What is the actual yield of a heavy turbolaser ?

[Sarevok]

Everyone seems to accept that heavy turbolasers have a 200 gigaton yield. However some people commented that the heavy guns on the Accamalator were actualy the size of medium turbolasers and heavy turbolasers should therefore be more powerful. Could someone explain what exactly is the yield of a heavy turbolaser ?

[Vympel]

No idea. The quad turbolasers on the Acclamator are indeed much smaller than both the guns on the ISD and ISDII. Someone should do some scaling.

[Sea Skimmer]

I thought that, (at least among people here) the common opinion was that the Accamalator guns are MTL's?. That could place the heavy turrets of the ISD's into the single maybe double digit Teraton range.

Either range works for me, the ISD is much larger and oriented towards ship to ship combat while the Accamalator is a troop transport, an ISD ought to be able to blow it away with a salvo or two.

[Soulman]

No idea. The quad turbolasers on the Acclamator are indeed much smaller than both the guns on the ISD and ISDII. Someone should do some scaling.

But we don't know how they scale up. Larger guns could have a smaller/larger energy density in the bolt, soem things don't scale up/down very well. We'd have to take several known values (like the 200GT guns on the Acc and the smaller 6MT? guns) and even then we couldn't be sure.

[Vympel]

But we don't know how they scale up. Larger guns could have a smaller/larger energy density in the bolt, soem things don't scale up/down very well. We'd have to take several known values (like the 200GT guns on the Acc and the smaller 6MT? guns) and even then we couldn't be sure.

No, we couldn't be sure, but it's not an unreasonable presumption.

[Darth Wong]

Given the fact that a warhead a few feet long can have a yield in the gigaton range, one would expect considerable firepower from huge 50 metre wide heavy turbolaser turrets.

[Howedar]

No idea. The quad turbolasers on the Acclamator are indeed much smaller than both the guns on the ISD and ISDII. Someone should do some scaling.

But we don't know how they scale up. Larger guns could have a smaller/larger energy density in the bolt, soem things don't scale up/down very well. We'd have to take several known values (like the 200GT guns on the Acc and the smaller 6MT? guns) and even then we couldn't be sure.

At the same time, they wouldn't have larger guns if they could get similar power out of multiple smaller platforms.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

So how many times bigger is an ISD heavy than an Acclamator one? I believe both values are known to us.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose it should also be noted that Dr. Saxton probably derived the HTL figures from the BDZ quotes in the official literature. The Base Delta Zero requires gigaton-range weaponry for the heavy guns, and it requires a rather high number of shots even with those.

[Connor MacLeod]

I suppose it should also be noted that Dr. Saxton probably derived the HTL figures from the BDZ quotes in the official literature. The Base Delta Zero requires gigaton-range weaponry for the heavy guns, and it requires a rather high number of shots even with those.

Lets not forget the Dodonna quote, which is canonical (and supported by numerous EU sources.)

And the seismic charges from AOTC (the movie itself proved multi-gigaton yields, IIRC.)

Beyond that, I don't think we can say (or should say - should we Mike?)

[Connor MacLeod]

So how many times bigger is an ISD heavy than an Acclamator one? I believe both values are known to us.

Well, when I did the scaling work (Its been awhile, and I lost the figures), I came out to roughly 10 meters cubed (the quad TLS on the acclamator are vageuly boxlike in shape, IIRC, so its close enough as an approximation.)

The ISD-1 HTL turrets are 50 meters in diameter, and about 30 meters in height.

By volumetric comparison, the ISD1 HTL is nearly 60x larger than the Acclamator quad TLs. If size is comparable to power, then the HTL is also nearly 60x more powerful, or about 10,000 GT (11-12 teratons per shot).

This does assume a refire rate similar to the Acclamator though as well, I think.

It should be noted this is also probably quite conservative. Comparison of the 6 MT light guns (which are so small that they are effectively INVISIBLE on the hull) on the acclamator to the quad TLs suggests tthat the difference in power could be SUBSTANTIALLY greater (something like 30,000 times greater. then again, a light laser cannon isn't a quite a TL either)

Offhand, I would think the HTLs on the ISD are maybe between 2 and 3 orders of magnitude more powerful than the MTLS on an acclamator, disregarding rate of fire.

[Brian Young]

Makes sense. After all, the Acclamator is not a battleship. It is a troop transport. It isn't even designed for heavy combat. The primary function is carrying troops and equipment to a planetary system, then to the surface of a planet. It has a lot of hollow space to carry this equipment.
Star Destroyers, on the other hand, ARE designed for ship-to-ship combat and planetary bombardment. Being a multi-purpose ship, it does carry ground troops and equipment, fighters, etc. But it is first and foremost a "destroyer." It doesn't have all that empty space an Acclamator does.
ISDs should be more powerful than the difference in size over the Acclamator would suggest. Reactors would fill more volume on an ISD than their counterparts on an Acclamator would. More subsidiary reactors. Just more power per cubic meter, or "pound per pound."
With that mindset, the heavy turbolasers should easily be in the double-digit teraton range.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Pretty much how i consider the HTL's Brian. Afterall arent HTL's just the kind of weaponry specifically designed to punch thru capship level shielding with a relatively small amount of shots? Also i cant see the logic, if the heavy guns were only a few times more powerfull than those in a troop transport, in putting the damn things to warships anyway if that was the case for you could achieve much greater amount of firepower thrown out by simply putting more of the regular 200 GT turbolasers in.

[Master of Ossus]

Pretty much how i consider the HTL's Brian. Afterall arent HTL's just the kind of weaponry specifically designed to punch thru capship level shielding with a relatively small amount of shots?

That and orbital bombardment, yes.

Also i cant see the logic, if the heavy guns were only a few times more powerfull than those in a troop transport, in putting the damn things to warships anyway if that was the case for you could achieve much greater amount of firepower thrown out by simply putting more of the regular 200 GT turbolasers in.

Well, it might be more economical to build one ship instead of several smaller ones, but since the Acclamator in ICS has such a huge amount of internal volume dedicated completely to storing and transporting troops and their equipment, it stands to reason that the ISD should be substantially more powerful.

[Darth Wong]

ISDs should be more powerful than the difference in size over the Acclamator would suggest. Reactors would fill more volume on an ISD than their counterparts on an Acclamator would. More subsidiary reactors. Just more power per cubic meter, or "pound per pound."

Indeed, the cutaways of the two ships in the OT ICS and AOTC ICS can be directly compared, and we do see that most of an Acclamator's internal space is empty (for cargo), while the same is not true of an ISD.

[Connor MacLeod]

There's alos the raw firepower of the SPHA-T, which IIRC is nearly the size of a HTL battery - and the SPHA-T appears to have enough firepower to punch through the armor/shields of a TF core ship.

[Sea Skimmer]

There's alos the raw firepower of the SPHA-T, which IIRC is nearly the size of a HTL battery - and the SPHA-T appears to have enough firepower to punch through the armor/shields of a TF core ship.

I believe the HTL turret is considerably larger. Anyway according to Cross Sections Locations for Episode II, the SPHA-T only has a limited charge for its main weapon and then must withdraw for recharging, while the HTL is fed by power from a large secondary reactor. So a direct size comparison isn't something I'd count on to be accurate.

[Connor MacLeod]

There's alos the raw firepower of the SPHA-T, which IIRC is nearly the size of a HTL battery - and the SPHA-T appears to have enough firepower to punch through the armor/shields of a TF core ship.

I believe the HTL turret is considerably larger. Anyway according to Cross Sections Locations for Episode II, the SPHA-T only has a limited charge for its main weapon and then must withdraw for recharging, while the HTL is fed by power from a large secondary reactor. So a direct size comparison isn't something I'd count on to be accurate.

IT stands to reason however. And even if it doesn't, the original trilogy ICS states that a HTL has enough firepower to punch a hole through the most heavily armored and shielded starships (they can overload deflectors with a single shot) - that itself suggests that a HTL is well above the e22-e23 range, probably higher than e24 watt level as well (We're talking tens, or hundreds of teratons, possibly even a thousand or more.)

[darthdavid]

Which in the end, Means that a HTL can go through about 300-400 average trek ships before being stopped.

[Darth Wong]

Which in the end, Means that a HTL can go through about 300-400 average trek ships before being stopped.

Actually, the first ship's total ablation might absorb, dissipate and scatter much of the beam.

[Isolder74]

Which in the end, Means that a HTL can go through about 300-400 average trek ships before being stopped.

Actually, the first ship's total ablation might absorb, dissipate and scatter much of the beam.

Then again it might not. Federation ships are hardly robust. but you do have a point the nature of Turbolasers suggest that the bolt will explode on contact with the Federation ship

[Isolder74]

BTW lets not get into any Verses arguments here

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Which in the end, Means that a HTL can go through about 300-400 average trek ships before being stopped.

Actually, the first ship's total ablation might absorb, dissipate and scatter much of the beam.

There's always the option of designing the HTL to be a continuous-beam weapon. Think 'Son of Death Star and Slicer Beam' of such horrific power that nothing short of a fully-shielded Executor can hope to offer anything more than token resistance to it! Then just mount the thing to an ISD and walk the beam across the massed Feddy fleet...

[His Divine Shadow]

By volumetric comparison, the ISD1 HTL is nearly 60x larger than the Acclamator quad TLs. If size is comparable to power, then the HTL is also nearly 60x more powerful, or about 10,000 GT (11-12 teratons per shot).

Saxton gave some hints that ISD shield strenght could be around 10^24watts, if so, a broadside ought to be around that, as IIRC one broadside from an ISD2 is about enough to take down the shields of another ISD2, this would give us 3e22j TL's(7TT) for an ISD2 anyway.

[Soulman]

Pretty much how i consider the HTL's Brian. Afterall arent HTL's just the kind of weaponry specifically designed to punch thru capship level shielding with a relatively small amount of shots? Also i cant see the logic, if the heavy guns were only a few times more powerfull than those in a troop transport, in putting the damn things to warships anyway if that was the case for you could achieve much greater amount of firepower thrown out by simply putting more of the regular 200 GT turbolasers in.

You could put a lot of 8" guns on a battleship instead of a few 16" guns and get the same weight of broadside. If the armour on an ISD can stand up to a 200GT shot equipping large warships with them is a waste when you can use a 10TT weapon to punch through it. Lots of smaller weapons would also probably take up more volume to get the same effect.