VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1[2]34 ]
Subject: Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon)


Author:
The Divine Shadow
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 23:22:02 10/24/02 Thu
Author Host/IP: 1Cust241.tnt1.morton.il.da.uu.net/63.28.243.241
In reply to: Warspite 's message, "Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon)" on 18:46:53 10/24/02 Thu

>>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,

Yes, but a reasonable assumption.

>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. :)

ya, I know, quality (accuracy) over quantity (tons-o-TNT)
Against the Empire this is not the best policy, as the Imp's tech and equipment is extremely survivable.

>>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?

In one of the NJO books (I think "Star by Star") we see a special variation on the proto-torp in orbital mine form. A heavily modified smuggler freigter (so we know it has good armor and survivability as it is owned by a long time smuggler, one in the business long enough to know that the more durable the ship the better) he drifts into the minefield, 3 mines overload the shields (he would probly have military grade shields like most smugglers [Han Solo, Talon Karrde]) the next mine plows through the bridge window and takes out much of that deck, the next mine plows into one of the engines and the explosion destroys them all. The other two blow open the cargo holds, this is a very large freigter at least 900 meters long, the explosions were seen over much of the surface of the ship, so these mines and the torpedoes they are based off of are atleast 20 MT.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon)Warspite08:34:30 10/25/02 Fri


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT+1
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.