresentation.

(it was serious enough that Red Leader considered himself doomed and told Luke and the rest to forget him.)

And again, it was not the engine hit that killed him, but surface crash.

there is STILL the Y-wing example Isolder mentioned, which is in FACT more applicable (as he correctly points out) to the Naboo starship.

I watched that. Y-wing was hit in the fuselage, lost one engine and promptly exploded. That proves only that Y-wings hit by Imperial starfighter in the fuselage with maximum firepower can lose engines and explode.

In short, its been pointed otu your ANH example is in fact bullshit and does not remotely support your argument, despite the fact you blithely continue to assume it does.

To put it even shorter, that specific example doesn't prove anything, and (thanks to you) there are two other examples that prove the "disabling engine is possible" theory.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the fact that the Red Leader example contradicts your claim from ANH

Red herring? Funny. I suppose I could call all your examples red herrings too, using the same argumentation as Illuminatus Primus did.

But, once again, you doesn't seem to understand that Red Leaders X-wing survived the hit and stayed in one piece for almost a minute (as shown in novelisation). It was the collision with Death Star that killed him.
If queens yacht were to suffer similar fate, it needed something to crash into - hence my Death Star absence comment.

(not to mention the Y-wing example you repeatedly ignore.)

Oh yeah, I ignore it by responding to it? What a evil person I am

The absence of the Death Star in no way alters or even is remotely relevant to that fact (nor is the crash itself, or its lethality.

And what am I supposed to do with such silly argument? Don't you understand that Red Leader craft survived the hit and was destroyed only by crashing into Death Star?

The loss of the engine LEAD to his collison with the planet's surface, idiot.

Planet? I would call it rather small artificial moon.
Once again, without "planet" there was nothing for him to crash into. If there's no "planet", then there would be no plunge into the Death Star, and the hit would be not fatal, despite your inability to understand that.
Or is it you're arguing that the absence of Death Star would still mean that he would crash into it?

Besides, this is yet again another red herring of yours.

Then why do you even bother to answer it? Besides, it wasyour example, not mine.

The Yacht is much bigger and more durable than an X-wing, and the Trade Federation ship's guns are MUCH more powerful than a TIE's guns. You're basically arguing that a starfighter damaging a starfighter is a COMPARABLE example to a capital ship damaging a target vastly smaller than it is.

Oh fer cryin' out loud, haven't you heard about variable power settings? Hello? You seriously believe that TF ships were shotting with maximum power?

Bigger ship. Tougher to damage and bigger, more powerful shields.

Even bigger ships shooting at it. So, your point is?

You snipped most of it in favor of that one fucking line, and then addressed IT as if it were the entirety of my claim.

I was answering to the entirety of your claim.

But you completely dodged by the fact that the shields were still UP when they were picking off the droids, when you claimed they were knocked out.

Sigh... Once again, it obviously either didn't occured to them that they could knock out shields and shields generator entirely by repetatedly shooting at the exact same place, or they were unable to hit that place again, despite their best efforts.

So in short, you're attempting to pretend that you don't understand my rebuttal, or you genuinely don't understand it.

Your habit for showing examples that actually damage your position is most amusing... and familiar. Tell me: You learned it from DarkStar, did you?

Fucking idiot, this is reality where you can't just say "target his engines" or "target his weapons" and szaaap, one moment later your enemy is completely helpless

Kind sir, I'm fully aware of that.

And In ANH Luke never actually lost his engine it was hit but not bad!

I think that's why Connor managed to realise that this example damages his position and quietly dropped it