| Subject: Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon) |
Author:
Warspite
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 18:46:53 10/24/02 Thu
Author Host/IP: ipd54b1fbc.free.wxs.nl/213.75.31.188
In reply to:
The Divine Shadow
's message, "Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon)" on 14:00:43 10/24/02 Thu
>>>And all those plasma cannons firing 100+ megaton
>shots
>>>sill still be much more devestating than those silly
>>>little photon torpedoes.
>>
>>For what its worth, I've never doubted that Star Wars
>>weapons had a more powerful yield than Trek weapons.
>>That (generally) seems clear from the films and shows.
>>I have questioned whether they would be effective
>>against Trek ships, since they appear to be faster (in
>>a tactical sense), more manouverable and have a better
>>range than Wars ships, but that's another story.
>
>That would be a proble, Little capital ships (nebulon
>B, carrack, lancer) would fare better in the dogfight
>style of feddie combat, the ISDs would just let the
>feddie ships swarm like the Borg cubes do and pick
>them off thatway.
Better, but I think its fair to say that in manouverability, there's not a ship (of comperable size) that can manouver as well as Fed ships. Smaller ships (ie MF sized) are pretty good, but not the larger ones.
>>I don't doubt your numbers, but they are from an
>>extreme top end example. There are also extreme lower
>>end examples. In one example (from one of the X-Wing
>>books but I'm not sure which), a mere 22 proton
>>torpedoes was enough to bring down the shield of a
>>VSD. The yield of protons is debatable, I have heard
>>1.5kt or 1.5MT (BTM says 1.5MT). If we assume a yield
>>of 1.5kt, the total needed was just 55kt. That is
>>incredibly low. If the yield is 1.5MT, the total would
>>then be 55MT, but a single photon torpedo yield of
>>64MT would still be able to drop the shield. In
>>another example (Bacta War), 80 protons hit an SSD and
>>drop its shields. If they were 1.5kt, the total yield
>>would be just 120kt, if they were 1.5MT, it would be
>>120MT. That is just two photons! Even if we very
>>generous and say the yield of protons can be varied,
>>and multiply it by 10 (15MT per torp), it would still
>>only take a couple of volleys from a Galaxy class (or
>>one from an Akira or war-Nebula) to drop the shields
>>on an SSD. In the games (which I generally I don't use
>>because they make SW very weak), it takes about 48
>>protons to drop and ISDs shields.
>>
>>You see the problem? There are high end examples which
>>show that the Federation are never going to drop the
>>shields, and there are low end examples that show that
>>just a couple of photons will do it. I prefer to
>>believe the truth is somewhere in between.
>
>Now Proton Torpedoes are also focused weapons and very
>powerfull. No Sar Wars book gives a yeild. And I
>will do what I did bofore to get a yeild number, math
>:'(
Of course there is decent evidence to show that trek torps are focused too. :)
>7200000 MT shield divided by 80 proton torpedeos=90000
>MT
Ummmm...isn't this circular reasoning though? You're starting off with an assumption of shield strength, then just raising to power of torpedoes to defeat it. Don't get me wrong, the examples I showed ARE extremely low end (I said so), but the 1.5KT (SW tech journal)-1.5MT (BTM) is the usually accepted figure for protons. AFAIK, we don't have any evidence that the yields are higher (at least not at the time of Bacta wars). That may seem a low yield, but before we can agree a higher yield, we have to show definitive examples where they are seen to be higher.
>I do this because I find the 1.5 MT to be very small.
>And I coinsider the books to be more cannon than the
>BTM documentry, people who design ships' appearences
>can't be expected to see the extreme improbibility of
>just 55 to 125 megatons taking down an ISD's shields,
>we have H-bombs that individaully can get to 75 MT and
>higher! They are suggesting that if an ISD parked in
>orbit the Britain could take it out with just they're
>SLBMs! that's low, very low, obsurdly low!
Actually, its an interesting fact that warhead yields have generally gone down since missiles became more accurate, and MIRV warheads were introduced. In simulations, it has proven a lot more effective to dump a few KT level warheads around a target, than to dump one big one on the center. The combined destruction power of multiple kt-range weapons is actually much greater than a single large MT weapon. The largest nuclear bomb ever built was the 'Tsar Bomba', which was around 50MT (it was actually designed to be 100MT, but was scaled down). However, if you look at most missiles today, few have warheads above the KT range. It doesn't sound a lot, when we spend our time talking about MT and GT yields, but don't forget that the original Hiroshima bomb was only 15-16kt, and it destroyed most of that city. The modern Trident II missiles on Britains SSBNs for example have warheads with a maximum yield of around 100kt. The entire British nuclear arsenal is now probably less than 20-30MT! So I don't think your ISD has to worry too much about Britain. :)
>
>In another book (one of the Lando Calrissian trilogy)
>we have a promitive race firing hundreds of thousands
>of chemical missiles with H-bomb warheads at a fleet.
>The fleet survives, no loss of power to the shields.
>This proves that the low end 55-125 MT is too low. If
>a 200 year old Dreadnought could take all of those
>missiles so can a much newer ISD with much stronger
>shields.
As I showed above, most modern missiles have yields in the KT range. Very few reach MT levels. Therefore, the example you showed could well be correct, but still allow protons to have just 1.5MT. I haven't read the book, so I cannot comment definitively. Could you give me a clearer idea (perhaps a quote with numbers) of what happened exactly?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 