Author:
The Divine Shadow
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 17:22:51 10/19/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: 1Cust249.tnt1.morton.il.da.uu.net/63.28.243.249
In reply to:
Warspite
's message, "Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon)" on 15:18:17 10/19/02 Sat
>>We have never seen or heard that Star Wars computers
>>are STL, the Communications core for a
>>Coruscanttransmision relay (seen in one of the X-wings
>>books) has computaional powers and speed that is, in
>>all likly hood, far superior the computers on
>>Andromeda and atleast as good as the computers on an
>>early Picard era Federation science vessel.
>>
>
>That might be true, but what about a TIE fighter? From
>what we saw in the movies, the targeting system is
>pretty simple, and is roughly human reflex speed.
Darth Vader was savoring his hunting time, he rarely has the pleasure, especially where he gets fight a pilot that has Force potential. Besides, the simpler it is, the better it works, and less distracting it is to the pilot, the #1 reason that people don't use expensive, complex, and grandious holo-projectors in combat vehicles for relaying combat data to the operators is that in a combat situations is that they are too distracting and can be replaced by small, flat screens that will distract the pilot/ crewman less and thus make him/her more combat effective. butons, dials and levers are ergonamically superior to okodograms, and flat screens are just as good as holo-projectors. What all of this ramballing means is that apearence does not tell everything, the Falcon proves that.
>>>> A TL shot with a minimum yield of 200 gt would
>>de-shield
>>>>and sublimate a shuttle, perigrin, or runnabout in 1
>>>>shot aswell.
>>
>>Here is a quate from a more canon source (the book
>>"Slave Ship")
>>"the laser cannons being mounted into the open
>>skeletal frames required bracing and
>>recoil-dissipation casings that would have withstood
>>explosions measured in the giga-tonnage range.
>>Anything less, and a single shot fired in battle would
>>rip a destroyer or battle cruiser in two, a victim of
>>its own lethal strength".
>
>I've seen that quote before, but I do have some
>problems with it. Firstly we saw in TESB, that the
>structural strength of an ISD was low enough that a
>relatively low speed impact with an asteroid was
>enough to decapitate it, and maybe even destroy it
>outright. That impact could not have been above
>megaton range, and was probably only kiloton range.
>Similarly, in RotJ, the A-wing directly penetrated the
>bridge window of the SSD with little trouble, implying
>a relatively low resistance to kinetic impacts at
>least. In the RotJ novel, we hear that a rebel fighter
>striking an ISD took out it's front batteries. If they
>could withstand a gigaton explosion, the impacting
>fighter should have caused little problems. In a
>related example, we saw in ANH, that a low speed
>impact between two TIE fighters was enough to cause
>major damage to both. I know that is to do with
>fighters and not capital ships, but it shows the
>strength of materials extends to other areas of
>Imperial building.
If you toss a brick at 30 Ft by 30 ft plate glass window will it break? Yes, because the brick is denser and applies most of what little energy it is tossed at the piont of impact, same with bullets, same with Kamicazees flying at a carrier's deck instead of its armored sides, if you want to mazimize internal damage, find the piont of easiest ingress and fly at it. If a shuttle were to fly at it's top sublight speed and ram the saucer of its parent ship, would it penetrate? yes. And it is made of similar materials.
The Asteroid that the ISD was a bout 1/8 the size of the Bridge tower and traveling very fast. besides, there aren't any guns on the bridge tower.
And as for, the TLs ownly set trees on fire, that's because all most all Imperial weapons deal linear damage, not radial
because Linear will peirce Imperial armor (like an asteroid)
While radial will not have sufficient power to do much damage to the armor.
>>>Generally we have seen that phasers
>>>transmit their energy into the targets structure, and
>>>then spread out through it, but do not continue on
>>>into nearby structures. We see a very good example of
>>>that in TNG:Ensigns of Command, where Data vaporises
>>>all the water in an aquaduct, without damaging the
>>>aquaduct itself. Therefore, a phaser would not
>>>necessarily blow out the other side, since all the
>>>energy would be sent into the target. This actually
>>>makes it much more efficient than a turbolaser.
>>
>>this is not always a good thing. The reason for the
>>power of Star Wars weapons and the manner in which
>>they deal damage is that Imperail Armor posses great
>>density, very high specific heat, and high energy
>>reflectivity. The more the energy is focussed and
>>lower the area of effect, the more chance that the
>>shot will do decent damage.
>>
>
>Agreed.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 