Newest SW Insider screws Trekkies

[Master of Ossus]

I just got the latest SW Insider, and it says something interesting about the Acclamators. On page 45, it says, "There's no way Republic assault ships [Acclamators] can measure up against Star Destroyers by any military yardstick, but they were never designed for ship-to-ship combat. Their armaments... are best suited for orbital bombardments in support of ground troops."

I think that this is pretty conclusive proof that the 200 GT weapons on the Acclamator are not powerful enough to damage enemy capital ships, and that they are used in the support role. Further, I think that by extension we can agree conclusively, now, that the weapon on an ISD are likely far more powerful than those on the Acclamator.

[Alyeska]

I just got the latest SW Insider, and it says something interesting about the Acclamators. On page 45, it says, "There's no way Republic assault ships [Acclamators] can measure up against Star Destroyers by any military yardstick, but they were never designed for ship-to-ship combat. Their armaments... are best suited for orbital bombardments in support of ground troops."

I think that this is pretty conclusive proof that the 200 GT weapons on the Acclamator are not powerful enough to damage enemy capital ships, and that they are used in the support role. Further, I think that by extension we can agree conclusively, now, that the weapon on an ISD are likely far more powerful than those on the Acclamator.

On the contrary, it means nothing of the sort.

Which has more firepower? Iowa class Battleship or a Tinconderoga class cruiser? Which would win in combat? Which is better for bombardment? Traditionally bombardment ships have more powerful weapons that are not optimized for ship to ship combat.

[Master of Ossus]

On the contrary, it means nothing of the sort.

Which has more firepower? Iowa class Battleship or a Tinconderoga class cruiser? Which would win in combat? Which is better for bombardment? Traditionally bombardment ships have more powerful weapons that are not optimized for ship to ship combat.

In support of ground troops? Weapons like that are used to bombard targets before troops even land. Further, the Insider also says this: "In a space battle, Republic assault ships rely on starfighter escorts and let their robust shield generators absorb stray shots." Clearly the limiting factor for their ability to engage in combat is their weapons strength, and not their shields. We know from ICS that they are also reasonably fast for capital ships, although not as fast as picket ships or starfighters. I reiterate my point. Their weapons are not suitable for ship-to-ship combat. Also, are you saying that nuclear weapons (the most powerful ones in our arsenal) are used primarily for troop support in ground operations?

The most powerful weapons are reserved for strategic purposes (ie. space battles, or planetary superiority assignments). Your premise is also flawed.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I believe that the Acclamator's HTL's seem to be unable to rotate, only pivot up or down. They resemble the ones on the TF ships in TPM, IMO.

Anyway, they're probably for ardment, while the more powerful HTLs on an ISD can be used for both bomardment and ship-to-ship combat.

[Master of Ossus]

I believe that the Acclamator's HTL's seem to be unable to rotate, only pivot up or down. They resemble the ones on the TF ships in TPM, IMO.

The weapons on the TF battle ship can also rotate from side to side (yaw). They just don't have the ability to roll (more or less worthless, when you think about it). That was demonstrated when Anakin's N-1 made a flyover past their ship, whose weapon was moving to engage a target flying across its field of fire. It was also circumstantially shown when the Queen's starship was fired on from both sides of the TF battleship, and from the center of it, indicating that several banks of weapons were engaging it simultaneously, despite being on different sides of the ship and (presumably) having different areas of responsibility and coverage.

[TheDarkling]

Its vague - the weapons could be over powered ( planetary bombardment ranges are greater than normal cap ship ranges) but have a low refire rate (this based upon range depletion which we know is a concern as the ICS states).

Whereas combat ships have weaker weapons but a much better ROF (makes weapons better proportionally) since the weapons deplete less in combat ranges.

Im sure there are other explanations including your conclusion - its by no means certain whats going on from that quote.

[Enlightenment]

[quote="Alyeska"Which has more firepower? Iowa class Battleship or a Tinconderoga class cruiser? Which would win in combat? Which is better for bombardment?[/quote]

The Tico, on all counts, for the simple reason that it can hit what it's aiming at.

As for the Acclimator, there is no way in hell a 200gt turbolaser can be classed as a 'support weapon.' A single 200gt hit on a planet is damn near enough to wipe out a civilization and exterminate the higher lifeforms. With the exception of breaching localized shields, the Acclimator's weapons would be about as useful for troop support as an ICBM.

[Master of Ossus]

As for the Acclimator, there is no way in hell a 200gt turbolaser can be classed as a 'support weapon.' A single 200gt hit on a planet is damn near enough to wipe out a civilization and exterminate the higher lifeforms.

Not true.

With the exception of breaching localized shields, the Acclimator's weapons would be about as useful for troop support as an ICBM.

You assume that all it has is 200GT turbolasers, and that all it can do is fire at maximum power, and that the 200GT weapons will kill friendly troops if fired at any point around the planet. These are all wrong. In addition, the weapons would probably be used to clear a landing area and then dispatch troops, or to cripple planetary defenses before landing troops.

[TheDarkling]

Clear a olanding area by slagging it?

[pellaeons_scion]

Sounds like a sound landing strategy to me. Slag the area, clear it of hostiles, then land your troops unapposed!

[Master of Ossus]

Clear a olanding area by slagging it?

That's the idea. Once it is reduced to rock and rubble, armored troops would be able to move in and occupy the good defensive area. Rubble is actually better for defense than an urban area is.

[VF5SS]

Clear a olanding area by slagging it?

He did say clear it didn't he? Move all that shit outta there by the time your troops move in and I mean all of it!

[TheDarkling]

By slagging a meant big huge hole in the ground that takes a few hours to climb out but thats ok since it will be molten for a while anyway not lets use a few spare MT to clear an area.

[phongn]

I pretty much thought that the heavy guns on the Acclamator were for knocking down shields and destroying hard targets (along with its torpedo and missile launchers). Heavy fire support would be taken care of by the SPHA platforms, which air-support covered from LACs and on the battlefield, AT-TE walkers.

[Master of Ossus]

Or you can just slag enemy troop formations and use LAAT's to drop off your troops. Eitehr one works fine.

[seanrobertson]

Ossus,

I appreciate what you're saying, and I think your conclusion is fine
for what it is...but as much as I tend to agree with the idea that
an ISD's weapons are going to put the smack down on an Acc's,
the Insider information isn't conclusive by any means.

The Klingon flagship Negh'Var vs. something like a Sovereign
provides some perspective: one carries a large amount of troops,
huge fixed-axis weapons, and so on, potentially outgunning the SCS;
however, it's best suited to fire on very slow, if not themselves fixed,
targets...as such, the SCS is probably superior in ship-to-ship combat.
It has superior maneuverability, better weapons coverage overall (and hence, more "effective" firepower), etc.

That's an extreme analogy, and it's not meant to be a perfect match
for the Wars analogues...rather, it's simply to show that there is more
to starship combat than sheer firepower. In Wars, the latter factor is
probably far more important than in, say, Trek, but the fact remains
that the Acc's weapons arcs might be limited such that they're not well- suited for engaging enemy cruisers (supported by the fact that they rely on fighter coverage for some quarters...fighters could *never* make up for a total lack of a ship's firepower). With gaps in her firing coverage, even
a lumbering Wars ship might be able to take advantage of as much,
matching maneuvers carefully while pummelling away without fear of
facing the Acc's heavy fwd. firepower.

If it's not the firing arcs that limits the Acc, perhaps it's her heavy guns'
rate of fire, or something similar to that. She does carry other weapons--some kind of apparently VERY powerful missiles in addition to all of
the turbolasers--but their effectiveness in starship combat remains
unknown.

Don't misunderstand me, though. It might well be the case that she's
undergunned, though I don't think that's going to be the sole cause
of her comparative inferiority in space, or that the difference between
an Acc and ISD's total firepower is going to be *insanely* different.
We do, after all, have the _Slave One_ quotation, which doesn't specify anything beyond the "giga-tonnage" range (even if it is talking about
the amount of energy created in a sort of pre-fire chamber with tibanna
gas).

That doesn't preclude the possibility of the ISD's heaviest weapons doing better/shot, but by how much is anyone's guess. We have Base Delta
Zero figures as a possible referent, figures which even the Acc's weapons
could easily accomodoate and then some. And we've got Curtis' statement
to the effect that an ISD is 10x more powerful than an Acc, but that's
not canon or official. Maybe if he writes Ep. III's _ICS_...

[CmdrWilkens]

I think something has generally left the collective concious of the posters here and that is the OTHER weaponry available to the /Acclamator/ Namely i am referring to the four (4) heavy planetary assualt missile launchers. Those 200 GT weapons are designed for strategic strikes yes BUT the primary job of ship to shore combat would be taken up by those missiles. in toerh words that which makes the /Acclamator/ a viable bombardment weapon is NOT its guns but rather the heavy duty missiles (I would gather huge TT level explsoives designed to take down theater and planetary shields).

To go back to the naval analogy:

/Acclamator/ missiles: 16in guns (Big, pwoerful, somewhat unwieldy and in shot supply)

/Imeprator/ HTLs: 8in cruiser guns (powerful, numerous, accurate)

/Acclamator/ QuadTL & /Imeprator/ MTL: 5in gun (mid-range multi-purpose)


The point here is that the useful bombardment weapon does not translate into a regular combat weapon due to the unwieldy nature of heavy warheads (they would tend to be rather easy pickings in combat).

[SWPIGWANG]

with uber planetory shields that require a DS to crack, I'd say 200GT or even more uber powers is needed to knock them down.

[jegs2]

Hopefully, the next movie will see the infancy of the star destroyer (perhaps the Victory but unlikely), and an ICS book will come out and set us all straight. Frankly, I look forward to the infant SD's having globes atop the superstructures and their not being labeled as "shield generators," but I'll likely not be so lucky as that...

[Enlightenment]

As for the Acclimator, there is no way in hell a 200gt turbolaser can be classed as a 'support weapon.' A single 200gt hit on a planet is damn near enough to wipe out a civilization and exterminate the higher lifeforms.

Not true.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/ ... /app-r.htm

The lower bound for an asteroid impact large enough to cause global consequences ('damn near' a dinosaur killer) is 10^4 mtons TNT yield energy equivalent. 200gt = 2*10^5mt, which is on the cusp ('damn near') of being a species killer.

You assume that all it has is 200GT turbolasers, and that all it can do is fire at maximum power, and that the 200GT weapons will kill friendly troops if fired at any point around the planet. These are all wrong. In addition, the weapons would probably be used to clear a landing area and then dispatch troops, or to cripple planetary defenses before landing troops.

A single 200GT shot will, over the course of a few months to years, remove most of the higher life forms from the planet. Troops not on the same contient as the strike will be safe, but there'll be nothing within a thousand KM of ground zero left to be worth invading.

If the turbolasers are have dial-a-yield capbilities than I must ask why they are so grossly overpowered for planetary attack. Overdesigning a system by at least two orders of magnitude makes no sense. The only explanations are that the TLs are intended for taking out city or contenental shields (in which case they aren't support weapons), the TLs are intended for ship-to-ship combat, or that the ICS yield figure is wrong.

[Cal Wright]

Here is part of the passage from the new Insider.
p45

In art department sketches, the Republic assault ship was labled the Jedi Troop Transport, but its primary function isn't to schlep Jedi Knights from place to place. Instead, the Acclamator-class transgalactic military transport ship was secretly commissioned by the Kaminoan cloners from Rothana Heavy Engineering and included as part of the 'package deal' for the clone army. Since each vessel can carry 16,000 clone troopers, 320 speeder bikes, 48 AT-TE walkers, 80 gunships, and 36 SPHA-T units the sheer scale of the coming carnage elicits chills in Episode II's final massing-for-battle scene.

At 752 meters long, the Republic assault ship is less than half the size of the classic Imperial Star Destroyer. Unlike its big cousin, it can land on planetary surfacs and sports a lightning fast Class 0.6 hyperdrive. There's no way Republic assault ships can measure up against Star Destroyers by any military yardstick, but they were never designed for ship-to-ship combat. Thier armaments, including twelve turbolasers and four torpedo launchers, are best suited for orbital bombardments in support of ground troops. Each ship also has twenty-four laser cannons for short-range defense that aren't terribly accurate. In a space battle, Republic assault ships rely on starfighter escorts and let thier robust sheild generators absorb stray shots.

In many ways the Republic assault ship is similar to the Victory-class Star Destroyer, a longtime Expanded Universe staple that is in itself a miniature Star Destroyer (measuring 900 meters).


Twelve turbolasers. Hmm. An Imperial Star Destroyer packs sixty of those sons of bitches on her hull. Plus the eight heavy turbolasers. No wonder the Acclamator couldn't be measured when compared to an Imperial Star Destroyer.

[Master of Ossus]

1. 60 TL's is too low for an ISD. The models show many more.
2. Those are quad laser cannons. If we take your 60 to be correct (which it is not), then we find that there is actually only a fairly small difference in firepower, and the Acclamator would have greater firepower:mass (by far) than the ISD. If, however, we assume that the ISD's weapons number more than 60 (which is true), then we find that the Acclamator has about half of the weaponry of an ISD. That seems reasonable when you look at length, but it is unreasonable when we factor in volume. An ISD (by rough comparison), is about four times as massive as an Acclamator. It should, therefore, have at least four times the firepower (or have twice the firepower with shields that are eight times better) or it would be useless because it would not justify its cost (the Acclamator transport would be a better investment, in that case, because it can be split up and carries many more troops, proportionately). This indicates to me that an ISD's weapons MUST be superior by far to the Acclamator's, which I still believe is supported by the SW Insider.

[Darth Wong]

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/ ... /app-r.htm

The lower bound for an asteroid impact large enough to cause global consequences ('damn near' a dinosaur killer) is 10^4 mtons TNT yield energy equivalent. 200gt = 2*10^5mt, which is on the cusp ('damn near') of being a species killer.

No. 200GT will cause global environmental change, but it will not cause a mass extinction. The dino-killer asteroid only killed 70% of the Earth's species, and it was 100 MILLION megatons.

A single 200GT shot will, over the course of a few months to years, remove most of the higher life forms from the planet.

Wrong. That does not occur until you breach the 1E8 megaton barrier. A single 200 GT shot will cause devastation on a continental scale and short-term environmental change, but it will not cause a mass extinction. The TTAPS study was grossly flawed for political reasons, and that's what FAS.org bases its work on.

Troops not on the same contient as the strike will be safe, but there'll be nothing within a thousand KM of ground zero left to be worth invading.

The rest of the planet will be fine in a few weeks or months.

If the turbolasers are have dial-a-yield capbilities than I must ask why they are so grossly overpowered for planetary attack.

A single 200GT hit on a planetary shield would be useless. A single 200GT hit on an unshielded target would cause regional devastation and short-term global environmental effects, but it would send a message and the civilian populace on the rest of the planet would surrender.

Overdesigning a system by at least two orders of magnitude makes no sense.

A 200GT turbolaser blast is 1/500th of the amount needed to cause a mass-extinction event, and the environmental cooling effects would wear out in about six months. If they want the planet for mining resources instead of arable land, it is entirely feasible to trash anyone there with a few hundred HTL blasts, wait a few weeks or months for the planet to warm up again, and start mining.

The only explanations are that the TLs are intended for taking out city or contenental shields (in which case they aren't support weapons), the TLs are intended for ship-to-ship combat, or that the ICS yield figure is wrong.

Or the HTL's are capable of scaling up large enough to be used as weapons of mass destruction, ie- terror weapons, the way nuclear weapons are used today.

[Vympel]

There's no question that the Acclamator is totally outclassed by the Imperator.

1: ISDs hold 6 squadrons of fighters
2: ISDs have their eight heavy turrets that are far larger than the dorsal quad TLs on the Acclamator
3: ISDs are covered in weaponry- the 60 TL number is too low and as usual reflects WEGs total lack of research. The model shows many more emplacements.
4: different roles: the Acclamator is unequivocally an 'assault ship', the great amount of space on board is used for carrying troops and their equipment. The ISD is a multi-role vessel with an emphasis on ship-to-ship combat.

[Cal Wright]

I'm just using other materials for the source for the number of turbolasers. 60 turbolasers, 60 ion cannons and 10-24 tractor beam emplacements. Hey, it would stand to reason there would be more, that's just what the books have listed. Of course, I know that an SSD isn't 8km and is at least 11km (ive measured myself,) and that the DS II is actually 900kms instead of a meager 160kms. However, the Acclamator in the Insider says 12 turbolasers, yes, ICS says quad turbolasers. We need to find the class of weaponary on an ISD, but I would go so far to say that the guns on an ISD pack more of a punch than what the troop carrier had.