Yet another "I'm not a Trekkie, but ..." E-mail

[nightmare]

He says:
"a Federation task force could take out an ISD with no losses, since the ISD could not return fire"

I thought the statement was pretty logical.

Only if you recognise warp strafing. How else could it be done without losses.

[SirNitram]

Eh, forgot to include my source. The Acclamator shield rating is from the Episode II Incredible Cross Sections(ICS), recently proven to be Canon by some overworked monkey or something. We call him Alyeska.

[Darth Servo]

He says:
"a Federation task force could take out an ISD with no losses, since the ISD could not return fire"

I thought the statement was pretty logical.

Only if you recognise warp strafing. How else could it be done without losses.

Even then, why couldn't the ISD return fire?

[Darth Wong]

Although probably not intentional on Mr. Wong’s part, small miss-quotes such as these could cast a person as a “cloying Trekkie Fanatic” when they were making a conclusion that coincides, though only slightly, with this website.

An error on my part, but the fundamental problem remains unchanged. It requires not only greatly increased firepower but warp-strafing ability on the Federation's part.

This guy has stated that it is his belief that it would take an entire Federation taskforce to destroy a Star Destroyer without receiving casualties. Now, how big is a taskforce such as the one he has mentioned, I don’t know.

A taskforce is generally smaller than a fleet, and even a fleet would suffer casualties.

[Darth Wong]

He wrote again:

Mike

Nice little intellitual defense you've got going for you here. Basically, it runs something like this: "If you don't agree with ALL my conclusions, you are cherry-picking your arguments. Therefore, you are attacking my methods, and therefore my honesty. When you attack my honesty, it is a personal attack, so I am justified in calling you whatever names I can come up with, insulting your intelligence, and questioning your background."

What a lovely strawman fallacy. So you never accused me of cherry-picking and I'm just making that up because you don't agree with "ALL my conclusions", eh? Let me quote your first message for you: "There are several examples where ST contradicts inself ...you always assume the Federation has the lowest capability." Sorry to expose your lies, but that IS an accusation of cherry-picking.

Here's a hint: if you have to lie in order to save your argument, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you're wrong.

"I win regardless. When I cannot remember or explain something on my own webpage, I will claim it is out of date, while continuing to insist it is valid source material and insisting that the reader read the whole thing."

Of course, the fact that an article happens to be more than 4 years old couldn't POSSIBLY be a valid justification to say it's out of date, so anyone saying such a thing must have NEFARIOUS MOTIVES for doing so, right? Lovely logic. If people can't tell that an article predates the new TM policy when they read the site, that's their own problem. If they choose to interpret it as "self-contradiction", that is simply an obvious ad-hominem.

"If I make an un-substantiated claim (such as Ewoks are stronger than humans, because they are animals and animals kick ass in terms of performance, you know), I will not feel obligated to back it up."

My original statement:
"What even makes you think a single Klingon is stronger than an Ewok? Most animals easily kick human ass in terms of physical performance, you know."

Your distorted strawman version:
"Ewoks are stronger than humans because they're animals"

You're a liar. I never claimed Ewoks were superhuman; I asked YOU to justify YOUR claim that a Klingon is stronger than an Ewok, and provided a reason why it is not the open-and-shut case that you think it is.

"If my opponent presents evidence of his position, I will ignore it and insist that he produce some evidence."

Show where I have ignored your "evidence", as opposed to rejecting your habit of parading your preferred INTERPRETATION of evidence as the evidence itself.

I am beginning to see now that is the way you play this game. If you insist to think that I attacked your honesty, fine, I did. Your responses to me are becomming increasingly dishonest, in the manner discribed above. Perhaps I was right for the wrong reasons, I thought we were playing an intellectual exercise in which I could point out some inconsistancies and SW vs ST bias that we could discuss, but it appears now they way you chose to take my e-mails is probably accurate.

Bullshit. You said that I "always" pick only the incidents from Star Trek which show the lowest numbers, and then denied you were accusing me of cherry-picking! I grow weary of your endless "who, me?" show of wounded innocence. It won't fool anyone.

You didn't even consider my applogy, which shows quite a bit of small mindedness on your part. Now, dude, those are actual personal attacks, maybe you will be able to tell the difference.

Funny ... there is no real difference in the basic nature of your arguments. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Back to the matter at hand:

Warp Strafing:
I have presented evidence, generally from your own website, that warp strafing does occur, yet you continue to waffle. Which is it, can ST ships engage in combat at warp speed or not?

Wrong. You have claimed that my website makes certain conclusions which it does not. You have claimed that certain onscreen incidents were warp-strafing when they were not. When challenged to produce DIRECT QUOTES to this effect rather than your helpful interpretations thereof, you simply ignore the challenge and act as though I have no right to make such demands. You clearly do not understand the distinction between "evidence" and "opinion".

You will also notice in my entire discussion on this subject, I never said one thing about phasers.

You talked about "warp-strafing". I see that you obviously do not know what strafing is, if you think that firing a torpedo from a million km away is strafing. I would suggest the purchase of an English dictionary.

In fact my paragraph about a Fed task force vs an ISD focused entirely on photon and quantum torpedoes. I have not read the TM, so I was not aware ST canon says that phasers could not travel faster than light. As far as my scientific background, I am aware that a beam of light (laser or otherwise) travels at the speed of light, and no faster. What does that have to do with phasers? Phasers are obviously not lasers, which you have examined in detail on your webpage, nor are they even based on lasers.

No, they're actually much SLOWER than lasers, as we can see onscreen. It is CHARITABLE to assume that they move at lightspeed. But since you continue to insist that I cherry-pick the evidence to make Trek appear weaker than it is, I guess you can just ignore that.

If they travel at lightspeed, that's fine, but since I didn't even mention them, your attack on my scientific background is pretty much just a bunch of hot air (another personal attack - just pointing it out so you can tell).

Funny ... it really isn't any worse than your first E-mail. Just more honest. Of course, since you apparently have a problem with honesty, it's not surprising that you would expect others to have the same mentality.

And your bullshit backpedaling grows tiresome; you talked about warp-strafing, which DOES require phasers in their case. Strafing has a specific military definition, involving close-range raking of fire at slow-moving targets from a fast-moving platform. Long-range guided missile attacks are not strafing. Therefore, the only weapon they have which could be used for strafing is their phasers.

Also, I know you were talking about Elaan of Troyus in your e-mail, but you talked about Journey to Babel on your website. Sorry, I should have explicitly said that since you have a hard time remember what is and isn't and what needs to be updated on your own website. This actual quote is (from Federation SCM page):

Oh, I see. You respond to a paragraph in my E-mail by totally ignoring it and talking about some paragraph somewhere on my website? And how is this supposed to make your methods any more reasonable?

Some cultists also quote incidents like Journey to Babel as evidence of relativistic combat maneuvering based on flawed, circular logic (eg- we know the ship was strafing at relativistic speeds because it was travelling at relativistic speeds), but if one listens to Sulu periodically calling out the vessel's range on its approach pass, it is obvious that the ship cannot possibly be approaching at relativistic speeds. In general, relativistic speed incidents tend to be based on assumptions, conjecture and flawed analysis of dialogue rather than direct observation. Journey to Babel is merely one example.

I will summarize my previous argument: You immediately assume that since the speed and range cannot both be right, range is correct and speed is not. That is an example of SW bias.

You assume constant velocity on the part of the approaching ship. You also assume that numbers which are called out many times in consistent orders of magnitude are somehow LESS reliable. You ASSUME that there is an intractable contradiction which can only be solved by arbitrarily picking one of two equally probable hypotheses, and that my selection of one hypothesis over the other must therefore be unfair. You have justified none of this, but expect us to take it on faith. You have made the accusation; the burden of proof is yours. Prove that it is an intractable contradiction and that both hypotheses are equally probable. Remember that you must tie any hypothesis into the rest of the Star Trek universe and all of its combat history.

The Enterprise was not able to hit the Orion ship until it was explicitly stated that it dropped out of warp, which tends to support the fact that the speed was correct and range numbers not.

No, it supports the fact that the Enterprise cannot hit enemy ships with relative velocity greater than c, hence it obviously cannot warp-strafe! What part of this escapes your mental grasp?

Also, since direct observation is taken at a higher value than dialog, the only way to depict FTL combat at long ranges is to focus on the ships individually, since there is no practical way to present them on the same screen at the same time. Since this is what was done in TOS, it is consistant with FTL combat.

Except that we have onscreen proof that the Enterprise cannot target an enemy vessel with a relative velocity in excess of c. Please try to engage your brain; you presented this evidence YOURSELF, apparently without realizing what you had done.

Rebuttal, those damn Ewoks:

You continue to claim, without any physical evidence, that Ewoks are stronger than their small size would indicate. This is based on the fact that they are animals, and animals kick ass in terms of physical performance. They are NOT animals, they are sentient creatures, and which animals are you refering to anyway?

Please show me the biology textbook in which high intelligence makes you not an animal. Dolphins are widely regarded to approach human intelligence, and are probably what we would regard as sentient. Chimps are almost certainly sentient, and have even been observed using branches as hand tools. Does this mean they're not animals? This bizarre attempt at nitpicking grows tiresome. Among the animal kingdom, we are unusually feeble; this is not a secret. And yes, we are part of that kingdom despite being sentient. The only reason we don't call ourselves animals is an English language colloquialism related to our sense of superiority.

We do have visual evidence that Klingons are stronger than humans, in ST3, the Klingon commander lifted Kirk by the neck, ala Vader the the first SW movie. I don't know many people who can do that, maybe you can, but from your picture, I would think not (personal attack alert!). So, tough guy, where's your physical evidence you value so highly?

So you're using a lone Klingon who happens to be as strong as a human weighlifter as proof that all Klingons are superhuman? Does the term "hasty generalization fallacy" mean anything to you? And by the way, your personal attack was pretty weak too, since it was totally irrelevant to the point. Tell me, if Klingons are superhuman, why is Major Kira able to consistently kick their asses in unarmed combat? I may only be deadlifting a couple of hundred pounds when I work out, but I'll bet I'm stronger than her.

Here's my version of the Ewok vs Klingon scenerio. Ewok shoots Klingon, Klingon is most likely wounded, and not seriously, since a little 3 ft tall creature is not that strong (prove me wrong) and could not pull the string on a very powerful bow. This makes the Klingon even more angry, and he runs over and cuts the Ewok's head off.

Laughable nonsense. Ewoks were hefting head-sized stones and throwing them as if they were made of styrofoam. And as I said, humans are unusually WEAK among animals. Sheer probabilities would dictate that a typical tree-dwelling animal is probably stronger, pound for pound, than a human. But then again, I'm speaking to someone who thinks that dolphins aren't animals.

Rebuttal, AOTC battle and clone trooper armor:
You state that humans can take quite a bit of overpressure and survive, if so, how much?

More than 200 kPa. http://www.medact.org/tbx/docs/Holdstoc ... eapons.pdf

There are examples in the Arab-Israeli wars where tank crews have been killed from the overpressure of an anti-tank missle hitting their vehicle but not penetrating.

Atmospheric overpressure kill without armour penetration? Please provide a source for this claim.

You state this is the reason for fragmentation grenades, which I will concede, but overpressure from a grenade is pretty small compared to an artillery shell or bomb.

Of course it is, but it's pretty hard to blanket a battlefield with large shells and bombs. Artillery is effective because it has a wide kill area due to shrapnel dispersion, not because they can drop shells within a few feet of individual soldiers, dumb-ass.

Bunching up like they did is still a BAD idea.

Since I said myself that this was their only mistake (and not a costly one in this case, since they are much more resistant to shrapnel than usual and the enemy was caught with their pants down so they lacked artillery and the enemy infantry was armed with SMGs while they were carrying long-range high-powered rifles), you have now moved from your original claim that their tactics resemble those of "Roman or Napoleonic troops" to my position, which is only that they could have spread out more. I take it you are conceding the point, then?

Vehicles shooting at troops is not a measure of despiration, many weapons on tanks and other fighting vehicles are designed to do EXACTLY that: coaxial machineguns, flechette and beehive rounds for tank main guns, automatic grenade launchers, etc. Stick to your engineering calculations, you will do better.

Changing your own subject, eh? From the "direct concussion effect from explosions" and "heavy direct fire weapons from the enemy's vehicles" to anti-personnel weapons which happen to be mounted on vehicles and whose efficacy is greatly degraded by the clone armour? How does any of this change the fact that shrapnel resistance makes it much harder to kill clonetroopers with area-effect weapons? How does any of it support your absurd contention that they were using the tactics of "Roman or Napoleonic troops"?

I will accept the green soldiers argument, that is the best (and only) reason that you have come up with that makes any sense.

As if it isn't enough to simply point out that your contention about Roman/Napoleonic tactics is completely wrong.

Finally, I can tell you the reason for winches on jeeps and helicopters, but not on the skyspeeders. What is the purpose? Considering that much of the battle depended on that piece of equipment, it is a valid question.

Gee, let me think. Maybe the "tow cables" were used for ... towing things? Hence the name "tow cables"? What profound analytical skills you must have, if you need me to point this out for you.

Conclusion

Your quote:

Therefore, you should show where you think ST would have a better chance than I give them credit for, and present evidence to back up your position

I'm not sure what else I need to present as far as evidence.

So far you have not presented any evidence at all. Instead of providing direct quotes from the episodes in question, you choose to helpfully "summarize" them, so you have presented not evidence, but your personal interpretation thereof. And since you somehow interpret my own website to say that it promotes warp-strafing, it is quite obvious that your interpretive methods are highly questionable.

I believe your bias is refusing to let you see the evidence for what it is. Sorry about that, but its your problem, not mine.

So says the person who thinks dolphins aren't animals and uses their INABILITY to target ships at relative velocities >c as proof of warp-strafing ability.

As far as the character and personal attacks, your refusal to even meet me halfway when I said I did not mean to accuse you of dishonesty says more about your character than I or anyone else could.

Golden Mean fallacy. You're just full of it, aren't you?

If you think I am going to concede or back down, you are wrong.

I don't need you to concede. Readers of the site will see through your nonsense, even if YOU can't. Among other absurd claims, you claimed that a Federation fleet could potentially take out an Imperial fleet with zero casualties. You think dolphins and chimps aren't animals. You claimed that the clone army formed into "squares", then claimed it was closely bunched columns which "look like squares", then quietly dropped it in favour of saying only that their loose agglomerations could have been spaced out more, which is the same thing I initially said (concession accepted, by the way).

Get this through your head: the fact that you backpedaled on your ridiculous "Roman or Napoleonic" tactic claims to adopt MY position is a de facto concession on the ground tactics issue. The fact that you backpedaled from "warp-strafing" to "I meant long-range torpedoes" is a de facto concession on the warp-strafing issue, since strafing is a specific type of military tactic and long-range torpedo launches don't qualify. The fact that you completely dropped your moronic claim about a Federation fleet wiping out an Imperial fleet with zero casualties doesn't look too good either. In other words you have backpedaled furiously on ALL of your major claims, yet you think I worry about whether you ADMIT you're losing? You're a funny guy.

No wonder you spend so much time trying to prove you're on the moral high road: you can't win on the actual subject matter. And even your attempts to seize the moral high ground will avail you nothing, since you've been dicking around on that subject too. The fact that you refuse to admit to cherry-picking is a de facto admission that it was out of line to accuse me of cherry-picking in the first place, and your own words from your first post hang you.

The matter at hand is no longer whether you or I can cite examples from the movies and TV shows to prove our points, I think we both can.

You are not citing examples; you are citing your interpretation of evidence as if it were the evidence itself. There is a distinction which is not subtle and which you apparently do not understand.

The issue now is your attitude. You seem to view every disagreement as a personal attack, and a question of your methods is a question of your integrity.

Hasty generalization fallacy. The fact that someone reacts negatively when you DIRECTLY accuse him of cherry-picking hardly means that he reacts to EVERY criticism in the same manner. Yet again, you launch into baseless personal attacks because your actual tech arguments are a joke. Whether you admit it, your ENTIRE METHOD has been to go after the man first, not the method. Your entire first message was really nothing more than "I think I can show that you're biased, therefore your claims are questionable", rather than a proper argument such as "I disagree with this specific argument on your site, because ...".

I think we have already crossed that Rubicon, but if you would care to take this argument down a notch and make it a friendly discussion, I would be willing to appologize for any offense. Otherwise, bring it.

You refuse to admit your accusation of cherry-picking even though your own words betray you. Any "apology" from you would be worthless because you still won't admit any wrongdoing. If I thought you were the kind of person who was big enough to admit it when he's wrong, I might be interested in a civilized discussion. But I see no sign of that from you.

Looking forward to your reply

Why? So you can dig that hole deeper for yourself?

I also sent:

Error correction: Replace "a Federation fleet wiping out an Imperial fleet" with "a Federation fleet wiping out an ISD" in my last E-mail.

[IceHawk-151]

While I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Saxton, and indeed believe his site to be the most objective analysis of Star Wars capabilities on the web, I cannot in good conscience accept power figures simply because they are published in an official source. As I have yet to see how Saxton derived these figures I will reserve final judgment until Episode III.

If EPIII demonstrates power on this scale from Acclamators or other vessels I will be more than happy to accept the 200 GT number. As for now, I am using my own calculations based off of ESB and a few EU sources.

BTW, does anyone know of a website that has a picture of the Acclamator’s cannons from the movie?

As for a Federation taskforce being capable of destroying a Star Destroyer without receiving losses or incurring a retaliatory strike…

I know that even at 100 MT the Quantum Torpedoes are still roughly six orders of magnitude weaker than your guy’s shield numbers. However it would seem that both the person Mr. Wong is debating with and I, do not believe that this level of power is actual.

I personally find it more likely for a Star Destroyer’s shields to be around 25 or 30 Gigatons, once again based on much lower yield weapons than those used here. In such a case as this, it would only take around 400 to 500 Photon Torpedoes, or about 200 Quantum Torpedoes to drop the destroyer’s shields, and an unknown number to destroy the vessel.

Using much more conservative numbers than the ICS or BDZ calculations, it would only take 5 Galaxy-class Starships some 10-15 seconds to drop the Destroyer’s shields and blast through to the reactor. If such a confrontation occurred, and the Federation forcer stayed underneath the ISD, avoiding both Heavy and Medium weapons, it is possible to destroy the vessel without receiving losses.

However, I would have to disagree with the “no return fire” part as well.

This debate is really one of weapons calculations, and depending on what numbers you use it may or may not be possible.

[Darth Wong]

While I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Saxton, and indeed believe his site to be the most objective analysis of Star Wars capabilities on the web, I cannot in good conscience accept power figures simply because they are published in an official source. As I have yet to see how Saxton derived these figures I will reserve final judgment until Episode III.

If you insist in seeing something in a movie before you will accept it in a book, then you are basically saying that the books have no status at all, despite what Lucasfilm says.

Besides, did you go blind during the part of AOTC where a little one-man fighter was blowing apart asteroids for multi-kilometre radii? A feat which would have required the entire photon torpedo payload of the E-D in "Pegasus"? Why aren't little one-man fighters annihilating capital ships with single warheads if they aren't much more powerful than that?

If EPIII demonstrates power on this scale from Acclamators or other vessels I will be more than happy to accept the 200 GT number. As for now, I am using my own calculations based off of ESB and a few EU sources.

And what are those calculations, pray tell?

BTW, does anyone know of a website that has a picture of the Acclamator’s cannons from the movie?

As for a Federation taskforce being capable of destroying a Star Destroyer without receiving losses or incurring a retaliatory strike…

I know that even at 100 MT the Quantum Torpedoes are still roughly six orders of magnitude weaker than your guy’s shield numbers. However it would seem that both the person Mr. Wong is debating with and I, do not believe that this level of power is actual.

Based on what? Your rejection of Lucasfilm policy, which is in turn dicated by Lucas himself?

I personally find it more likely for a Star Destroyer’s shields to be around 25 or 30 Gigatons, once again based on much lower yield weapons than those used here. In such a case as this, it would only take around 400 to 500 Photon Torpedoes, or about 200 Quantum Torpedoes to drop the destroyer’s shields, and an unknown number to destroy the vessel.

And you base these estimates on ...?

Using much more conservative numbers than the ICS or BDZ calculations, it would only take 5 Galaxy-class Starships some 10-15 seconds to drop the Destroyer’s shields and blast through to the reactor. If such a confrontation occurred, and the Federation forcer stayed underneath the ISD, avoiding both Heavy and Medium weapons, it is possible to destroy the vessel without receiving losses.

Hey, it would be even faster if we arbitrarily make up even smaller numbers. Let's try that!

However, I would have to disagree with the “no return fire” part as well.

This debate is really one of weapons calculations, and depending on what numbers you use it may or may not be possible.

Don't be ridiculous. "Zero casualties" implies a vast disparity in combat effectiveness. It takes a taskforce of a dozen Federation ships just to match the sheer VOLUME of a single ISD.

[Ghost Rider]

While I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Saxton, and indeed believe his site to be the most objective analysis of Star Wars capabilities on the web, I cannot in good conscience accept power figures simply because they are published in an official source. As I have yet to see how Saxton derived these figures I will reserve final judgment until Episode III.

If EPIII demonstrates power on this scale from Acclamators or other vessels I will be more than happy to accept the 200 GT number. As for now, I am using my own calculations based off of ESB and a few EU sources.

BTW, does anyone know of a website that has a picture of the Acclamator’s cannons from the movie?

As for a Federation taskforce being capable of destroying a Star Destroyer without receiving losses or incurring a retaliatory strike…

I know that even at 100 MT the Quantum Torpedoes are still roughly six orders of magnitude weaker than your guy’s shield numbers. However it would seem that both the person Mr. Wong is debating with and I, do not believe that this level of power is actual.

I personally find it more likely for a Star Destroyer’s shields to be around 25 or 30 Gigatons, once again based on much lower yield weapons than those used here. In such a case as this, it would only take around 400 to 500 Photon Torpedoes, or about 200 Quantum Torpedoes to drop the destroyer’s shields, and an unknown number to destroy the vessel.

Using much more conservative numbers than the ICS or BDZ calculations, it would only take 5 Galaxy-class Starships some 10-15 seconds to drop the Destroyer’s shields and blast through to the reactor. If such a confrontation occurred, and the Federation forcer stayed underneath the ISD, avoiding both Heavy and Medium weapons, it is possible to destroy the vessel without receiving losses.

However, I would have to disagree with the “no return fire” part as well.

This debate is really one of weapons calculations, and depending on what numbers you use it may or may not be possible.

Oh so like last time are you going to bitch that you don't trust Saxton and that you have numbers but never show them?

So please...provide your proof that Saxton is pulling numbers out of his ass...and while you're at it...your numbers as well.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

While I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Saxton, and indeed believe his site to be the most objective analysis of Star Wars capabilities on the web, I cannot in good conscience accept power figures simply because they are published in an official source. As I have yet to see how Saxton derived these figures I will reserve final judgment until Episode III.

In other words, you object Official figures because you don't like them.

If EPIII demonstrates power on this scale from Acclamators or other vessels I will be more than happy to accept the 200 GT number. As for now, I am using my own calculations based off of ESB and a few EU sources.

I thought you weren't using Official sources because you don't know how they were derived? I also note you haven't produced these calculations.

As for a Federation taskforce being capable of destroying a Star Destroyer without receiving losses or incurring a retaliatory strike?

I know that even at 100 MT the Quantum Torpedoes are still roughly six orders of magnitude weaker than your guy?s shield numbers.

False. That is based of the non-canon TM. Photon torpedoes are only a few hundred kilotons based on canon calculations (Pegasus)

However it would seem that both the person Mr. Wong is debating with and I, do not believe that this level of power is actual.

I personally find it more likely for a Star Destroyer?s shields to be around 25 or 30 Gigatons, once again based on much lower yield weapons than those used here.

Which you have not attempted to justify in any way.

In such a case as this, it would only take around 400 to 500 Photon Torpedoes, or about 200 Quantum Torpedoes to drop the destroyer?s shields, and an unknown number to destroy the vessel.

Numbers based on false and unknown calculations.

Using much more conservative numbers than the ICS or BDZ calculations,

No BDZ calculations? Picking and choosing EU sources?

it would only take 5 Galaxy-class Starships some 10-15 seconds to drop the Destroyer?s shields and blast through to the reactor.

I had no idea Galaxys could fire a hundred torpedoes in fifteen seconds.

If such a confrontation occurred, and the Federation forcer stayed underneath the ISD, avoiding both Heavy and Medium weapons, it is possible to destroy the vessel without receiving losses.

Wrong. Canon calculations put even LTLs at hundreds of kilotons or megatons at least, and ISDs are dotted with them.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Wait a second... what the fuck was he doing, classifying "sentient creatures" seperate from animals? Don't tell me he's also hiding the fact he's a fundamentalist...

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Canon firepower calculations for Imperials:

• The Dodanna quote. Even assuming time averaged DS firepower and a 10 million ISD fleet, each ISD has 1e26 watts of power (several orders of magnitudes highter than that of a smaller Acclamator).
• Hoth Asteroid field. Small cannons on an ISD are able to vaporize large asteroids, needing hundreds of kilotons or megatons, lower limit.
• Geonosis Rings. Slave 1's cannons can pulvurize asteroids and Jedi Starfighter can survive several blasts. Sesmic charges cause large blast waves that blow through asteroids for kilometers.

[IceHawk-151]

That debate was what, a year ago? The last thing I remember from that was something about Star Destroyer reactor capability, and then two weeks of tests and projects at school. I lost interest after that. Hell, I even stopped posting over at SB.com.

It is true that I would be much more comfortable with the higher-end calculations if we saw something like a BDZ in one of the movies, but I do not discount the Expanded Universe by any leap of logic. Nor do I ignore the relationship between canon and official that has been dictated by Lucasfilm.

Although I do not know why you would make the conclusion that I give the books no status at all, when I simply said that I was waiting for Episode III before I make any final judgment. I am assuming that EP III is going to give us a big space battle scene, which is what the rumors are currently supporting. It was my hope that we would get to see some pre-Empire Cruisers taking chunks out of armor and such. Seeing an early ISD blow a hole through another, shieldless; ship would most definitely put the weapon calc debate on its deathbed.

I was watching “Pegasus” last night and did notice that it would take “almost all of our Photon torpedoes” to destroy the Pegasus. The vessel was 3,000 meters deep in the asteroid, half consumed in rock. To destroy it would have required, at least, the torpedoes to get through 3 km of solid rock plus their own diameter. With the pockets of space throughout the “planetary body” as Data called it, the Photon Torpedoes would be in the 100 KT> range I think.
Although this is merely a rough estimate, (still not sure if the Enterprise was simply going to vaporize the asteroid to destroy the Pegasus, or simply dig down to it and blast it, etc) it does give us a range, which is useful. It would take some further reasoning and compromise to get a more accepted figure.

The calculations I use for Light Turbolasers are those from the Empire Strikes Back, specifically the asteroid scene. Using conservative figures for the sizes of asteroids vaporized, something between 40 and 50 meters in diameter, it would take roughly 0.5 to 1 Megatons to totally vaporize each rock. Taking into the account of, I believe it to be 1/15th second work rate; the Light Turbolasers get a yield range from between 7.5 to 15 Megatons.

From there I make some assumptions.
Medium Turbolasers are seen onboard the ISD-I Subclass of Destroyer, in two quad mounts, and according to Saxton there are another three triple turrets of the medium size. We know from the films that the quad batteries do exist, but I have yet to see the triple batteries myself. Either way there are no more than 20 medium cannons if Saxton is right. That would place the proportion of Light to Medium cannons at roughly 7 to one.
In order for the Medium weapons to be useful, I would assume that they are at least an order of a magnitude more powerful than the Light weapons, possibly two.
That is my reasoning for placing MTL yields around 75 MT or 150 MT.

Heavy Turbolasers are arrayed in six dual turrets aboard the ISD-I subclass, and eight octuple turrets onboard the ISD-II subclass. These bolts are much longer than the other Turbolasers, over 500 meters by most accounts, and are much more powerful. On the ISD-I subclass the light to heavy weapons ratio is exactly 10 to 1. Once again, in order to be effective the Heavy cannons would have to be two to three orders of magnitude more powerful than the standard LTL.
That places their yield around 750 MT to 1,500 MT.

Note: I am assuming that the LTL armament for an ISD-I subclass is 120 cannons arrayed in 60 dual turrets. Also, the 1.5 Gigaton HTL yield would seem to be supported by the Slave Ship quote that the ISD Heavy mounts had to withstand recoil “explosions measured in the giga-tonnage range”.

These estimates were my base, conservative, calculations. I almost always use those when debating.

[Darth Wong]

I do not know why you would make the conclusion that I give the books no status at all, when I simply said that I was waiting for Episode III before I make any final judgment.

Don't be an idiot. If you disregard the published figures until other evidence is presented, then you obviously do not regard them as evidence in their own right. This "I won't accept it until I see it in the movie" approach is the same one that you could take with respect to any source, even fanwank claims.

I was watching “Pegasus” last night and did notice that it would take “almost all of our Photon torpedoes” to destroy the Pegasus. The vessel was 3,000 meters deep in the asteroid, half consumed in rock. To destroy it would have required, at least, the torpedoes to get through 3 km of solid rock plus their own diameter. With the pockets of space throughout the “planetary body” as Data called it, the Photon Torpedoes would be in the 100 KT> range I think.

Which is miniscule compared to the yield of a single Slave-1 seismic charge.

Although this is merely a rough estimate, (still not sure if the Enterprise was simply going to vaporize the asteroid to destroy the Pegasus, or simply dig down to it and blast it, etc) it does give us a range, which is useful. It would take some further reasoning and compromise to get a more accepted figure.

Idle speculation about the potential for massive overkill is irrelevant and pointless. The fact that it was presented as a limiting factor obviously means they were looking at the cheapest way to do it, not the most excessive way to do it.

The calculations I use for Light Turbolasers are those from the Empire Strikes Back, specifically the asteroid scene. Using conservative figures for the sizes of asteroids vaporized, something between 40 and 50 meters in diameter, it would take roughly 0.5 to 1 Megatons to totally vaporize each rock. Taking into the account of, I believe it to be 1/15th second work rate; the Light Turbolasers get a yield range from between 7.5 to 15 Megatons.

So you treat lower limits as upper limits, totally disregard AOTC, and make no distinction in units between energy and power, eh? Thanks for demonstrating that you're an idiot.

...

These estimates were my base, conservative, calculations. I almost always use those when debating.

Too bad they're based on bullshit.

[Ender]

While I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Saxton, and indeed believe his site to be the most objective analysis of Star Wars capabilities on the web, I cannot in good conscience accept power figures simply because they are published in an official source. As I have yet to see how Saxton derived these figures I will reserve final judgment until Episode III.

Scale down the reactor from that of the DS using basic log-log scaling lke applies to modern nuclear reactors. Then ther is the quote from the Imperial Sourcebook that shielding is ~ 25% of total power. Then for weapons fire you get what the ISD needs to preform a BDZ in 1 hour and there you have what your HTLs are.

THis is how you get the numbers. But the werid thing is that Saxton's don't match up because he then decided to decrease them from what you actually get from the math to make things more in line with the EU.

[IceHawk-151]

While I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Saxton, and indeed believe his site to be the most objective analysis of Star Wars capabilities on the web, I cannot in good conscience accept power figures simply because they are published in an official source. As I have yet to see how Saxton derived these figures I will reserve final judgment until Episode III.

Scale down the reactor from that of the DS using basic log-log scaling lke applies to modern nuclear reactors. Then ther is the quote from the Imperial Sourcebook that shielding is ~ 25% of total power. Then for weapons fire you get what the ISD needs to preform a BDZ in 1 hour and there you have what your HTLs are.

THis is how you get the numbers. But the werid thing is that Saxton's don't match up because he then decided to decrease them from what you actually get from the math to make things more in line with the EU.

Thanks Ender, do you by any chance know what the estimate for the DS reactor is? Taking into consideration possible charge time and all that?

Give me a second to reply to you Wong, computer crash just killed my reply.

[IceHawk-151]

When it comes to official publications in relationship with canon sources I rank Tech Manuals/Sourcebooks lower than the EU novels.
Movies>Movie Novels>EU Novels>Tech manuals/Sourcebooks>Games/Comics
That would be the order in which I consider source material.

I don’t totally disregard the ICS books; in fact I even used a quote from Saxton that came from the first ICS about the triple turreted medium cannons. However, I do take into account the Expanded Universe novels as well.

It is 7:00 at the moment so I can’t go into too much more detail tonight, perhaps around 9:00 I can get back to you.

However, there are various sources throughout the EU that demonstrate “terajoules” of energy being a threat to capital ships and stations. Slave Ship places the most powerful Turbolasers in the Gigaton range, the Shield of Lies section on your Turbolasers pages place Light Turbolasers around 3 MT, your own lower estimates for Light Turbolasers are around 5 MT.

I said 15-megaton light Turbolasers were my “base, conservative estimate”, base conservative meaning a conservative estimate to start with. You stated that you assumed this to be my high-end figure; I must say you misinterpreted my post. Your own base estimates started at 3 MT and 5 MT for Light Turbolasers, you moved higher through various official sources, ending with the highest number at 22 GT Heavy Turbolasers (An order of magnitude smaller than the ICS numbers)

Even compared to your own numbers ICS is much larger than what is required for a BDZ operation as detailed by your site. BDZ operations being of course the highest official situation we have.

Sorry for the choppy and short reply, but I’m getting yelled at by my folks.

One last thing, I could not continue on with this reply without addressing your rather quick attack on my character. In your debate with the other person earlier in this thread you pointed out how such attacks derail a debate. Instead of calling me an idiot twice (once for saying MT instead of MT/sec, which appears to me as trivial) and saying my conservative estimate is based on bullshit, I would rather you detail where my estimate is, in your opinion flawed.

Your own conservative estimate, as I have shown above, is rather close to mine. It is for this reason that I do not understand your hostility towards me.

Be back later.

[Howedar]

When it comes to official publications in relationship with canon sources I rank Tech Manuals/Sourcebooks lower than the EU novels.
Movies>Movie Novels>EU Novels>Tech manuals/Sourcebooks>Games/Comics
That would be the order in which I consider source material.

I don?t totally disregard the ICS books; in fact I even used a quote from Saxton that came from the first ICS about the triple turreted medium cannons. However, I do take into account the Expanded Universe novels as well.

When it comes to source ranking systems, I rank Lucasfilm's above yours.
Lucasfilm>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your stupid ass
That would be the order in which I consider canon hierarchies.

[IceHawk-151]

When it comes to source ranking systems, I rank Lucasfilm's above yours.
Lucasfilm>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your stupid ass
That would be the order in which I consider canon hierarchies.

Indeed Lucasfilm policy dictates the order of canon and official source material, but in what order is my point.

We have Movies, Novels set in the movies, Expanded Universe Novels, Source Books, role playing games, WEG games, pc games, console games, comic books, encyclopedieas, cartoons, and anything else I missed.

Within this set of materials what is ranked the highest and what is ranked the lowest? That was the point I was making.

[Slartibartfast]

"If they travel at lightspeed, that's fine, but since I didn't even mention them, your attack on my scientific background is pretty much just a bunch of hot air (another personal attack - just pointing it out so you can tell)."

This guy obviously has no idea what a personal attack is.

[Slartibartfast]

We do have visual evidence that Klingons are stronger than humans, in ST3, the Klingon commander lifted Kirk by the neck, ala Vader the the first SW movie. I don't know many people who can do that, maybe you can, but from your picture, I would think not (personal attack alert!). So, tough guy, where's your physical evidence you value so highly?

So you're using a lone Klingon who happens to be as strong as a human weighlifter as proof that all Klingons are superhuman? Does the term "hasty generalization fallacy" mean anything to you? And by the way, your personal attack was pretty weak too, since it was totally irrelevant to the point. Tell me, if Klingons are superhuman, why is Major Kira able to consistently kick their asses in unarmed combat? I may only be deadlifting a couple of hundred pounds when I work out, but I'll bet I'm stronger than her.

Every time somebody talks about the "innate" physical strength of Kingkongs, I am reminded of that time Riker went to a Kingon ship and basically punched one of those ugly SOBs across the fucking room like only Popeye the sailorman could have done.

Never mind all the times Captain Kirk beat klingons in freakin' FIST FIGHTS!

[Stark]

Thanks Ender, do you by any chance know what the estimate for the DS reactor is? Taking into consideration possible charge time and all that?

Simply considering the power required to orbit Yavin, the DS must be able to sustain planet-destroying power levels. It's all on DW's site. Didn't you read it?

[SirNitram]

While I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Saxton, and indeed believe his site to be the most objective analysis of Star Wars capabilities on the web, I cannot in good conscience accept power figures simply because they are published in an official source. As I have yet to see how Saxton derived these figures I will reserve final judgment until Episode III.

The book in and of itself is Canon. It is derived from data given to him by the people working on Episode II. I have become sick and tired of this line repeated over and over, especially by Pro-Trek debators who want us to accept QT's are 100MT without proof.

If EPIII demonstrates power on this scale from Acclamators or other vessels I will be more than happy to accept the 200 GT number. As for now, I am using my own calculations based off of ESB and a few EU sources.

Your calculations < Canon data from Lucasfilm. I am sorry, but that's how it works. I lack the patience for this game.

BTW, does anyone know of a website that has a picture of the Acclamator’s cannons from the movie?

Why would this matter? Anyway, they did not engage in firing because it would incinerate the Jedi.

As for a Federation taskforce being capable of destroying a Star Destroyer without receiving losses or incurring a retaliatory strike…

I know that even at 100 MT the Quantum Torpedoes are still roughly six orders of magnitude weaker than your guy’s shield numbers. However it would seem that both the person Mr. Wong is debating with and I, do not believe that this level of power is actual.

I personally find it more likely for a Star Destroyer’s shields to be around 25 or 30 Gigatons, once again based on much lower yield weapons than those used here. In such a case as this, it would only take around 400 to 500 Photon Torpedoes, or about 200 Quantum Torpedoes to drop the destroyer’s shields, and an unknown number to destroy the vessel.

Using much more conservative numbers than the ICS or BDZ calculations, it would only take 5 Galaxy-class Starships some 10-15 seconds to drop the Destroyer’s shields and blast through to the reactor. If such a confrontation occurred, and the Federation forcer stayed underneath the ISD, avoiding both Heavy and Medium weapons, it is possible to destroy the vessel without receiving losses.

Yes. If we completely throw out Canon material and multiple Official calculations, the Federation has a chance. Of course, this is also giving them a source no longer considered even Official!

However, I would have to disagree with the “no return fire” part as well.

This debate is really one of weapons calculations, and depending on what numbers you use it may or may not be possible.

Using the Canonical ones, the Empire is untouchable in an ISD vs. SCS scenario.

[SirNitram]

When it comes to source ranking systems, I rank Lucasfilm's above yours.
Lucasfilm>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your stupid ass
That would be the order in which I consider canon hierarchies.

Indeed Lucasfilm policy dictates the order of canon and official source material, but in what order is my point.

We have Movies, Novels set in the movies, Expanded Universe Novels, Source Books, role playing games, WEG games, pc games, console games, comic books, encyclopedieas, cartoons, and anything else I missed.

Within this set of materials what is ranked the highest and what is ranked the lowest? That was the point I was making.

I believe it's laid out in the PSW forum, though asvs.org should also have the canon heirarchy set out.

Latest revision after a SW Insider quote was Movies -> Novelizations -> Radio Dramas -> ICS -> EU -> Games.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The first two Incredible Cross-Sections books were conceived to explore bold new territory in the Star Wars universe, taking a rare look inside more vehicles and vessels than we had ever seen before, and doing in in unprecidented detail. These books would represent the most thorough research ever done on these vehicles and would receive Lucasfilm's formal imprimatur as canon. These volumes would henceforth be sent out to licensees as reference guides and would become useful manuals for Industrial Light & Magic, where some of the artwork influenced details in Episodes I and II. [emphases mine]

Canon and Official Quote Thread (PSW)

[Lord Poe]

IceHawk, before you go any further, I suggest you read these three links:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... nutes.html

http://www.geocities.com/cmdrwilkens/Calcs/index.html

http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html