Classifying Turbolasers

[Ender]

For years there has been a general acceptance of TLs: You have your heavy, your mids, and your lights. After that you get capital grade lasers, turbo-quadlasers, and some other weird classifications.

However, I'm beginning to think the traditional classification is wrong.

It's simply too broad. A Heavy Turbolaser can be anything from the massive single mouts on a Star Cruiser, the huge double mounts on a Star Destroyer, the smaller quad turret on a mark 2 Star Destroyer, the smaller four set in a square on an Acclamator, or the smallest double mounts on the Death Star. The term laser canon can range anywhere from the 6 MT mounts on an Acclamator to the KT level PD guns. Mid and light turbolasers vary in size.

What I propose is a re examination and possible new classification based on weapon bore and lenght. That the weapon's size is a factor in its classification is a given, and the idea that actual classification should be based off of barrel bore is supported by the old Mendel blueprints.

The only problem I see is the relationship of volume to power. It is unclear if it is even a role, for all we know all TL and LC shots are only millimeters thick, and the glow just makes them look huge.

Thoughts?

[PainRack]

The EGWVT suggest that the length of the blaster rifle is crucial in establishing the range and accuracy of the rifle, dare we extrapolate this to turbolasers too?

If so, we could probably get a better classification based on range and firepower, although how we're going to do that is beyond me. However, it will also appear that the extreme variations in barrel length and thickness would also make classification of turbolasers based on that singularly impossible.

[Sea Skimmer]

The only problem I see is the relationship of volume to power. It is unclear if it is even a role, for all we know all TL and LC shots are only millimeters thick, and the glow just makes them look huge.

Thoughts?

Logically larger weapons should be more powerful. However examining the barrel size is probably a poor way to go. With conventional artillery, the barrel and breach is the weapon, everything else is to simply hold it in place and load it. However with energy weapon a large part of whatever converts the incoming power into energy pulses may be stationary, and fed into the barrel through a cabal or pipe. That may be the case with blasters, given that the Jedi Star fighter for example has a beam being split to fire out of two guns.

If that is the case, then barrel size probably governs only perhaps range and accuracy, but not firepower, unlike modern artillery in which it alters all three. However if its the case then the overall size of the gun mounting probably would be a direct govern of the weapons power, though how much armor is on it would also be an issue as would cooling gear and such and that could all throw things off. Our lack of rate of fire data would be a major concern. In any case, we don't know the scaling rates even if the barrel size did govern power, and I don't believe there's enough hard data to come up with any.

To sum up my ramblings and opinion, I don't think there is enough data to create anything really useful, too much guess work. The result of such a plan without guesses would just be to end up listing every weapon with know of in its own category, which is pointless. You could just say "death star turrets" and everyone will or at least ought to know what you're talking about. While if you say "type one medium" or whatever the fuck we come up with only people familiar with that system will understand it.

[Ender]

The EGWVT suggest that the length of the blaster rifle is crucial in establishing the range and accuracy of the rifle, dare we extrapolate this to turbolasers too?

OTICS says that the lenght of the barrle is a key factor in range, so yes.

[Ender]

The only problem I see is the relationship of volume to power. It is unclear if it is even a role, for all we know all TL and LC shots are only millimeters thick, and the glow just makes them look huge.

Thoughts?

Logically larger weapons should be more powerful. However examining the barrel size is probably a poor way to go. With conventional artillery, the barrel and breach is the weapon, everything else is to simply hold it in place and load it. However with energy weapon a large part of whatever converts the incoming power into energy pulses may be stationary, and fed into the barrel through a cabal or pipe. That may be the case with blasters, given that the Jedi Star fighter for example has a beam being split to fire out of two guns.

If that is the case, then barrel size probably governs only perhaps range and accuracy, but not firepower, unlike modern artillery in which it alters all three. However if its the case then the overall size of the gun mounting probably would be a direct govern of the weapons power, though how much armor is on it would also be an issue as would cooling gear and such and that could all throw things off. Our lack of rate of fire data would be a major concern. In any case, we don't know the scaling rates even if the barrel size did govern power, and I don't believe there's enough hard data to come up with any.

Ok, I didn't understand a lick of most of that. I know a megabukufuckton about a reactor and a good amount about ships, but weapons themselves I'm really iffy about. So please forgive me if what I say was already refuted above.

My thoughts were basically something like this:

Divide the yield of the weapon by the area given by the barrel of the weapon to get intensity per cm^2. Thus given the barrel size one could hazard out a yield. the problem is the difference in yield drastically changing over the size of the barrel, I believe MoO examined this already and determined it was an exponential increase.

To sum up my ramblings and opinion, I don't think there is enough data to create anything really useful, too much guess work. The result of such a plan without guesses would just be to end up listing every weapon with know of in its own category, which is pointless. You could just say "death star turrets" and everyone will or at least ought to know what you're talking about. While if you say "type one medium" or whatever the fuck we come up with only people familiar with that system will understand it.

I agree, any new system would probably confuse most outsiders.

[Sea Skimmer]

My thoughts were basically something like this:

Divide the yield of the weapon by the area given by the barrel of the weapon to get intensity per cm^2. Thus given the barrel size one could hazard out a yield. the problem is the difference in yield drastically changing over the size of the barrel, I believe MoO examined this already and determined it was an exponential increase.

The problem with that is a lack of data. We have a firm yield for two significant sized guns, and a few very small ones, the largest of which, the 8-kiloton core ship guns, we don't even have a picture of. That simply isn't enough data to create a formula from. Hell its hard enough simply getting a valid formal for modern naval gun shell weights.


If you go an create a system, I think the total gun mount/turret size is a better thing to go off of, since that should help account for differences in rate of fire, cooling, and if the pulses are not created inside the barrels. Its more vague then your proposed formula, but should at least take care of both ISD turrets and those on the Death Star surface being called heavy's.

I'd suggest the categories of Point Defence (which will also cover star fighter guns), light, medium, heavy, very heavy.

[Vympel]

As long as this doesn't turn into another intolerable nature of turbolaser discussion, I'm all for this thread. In other words, no discussing what turbolasers are. I'm sick of it, and we've gone over it a hundred times.

[Connor MacLeod]

Traditionally in all sources I am aware of (I'd have to backtrack pretty heavily to be certain, though) barel length/size only affectd range and cohesion of the bolt - basically a longer/larger barrel has more focusing elements, so it can better keep the bolt cohrent over longer distances. Its never had much relevance to weapons power.

The only case of barrels having any impact are with the Visual dictionary "plasmoid" definitions, particularily the AOTC ICS (which mentions accelerator coils in the blasters - obviously higher velocity menas higher KE).

Bolt comparisons are likewise problematic for various reasons - the "glow" doesn't neccesarily represent the true diameter of the bolt. Curtis has gone over this on his site before regarding beam "thickness."

Traditional "volumetric" comparisons (at least what I've done and believe Mike has done) tend to encompass more comparisons of the turret than the weapon itself (much like reactor comparisons. In fact the ongoing assumption would seem to be that the turrets housed the relevant components for generating the bolt.)

[Connor MacLeod]

As long as this doesn't turn into another intolerable nature of turbolaser discussion, I'm all for this thread. In other words, no discussing what turbolasers are. I'm sick of it, and we've gone over it a hundred times.

Insofar as I am awere there is no one fixed "kind" of blaster/turbolaser. Current theory insofar as I can tell tends to embrace multiple kinds - so anyone claiming a "one kind fits all" theory is full of shit.

[Durandal]

Remember the wide variety of weapons manufacturers in the SW universe, as well. If a turbolaser made by a certain company is classified as a light turbolaser but is more powerful and larger than many other ones, the company could claim something like what car manufacturers do on Earth. "It's the biggest, most powerful turbolaser in its class!"

[Ender]

Let me see if I can list out all concerns and factors before this proceeds any further:

1) While it appears agreed that the current system is too broad (I base this off of Sea Skimmer's and Duranl's posts) there is concern that a totally new system would throw off people. Therefore the intent here will be to determine what range of each characteristic define each class and to properly classify the existing TLs. We can subdivide if necessary, but only the larger "overgroups" would be used.

2) Classification must consider the following:
*Firepower (which may or may not be related to the barrel diameter and may also be connected to turret size)
*Range (which is based off of barrel length)
*Refire rate (which may be based off turet size because of the cooling factors)
*Targeting speed (ability to transverse, which should be related to turret size)

Am I missing any?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

I think the size the of the cannon definately has something to do with firepower. Because the more powerful the laser, the larger the recoil, the bigger the cannon needs to be to brace itself.

And since we're talking about energy weapons, each cannon needs its own power generator. In some intances the generator is housed right inside the cannon (the Death Star guns), in others it's buried under the armor (ICS ISD cutaway).

[Ender]

I've come up with the following that we know the yield for thus far

Everything in AOTC ICS
ISD PD guns (400 Mt)
ISD lasers (7 MT)
AT-AT lasers

Here are all the ones we know the size of

Naboo N-1 lasers
Droid fighter lasers
AAT blasters
MTT lasers
TF Cruiser quadlasers
Spider Droid lasers
ICS shots of AOTC vehicles
DS Tower turrets
DS Lasers
X-wing lasers
MF quads
Y-wing lasers
TIE lasers
Vader's TIE's lasers
TIE Interceptor lasers
ISD mk 1 HTLs
ISD tri barrels
ISD trench guns
ISD light TLs
Corvette TLs
Corvette Lasers
AT-AT lasers
Snowspeeder lasers
ISD mk 2 HTLs
Mon Cal TLs
AT-ST lasers
B-wing lasers
A-wing lasers

I miss any?

[Ender]

Ok, I have altered my sig to represent project status and have finally prepared a spreadsheet to track all required variables. I hope to use this to generate graphs to give ranges into which weapons fall, thus allowing the new classification.

I've left off composite weapons, not knowing how to deal with them, and spinal mounted turbolasers because 1) I'm not sure if they are also composite weapons, and 2) I think they would skew things.

If anyone knows how I should deal with composite weapons, please share. I'd like to be able to factor in the SPA-T.

I might have some weapons double listed, I'm not sure (I have seperate categories for the ISD hanger guns, the 7 MT guns, and the 600 kt guns even though the fact that some things are lower limits might make them all the same weapon)

Connor and or Sean, need to pick your brains on some stuff, whens a good time to IM you?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I'm interested. Could you E-mail us copies of your spreadsheet periodically as you work on it?

[Ender]

I'm interested. Could you E-mail us copies of your spreadsheet periodically as you work on it?

Sure, but there isn't much to it right now. Lot of scaling done by ruler and the ICS books, some given or known yields, and then volume, area, and intensity calcs. Looks like a big issue is going to be getting range estimates on a few things to provide a baseline and see if I can extrapolate from there like I did for my "Imperial Warships" spreadsheets.

Some stuff I didn't foresee so far.

[Warspite]

I've left off composite weapons, not knowing how to deal with them, and spinal mounted turbolasers because 1) I'm not sure if they are also composite weapons, and 2) I think they would skew things.

If anyone knows how I should deal with composite weapons, please share. I'd like to be able to factor in the SPA-T.

Couldn't these composite weapons be considered as an iteration on turbolaser technology?

[Ender]

I've left off composite weapons, not knowing how to deal with them, and spinal mounted turbolasers because 1) I'm not sure if they are also composite weapons, and 2) I think they would skew things.

If anyone knows how I should deal with composite weapons, please share. I'd like to be able to factor in the SPA-T.

Couldn't these composite weapons be considered as an iteration on turbolaser technology?

Yes, but the problem is in incorporating their data: One of the things I am trying to examine is the relations ship between barrel length and range (something stated in the OT ICS and AOTC ICS) but since they merge out infront fo the ship its extremely contradicting. Further, I'm trying to determine if area of the barrel has any effect on power, thus determining if weapons are a uniform size with the glow size varying or not (If they are of uniform size that puts that to rest and just made the wapons incredibly more efficient, if not we can estimate output of a gun based on bore from now on) and since they merge outside the whole area thing is pretty wonky. I'm also looking itno wheteher volume plays a factor, and again the meeting up outside the weapon throws that off. And on top of that I'm hazy on all the implications of the statement about exploiting superposition to compose variable beams into a composite. And finally there are no good, clear shots that I have found of the composit weapons and their internal workings, making it a real pain in the ass.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor and or Sean, need to pick your brains on some stuff, whens a good time to IM you?

Whenever I'm on probably. I'll tell you if I'm doing something else.

[Warspite]

Yes, but the problem is in incorporating their data: One of the things I am trying to examine is the relations ship between barrel length and range (something stated in the OT ICS and AOTC ICS) but since they merge out infront fo the ship its extremely contradicting. Further, I'm trying to determine if area of the barrel has any effect on power, thus determining if weapons are a uniform size with the glow size varying or not (If they are of uniform size that puts that to rest and just made the wapons incredibly more efficient, if not we can estimate output of a gun based on bore from now on) and since they merge outside the whole area thing is pretty wonky. I'm also looking itno wheteher volume plays a factor, and again the meeting up outside the weapon throws that off. And on top of that I'm hazy on all the implications of the statement about exploiting superposition to compose variable beams into a composite. And finally there are no good, clear shots that I have found of the composit weapons and their internal workings, making it a real pain in the ass.

Yes, iffy indeed...

Adding to the difficulties: only 3 (different) examples of the weapon were seen firing, each with its own firing mechanism (the SPHA had a different firing mechanism to the LAAT turrets, or the DS), and we only see the innards of the DS.
If each tributary contributes to the whole beam without any other variables, then one needs only to work on one of the tributaries, as if it was a normal turbolaser.
(Can we make the assumption that the dish provides the necessary environment (and nothing else is introduced) for the tributaries to combine?)
This one is really a challenge!

[Kuja]

Here are all the ones we know the size of

Naboo N-1 lasers
Droid fighter lasers
AAT blasters
MTT lasers
TF Cruiser quadlasers
Spider Droid lasers
ICS shots of AOTC vehicles
DS Tower turrets
DS Lasers
X-wing lasers
MF quads
Y-wing lasers
TIE lasers
Vader's TIE's lasers
TIE Interceptor lasers
ISD mk 1 HTLs
ISD tri barrels
ISD trench guns
ISD light TLs
Corvette TLs
Corvette Lasers
AT-AT lasers
Snowspeeder lasers
ISD mk 2 HTLs
Mon Cal TLs
AT-ST lasers
B-wing lasers
A-wing lasers

I miss any?

Planetary turbolasers:

The Kuat Drive Yards' w-150 Planetay Turbolaser has a barrel 25 meters in diameter and ~37 meters long (I measured it using an X-wing silouette provided). There's no yield provided, but it is said the "sustained volleys can destroy even an Imperial Star Destroyer, ripping through armor plating to pierce the ship's vulnerable main reactor and cause a titanic explosion that can literally rip apart one of those massive battle cruisers.

Other data: it requires a crew of fifty, defenses consist of "four meters of permacite armor plating and dozens of deflector screen projectors designed to block tubolaser blasts, proton bombs, and other ordinance", its power core is fifty meters in diameter, and its firing rate is once every ten seconds.


All above info comes from the SW Essential Guide to Weps and Tech.

[Connor MacLeod]

Here are all the ones we know the size of

Naboo N-1 lasers
Droid fighter lasers
AAT blasters
MTT lasers
TF Cruiser quadlasers
Spider Droid lasers
ICS shots of AOTC vehicles
DS Tower turrets
DS Lasers
X-wing lasers
MF quads
Y-wing lasers
TIE lasers
Vader's TIE's lasers
TIE Interceptor lasers
ISD mk 1 HTLs
ISD tri barrels
ISD trench guns
ISD light TLs
Corvette TLs
Corvette Lasers
AT-AT lasers
Snowspeeder lasers
ISD mk 2 HTLs
Mon Cal TLs
AT-ST lasers
B-wing lasers
A-wing lasers

I miss any?

Planetary turbolasers:

The Kuat Drive Yards' w-150 Planetay Turbolaser has a barrel 25 meters in diameter and ~37 meters long (I measured it using an X-wing silouette provided). There's no yield provided, but it is said the "sustained volleys can destroy even an Imperial Star Destroyer, ripping through armor plating to pierce the ship's vulnerable main reactor and cause a titanic explosion that can literally rip apart one of those massive battle cruisers.

Other data: it requires a crew of fifty, defenses consist of "four meters of permacite armor plating and dozens of deflector screen projectors designed to block tubolaser blasts, proton bombs, and other ordinance", its power core is fifty meters in diameter, and its firing rate is once every ten seconds.


All above info comes from the SW Essential Guide to Weps and Tech.

The KDY TL is a w-165 IIRC, not 150. Its got a yield 4x that of the KDY-150 ion cannon. Given it appears to be able to penetrate ISD shields, it must deliver at least e22-e23 watts of power, probably over 1/4th to 1/15th of a second.

Actually, thats conservative, since Ion cannons can penetrate ISD shields (and no, ion cannons do not ignore shields. According to the canon radio drama, they overloaded the shields BEFORE the ship started losing control.) This means a KDY-150 ion cannon must deliver e22-e23 watts in a single burst minimum, and a KDY-165 would be 4x as powerful.

ITs also interesting to note that wheras it takes sustained fire for the w-165 to penetrate ISD shields, an ISD's 50 meter Heavy TL turret can do so in a single shot (ref: AOTC ICS.) This means the ISD HTLs are at least twice as powerful as a planetary TL

[Kuja]

The KDY TL is a w-165 IIRC, not 150.

Yes, you're right. Copying error on my part.