# Victory-class Destroyer Excalibur (Babylon 5) vs Imperial Star Destroyer (Star Wars)



## Catalyst75 (Mar 29, 2012)

This battle will feature the famous Imperial Star Destroyer of Star Wars against Excalibur, the most powerful Younger Race vessel built in the Babylon 5 Universe.







These three links are all links that dictate various estimations that have association with Excalibur.

The Excalibur possesses a Plasteel Poly-Crystalline alloy armour that combines Earthforce's armour - which is estimated to be 20x stronger than iron, and 67% stronger than the armour used in modern armies - and Minbari poly-crystalline armour, which refracts 80% of the energy of all energy attacks used against it.

Considering how rarely the universe has been tested, I want to see how the best of the best of Babylon 5 would fare against the most well known.

NOTE: I would appreciate this if people held back on using the Incredible Cross-Sections to provide evidences of feats for the Imperial Star Destroyer.  I consider some of the numbers they put out there...ludicrous, especially when compared to what is seen in both the movies and the Clone Wars CGI series.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 29, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> I consider some of the numbers they put out there...ludicrous



not really considering EU feats of planet razing done by a few capital ships, three at the most needed for a BDZ IIRC, though one can do it well enough


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Absolute most conservative measure of firepower from visual evidence in TESB just from the anti-fighter batteries has their point-defense guns putting out triple digit megaton range yields and those are considered out-dated.

ICS is canon and continuous with the visual evidence. Babylon 5 has really no business going up against proper heavy warships in Star Wars.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 30, 2012)

It is only the TV Series and the movies that are considered the absolute canon by Star Wars.  There's a reason why the rest is simply called Expanded Universe.

"ICS is canon and continuous with the visual evidence" my ass.   If those numbers in the ICS are actually considered canon, then ships in Star Wars should be *vaporizing* each other with one shot each, but they do not do that.  A Star Destroyer's volume alone probably isn't even City level in the OBD. 

I know how powerful Excalibur is in canon, because it's been seen destroying ships that are twice the size of a Imperial Star Destroyer with one barrage of its secondary weapons, and at one time obliterated a behemoth that was virtually the radius of the First Death Star in length (60 kilometres) with one shot from its main gun.

Hell, the White Star also once carved a Drakh Carrier that was a whopping 14 kilometres long into pieces in a matter of seconds, and Excalibur's secondary guns have the same fire power as the White Star.

I'm watching the Battle of Coruscant and the Venator vs Inivisible Hand clash, and nothing there indicates any levels of power approaching gigaton levels from the turbolasers.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

oh god not this again


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> It is only the TV Series and the movies that are considered the absolute canon by Star Wars.  There's a reason why the rest is simply called Expanded Universe.



Absolutely wrong.



			
				Leland Chee: Keeper of Canon said:
			
		

> EU + Films = Continuity.





> "ICS is canon and continuous with the visual evidence" my ass.   If those numbers in the ICS are actually considered canon, then ships in Star Wars should be *vaporizing* each other with one shot each, but they do not do that.  A Star Destroyer's volume alone probably isn't even City level in the OBD.



Wrong. Again seeing as how they have fucking shields and armor to protect themselves in the first place.



> I know how powerful Excalibur is in canon, because it's been seen destroying ships that are twice the size of a Imperial Star Destroyer with one barrage of its secondary weapons, and at one time obliterated a behemoth that was virtually the radius of the First Death Star in length (60 kilometres) with one shot from its main gun.



Death Star's volume is equivalent to 24 million ISDs (1600 meters in length), go do the math. And its about 3x the size of that shit.



> Hell, the White Star also once carved a Drakh Carrier that was a whopping 14 kilometres long into pieces in a matter of seconds, and Excalibur's secondary guns have the same fire power as the White Star.
> 
> I'm watching the Battle of Coruscant and the Venator vs Inivisible Hand clash, and nothing there indicates any levels of power approaching gigaton levels from the turbolasers.



In other words your cherry picking and have no idea how canon or the firepower is in Star Wars. Nor did you have an actual rebuttal to Star Destroyer point-defense guns putting out triple digit megaton yields but insist it must be the opposite.

Get over it.


----------



## Velocity (Mar 30, 2012)

He does kinda have a point... The discrepancy between what's shown in the films and the Clone Wars cartoon compared to what's explained in the Expanded Universe is immeasurably large - and when video game companies and writers (some, like Karen Miller, who even admit they're just writing fanfiction and getting paid for it) start making characters that can do pretty much anything they feel like, and when people unquestionably accepting them as canon, things can get more than a little convoluted.

But meh, no point in contesting the legitimacy of the Expanded Universe. It's all officially licensed material, Lucas seemingly doesn't mind what people add to his universe so long as he gets his royalties (and they don't contradict his canon) and the fans eat it up anyway. So it's pretty moot.

As for this particular battle, I do believe the Star Destroyer should be more than capable of handling this. While not exactly as badass as the Executor (awesome ship was awesome), I don't see the Excalibur being a match. The Imperial Star Destroyers have absurd amounts of firepower - their turbolasers were specifically created to punch through deflector shields and I don't think the Minbari poly-crystalline armour will cut it as a defence.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

fuck it I'll indulge in this 


Catalyst75 said:


> If those numbers in the ICS are actually considered canon, then ships in Star Wars should be *vaporizing* each other with one shot each, but they do not do that.



there's this thing called shields

shocking I know



> I'm watching the Battle of Coruscant and the Venator vs Inivisible Hand clash, and nothing there indicates any levels of power approaching gigaton levels from the turbolasers.



except that the ships weren't even using turbolasers there, they were using mass drivers 

both were in an extended battle before that, and neither ship was in prime shape, what with the Invisible Hand's shields being down


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Mar 30, 2012)

There was an explicit mention of 100 megaton missiles on Umbara though the visuals didn't match. Take that as you will.


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Velocity said:


> He does kinda have a point... The discrepancy between what's shown in the films and the Clone Wars cartoon compared to what's explained in the Expanded Universe is immeasurably large - and when video game companies and writers (some, like Karen Miller, who even admit they're just writing fanfiction and getting paid for it) start making characters that can do pretty much anything they feel like, and when people unquestionably accepting them as canon, things can get more than a little convoluted.



Karen Miller is a nobody who continued SPIN-OFF novels of a spin-off tv series. Her word as author means fnothing compared to Lucas and ultimately Chee who even supercedes Lucas as the man in charge of canon and continuity. Editors and administrators of canon don't care about what authors say nor should they matter since its off the record.

This is not 1987 anymore, all of the main levels of canon are virtually the same when you get into the core of things because they fall into the same universe and apart of the same continuity. Some things are obviously non-canon like the Infinites comic series because its a literally AU with What If's happening.

The entirety of the Prequel Trilogy and Special Edition remake Trilogy before that had Leland Chee, the guy in charge of EU, being appointed on the film to throw in stuff from the games, novels, and comics, outside of the main films to give it more integration.

Dash Rendar's Outrider is spotted leaving Mos Eisley when Luke and Obi-Wan pull into the city. Coruscant was created in EU and its entire description as a city encompassing planet built upon hundreds if not thousands of kilometers of skyscrapers and cityscape is nailed down to the letter from Zahn's Heir to the Empire trilogy. 

Hell 2/3rds of the Jedi High Council are killed off in the time skip from Episode I to II and the Clone Wars to Episode III. This was done by EU authors and writers, what did George Lucas say? "That's cool, let's go with it."

This will never stop, because the movies and TV shows will always reference EU material.



> But meh, no point in contesting the legitimacy of the Expanded Universe. It's all officially licensed material, Lucas seemingly doesn't mind what people add to his universe so long as he gets his royalties (and they don't contradict his canon) and the fans eat it up anyway. So it's pretty moot.



He minds enough that he was the Editor-in-Chief of the New Jedi Order series which canonically killed off G-canon characters who were supposed to be untouchable. He minded enough to have Anakin Solo die off because he was worried about the effect on EU's perception to fans if Anakin was allowed continue growing up and surpass his grandfather Anakin Skywalker.

He minds quite a bit and adds to it, and the point is moot when you have Quinlan Vos's death in EU over-rided and retconned by Lucas because he wanted to see more stories of him in EU happen.

Here's the surprise: Vos is an entirely EU character.


----------



## Velocity (Mar 30, 2012)

So the EU serves a dual purpose of not only raking in the cash for him, but also giving Lucas stuff to put in the films and TV shows rather than come up with stuff himself? He's such a crafty git.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Mar 30, 2012)

He wanted to throw Revan and Bane in Ghosts of Mortis.

[YOUTUBE]rFvj026dFxk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> except that the ships weren't even using turbolasers there, they were using mass drivers
> 
> both were in an extended battle before that, and neither ship was in prime shape, what with the Invisible Hand's shields being down



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lchA-lwqrPw&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

From 0:14 to 0:19, you can see the *heavy turbolasers* of the Venator firing on the Invisible Hand, and doing damage to the hull.  The visible damage is far less than what a megaton+ barrage should do to something as big as the Venator.  

In fact, anything in the megaton range of firepower should be able to blow the Invisible Hand into pieces in one blast based on its volume.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Mar 30, 2012)

It happens in EVERY sci-fi series. To suggest that their weapons shouldn't be superior to ours is intellectual dishonesty. Their sense of scale is just... massively off.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> From 0:14 to 0:19, you can see the *heavy turbolasers* of the Venator firing on the Invisible Hand



except, you know, they weren't turbolasers


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> except, you know, they weren't turbolasers



Those *were* turbolasers that fired on the _Invisible Hand_, along with those mass-drivers.  If you look where those turbolasers are located, you can see them firing on the Invisible Hand quite clearly.


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Those are blaster cannons, the equivalent of point-defense weapon systems, not even MLTs or HLTS

fucking looooooooooooooooooooooooool



Those weapon emplacements at and in the wings of a Venator?

Blaster cannons and mass drivers emplacements.



also got this covered in spades


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Fang said:


> Those are blaster cannons, the equivalent of point-defense weapon systems, not even MLTs or HLTS
> 
> fucking looooooooooooooooooooooooool
> 
> ...


We saw the main battery firing however, Fang. 

And don't point-defense laser cannons have the equivalent of six megatons of firepower according to ICS?



Fang said:


> also got this covered in spades


...you mean the most pro-Star Wars site got it covered in spades...not even doubting there may be a sense of bias there?


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> Those *were* turbolasers that fired on the _Invisible Hand_, along with those mass-drivers.  If you look where those turbolasers are located, you can see them firing on the Invisible Hand quite clearly.



1: Turbolasers don't use physical shells.

2: Those are mass-drivers.

3: The non mass-driver mounted weapons emplacements on the wings and between them on the rear of the ship are blaster cannons.

4: Your argument about firepower yields involving volume is hilariously flawed given they have shields and armor reduce turbolasers effectiveness.

Such as when the Devestator blew off part of the armor and sensor casing around the transmitter on the Tantive IV in ANH.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Fang said:


> 1: Turbolasers don't use physical shells.


Yet we see _on the outside_ the main battery firing. 



You can clearly see the main battery firing. Not to mention the times that we've seen the main battery firing in TCW it hasn't shown anywhere near a gigaton of damage.


> 2: Those are mass-drivers.


I'm not doubting the flak cannons were used, but the main battery as I just shown was also firing.


> 3: The non mass-driver mounted weapons emplacements on the wings and between them on the rear of the ship are blaster cannons.


...I'm not seeing any 'blaster cannons' in any armanent of the Venator-class. All laser and turbolaser.


> 4: Your argument about firepower yields involving volume is hilariously flawed given they have shields and armor reduce turbolasers effectiveness.


So you need at least six megatons to blow out a _starfighter's_ shields?


> Such as when the Devestator blew off part of the armor and sensor casing around the transmitter on the Tantive IV in ANH.


Why wouldn't a lower magnitude be able to do the same? Given that the Tantive IV is a glorified blockade runner?


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

oh by the way, the RotS novel (solid canon, explicitly stated by the author that Lucas did closely look it over, etc) states that turbolaser bolts do vaporize unshielded ships whole



> Turbolaser blasts became swift shafts of light that shattered into prismatic splinters against shields, or *bloomed into miniature supernovae that swallowed ships whole.*





> Silent lightning flashed and flared: the room's sole illumination came from the huge curving view wall at its far end, a storm of turbolaser blasts and flak bursts and the *miniature supernovae that were the deaths of entire ships.*


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> oh by the way, the RotS novel (solid canon, explicitly stated by the author that Lucas did closely look it over, etc) that turbolaser bolts do vaporize unshielded ships whole


Um...someone went over ROTS's novel and if the scene didn't match the movie, it shouldnt' count (the infamous Obi-wan vs Greivous' army).


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Um...someone went over ROTS's novel and if the scene didn't match the movie, it shouldnt' count (the infamous Obi-wan vs Greivous' army).



yes, because we totally see the entirety of the spacebattle in the movie

oh wait, no we don't, we only get glimpses 

nothing about those descriptions contradict the movie


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> yes, because we totally see the entirety of the spacebattle in the movie
> 
> oh wait, no we don't, we only get glimpses
> 
> nothing about those descriptions contradict the movie


What about when we get full scenes of a space battle in TCW then, and there are zero vaporization of unshielded ships?


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Weren't all the ships engaging the Invisible Hand not using their full power because they knew Grievous had Palpatine aboard, and we know that ship mounted and vehicle mounted weapon turrets have variable yields?

Oh yeah that's right they do.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Fang said:


> Weren't all the ships engaging the Invisible Hand not using their full power because they knew Grievous had Palpatine aboard, and we know that ship mounted and vehicle mounted weapon turrets have variable yields?
> 
> Oh yeah that's right they do.


...so that's your only excuse? When we see a shot of the Gualara in full broadside with the Invisible Hand, blasting at it without mercy, with its full main battery firing...

Oh, and again, in The Clone Wars, when we see bombardments that Venators use, they again show no where near the firepower which is claimed in the ICS or stardestroyer.net.

Of course, what do I know, I'm a weebo like the OP according to you.


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Is he posting to me?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Fang said:


> Is he posting to me?


...I've posted rebuttles to you, with visual evidence Fang. As well as questions to the discrepancies we see in TCW to your holy bibles of ICS and stardestroyer.net,


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> What about when we get full scenes of a space battle in TCW then, and there are zero vaporization of unshielded ships?



aaannnnd in RotJ, we do see an ISD in the background explode like what the RotS novel basically describes

this is like spacebattles level downplaying hilarity here


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Pretty much.

ICS is g-canon anyways so the bitching is hilarious, when it fits with the g-canon novel and films themselves.

TCW director said they had a lot of complaints about the troop and warship numbers on screen but he said not to worry about it because its the constraints of budgets, like the episodes where Venators are dueling with ICS warships in a planets atmosphere.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> aaannnnd in RotJ, we do see an ISD in the background explode like what the RotS novel basically describes
> 
> this is like spacebattles level downplaying hilarity here


How do we know that ISD wasn't taken down via the trench run method by B-Wings? The explosion looked internal after all, and Lucas wanted to show a scene of it.

I mean, look at this:





Fang said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> ICS is g-canon anyways so the bitching is hilarious, when it fits with the g-canon novel and films themselves.


Wait...reference books were C-Canon. I can swear I saw it as that, since they're source books. When did they get the bump to main-G Canon?


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

and if anyone wants to say it, no it could not have possibly been starfighter weapons shooting at a ship's weak-point/reactor/whatever or such rubbish

the entire battle consists of Star Destroyers dueling with capital ships, with fighters doing minor damage at best to unshielded ships, like destroying communications globes and the A-Wing's suicide run wrecking the bridge while the crash on the DS2 did the rest 

cap ship turbolasers did that, it's the most logical explanation

EDIT: oh lawd, someone did say it


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> and if anyone wants to say it, no it could not have possibly been starfighter weapons shooting at a ship's weak-point/reactor/whatever or such rubbish


Why not, its a valid tactic.


> the entire battle consists of Star Destroyers dueling with capital ships, with fighters doing minor damage at best to unshielded ships, like destroying communications globes and the A-Wing's suicide run wrecking the bridge while the crash on the DS2 did the rest


Again, why are tactics to destroy ISD's even mentioned for fighter crews?


> cap ship turbolasers did that, it's the most logical explanation


How many? And why does it look like an internal explosion?


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 30, 2012)

Are you referring to this:


*Spoiler*: __ 








SuperSaiya12 is correct; the film series is George Lucas Canon, and is the absolute Canon.  Below that is the Television Canon, involving Star Wars: the Clone Wars TV series, and Star Wars the live action series.

The Incredible Cross Sections fall below both in terms of level of canonicity.


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> and if anyone wants to say it, no it could not have possibly been starfighter weapons shooting at a ship's weak-point/reactor/whatever or such rubbish
> 
> the entire battle consists of Star Destroyers dueling with capital ships, with fighters doing minor damage at best to unshielded ships, like destroying communications globes and the A-Wing's suicide run wrecking the bridge while the crash on the DS2 did the rest
> 
> ...



Remember how the bridge shields were the only thing knocked down by the *entire Alliance fleet* and said fleet was stated to beyond the scope of human vision in its size, and they all had to concentrate their fire on the Executor in the first place?

yeah I remember that


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Why not, its a valid tactic.



because we only see them do relatively superficial damage at most

you'd think we'd see something like that actually happen whenever there are scenes of starfighters doing their runs on Star Destroyers



> How many? And why does it look like an internal explosion?



how exactly does it look like an internal explosion and as for many, I can't exactly say how much, but the main point is that it does reflect what's said in the RotS novel


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> because we only see them do relatively superficial damage at most


...even though the main reactor core is being targeted?


> you'd think we'd see something like that actually happen whenever there are scenes of starfighters doing their runs on Star Destroyers


They wanted to do a scene in ROTJ with B-Wings destroying an ISD. We even have a picture of it.




> how exactly does it look like an internal explosion and as for many, I can't exactly say how much, but the main point is that it does reflect what's said in the RotS novel


I don't know, how about the first burst exploding OUT of the ISD instead of exploding on and then into?


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> how exactly does it look like an internal explosion and as for many, I can't exactly say how much, but the main point is that it does reflect what's said in the RotS novel



Why are you trying to use a scene from "Return of the Jedi" in movie format to validate a scene described in the "Revenge of the Sith" novel, something that is *two levels of Canon* lower on the levels of canonicity than the actual film "Revenge of the Sith"?

*Sigh* How quickly this thread devolved to this.  No one is even trying to bring into question Excalibur's feats.

Oh well, I guess that's because Excalibur's feats are solidly set in canon.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> Why are you trying to use a scene from "Return of the Jedi" in movie format to validate a scene described in the "Revenge of the Sith" novel, something that is *two levels of Canon* lower on the levels of canonicity than the actual film "Revenge of the Sith"?



because the novel is still canon and was looked over by Lucas, as stated by the author himself?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> because the novel is still canon and was looked over by Lucas, as stated by the author himself?


The novel is G-Canon, but if a scene doesn't match up against what we see in the movie, it shouldn't count. Its basically an anime filler scene adapted from a manga, in comparison.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ...even though the main reactor core is being targeted?



when was that stated

post a scene from the movie or a quote from the novel about B-Wings doing what you said, and I'll gladly concede



> They wanted to do a scene in ROTJ with B-Wings destroying an ISD. We even have a picture of it.



was it in the RotJ novel that happened, or was it cut from the movie?

if it's cut, non-canon and as I said, post a quote or a scene and I'll concede



> I don't know, how about the first burst exploding OUT of the ISD instead of exploding on and then into?



how can you even tell if it's internal?


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

novel is G-canon

derp


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> when was that stated
> 
> post a scene from the movie or a quote from the novel about B-Wings doing what you said, and I'll gladly concede


B-Wings were created for the precise purpose of destroying Capital Ships. You're an EU fan, you know this. The picture has been posted TWICE.

And the trench run method targets the reactor core. Just like what happened to the first Death Star.


> was it in the RotJ novel that happened, or was it cut from the movie?
> 
> if it's cut, non-canon and as I said, post a quote or a scene and I'll concede


Again, picture posted. B-Wings were made to directly destroy Capital Ships. 




> how can you even tell if it's internal?


...look at it. The explosion blooms out from the INSIDE instead of from the outside.



Fang said:


> novel is G-canon
> 
> derp


With many anime-like FILLER scenes.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> The novel is G-Canon, but if a scene doesn't match up against what we see in the movie, it shouldn't count. Its basically an anime filler scene adapted from a manga, in comparison.



but...it doesn't contradict the movie, RotS, in question 

and anime is entirely irrelevant to the manga, as opposed to the canon structure involving the movies, novel adaptations and other EU works, so that's a rather awful comparison 

the original manga usually doesn't acknowledge the anime as canon, unlike SW where the books are officially LucasArts canon


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 30, 2012)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> B-Wings were created for the precise purpose of destroying Capital Ships. You're an EU fan, you know this. The picture has been posted TWICE.
> 
> And the trench run method targets the reactor core. Just like what happened to the first Death Star.
> 
> Again, picture posted. B-Wings were made to directly destroy Capital Ships.



quote and/or scene

this shouldn't be hard


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Mar 30, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> but...it doesn't contradict the movie, RotS, in question


When we do see RotS's opening battle, the ships that are destroyed are either blown in two or crash into other vessels. No vaporization from a single barrage.


> and anime is entirely irrelevant to the manga, as opposed to the canon structure involving the movies, novel adaptations and other EU works, so that's a rather awful comparison


Actually, its rather valid. If a novel has a scene that doesn't match up the movie's scenes, it can be considered filler.


> the original manga usually doesn't acknowledge the anime as canon, unlike SW where the books are officially LucasArts canon


Many mangakas acknowledge anime as canon, but with the manga the primary source. Filler scenes are added to canon arcs, just like what happens in novelizations of Star Wars movies.



Crimson Dragoon said:


> quote and/or scene
> 
> this shouldn't be hard


...you didn't see the pictures on the last two pages? And according to the Rebel Alliance Source Book, B-Wings were designed as cap ship killers. Its why they were so heavily armed.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 30, 2012)

Fang said:


> novel is G-canon
> 
> derp





Crimson Dragoon said:


> but...it doesn't contradict the movie, RotS, in question
> 
> and anime is entirely irrelevant to the manga, as opposed to the canon structure involving the movies, novel adaptations and other EU works, so that's a rather awful comparison
> 
> the original manga usually doesn't acknowledge the anime as canon, unlike SW where the books are officially LucasArts canon



There are different levels to LucasArts canon, which means that some things are *more canon* than others, and take precedence over lower canon sources.

Anything that an authors does in a novel that does not originate with Lucas, for example, is not G-Canon, and is only C-Canon in comparison.  The visual evidence provided by both G-Canon (the six movies), and T-Canon  (Star Wars: the Clone Wars) takes precedence what is in the novels if they contradict.

--------------------------------------

Getting back to the actual topic of this thread, if the Excalibur's Secondary guns do not destroy the Imperial Star Destroyer, then one shot from the Main Guns will destroy it.


----------



## Fang (Mar 30, 2012)

The novel is g-canon and Lucas was directly involved in line editing 

Now post the scene and interview stating or showing a direct source from Chee or Lucas or one of the other directors on the image


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> *snip for ad naseum*





> *Though I did not personally watch him do it, I received from LFL a Word document of Revenge of the Sith with Mr Lucas' edits, which was distinct from the edits I'd already gotten from Sue Rostoni and Howard Roffman and the rest of the LFL crew, and this document was edited in such a detailed fashion that even individual words had been struck off and his preferred replacements inserted, as well as some passages wholly excised and some dialogue replaced with the dialogue from the screenplay. If that's not line-editing, I don't know what is.
> 
> What's in that book is there because Mr. Lucas wanted it to be there. What's not in that book is not there because Mr. Lucas wanted it gone.
> 
> Period. *



GG.



> Getting back to the actual topic of this thread, if the Excalibur's Secondary guns do not destroy the Imperial Star Destroyer, then one shot from the Main Guns will destroy it.



Wouldn't even phase shields that can take teraton to petaton barrages for hours.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Is it just me, or do Star Wars fans like yourselves like to flaunt your views of the Star Wars starships being God Mode Sues in comparison to the ships of other universe?

Even if that is what the novelization said, the films provide actual visual evidence of the conflicts in the space battle.  Plus, for all the power of the shields of the Star Destroyers, I clearly recall how one Star Destroyer was decapitated by a mere asteroid in "The Empire Strikes Back".


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> Is it just me, or do Star Wars fans like yourselves like to flaunt your views of the Star Wars starships being God Mode Sues in comparison to the ships of other universe?



You clearly do not know what a Mary Sue is and the fact that Star Wars warships are above it must be really rustling your jimmies that you resort to something as petty as this.

Observations and calculations based off visual evidence, direct statements, and corresponding canon source-books have rendered everything you claimed moot and groundless, quit gripping over it.



> Even if that is what the novelization said, the films provide actual visual evidence of the conflicts in the space battle.  Plus, for all the power of the shields of the Star Destroyers, I clearly recall how one Star Destroyer was decapitated by a mere asteroid in "The Empire Strikes Back".



You have no idea what your talking about. Where does it state the shields were even up? When the Falcon comes out of hyperspace in ANH in the coordinates near Alderaan, its hit by asteroids and fragments of the planet which bounce off its shields. 

The Story of Death Vader has this to say as well:



> Turbolaser gunners blasted the largest rocks; those they missed impacted against the bow shields like multi-megaton compression bombs.



This is consistent when their taking two or three impacts from different asteroids per second on multiple points along the hull of the ships. Your seriously grasping at straws here. Which is infinitely more reasonable with the actual time frame (a day's time or greater) which the entirety of Vader's fleet is swimming through with asteroids just twice or three times the Falcon's size constantly putting that stress on its shields and armor to eventually decapitate one? Amazing I know.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12zy5tjZBPw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

You did not even use the correct video to depict the event.  It is a crystal clear decapitation of a Star Destroyer by a normal asteroid.

As to what a Mary Sue is, I happen to know what that is, and you are resorting to the ICS books in an attempt to back up your points about the power of the Star Destroyer.  Really, 860 teratons for the Venator's main guns?  That's enough to vaporize a ship *the size of Executor* in a single volley.

Do you not see the fallacy in that?  I claimed that you like to make Star Wars ships into God Mode Sues in comparison to other series because you just love to use information *from the ICS books* to make them seem invincible and all-powerful.

More evidence of this is that you are reliant on the novelization sources in an effort to back up your point.  The Story of Darth Vader is a Continuity Canon book, not a Television or George Lucas Canon story.  But really, using a *paperback story book* with a reading level of 3 to support your point?  I thought you'd be more sophisticated than that, but it seems you aren't.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URdX-jfMktg&feature=channel[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

So in other words, you have no idea what your talking about, which is hilarious when two megaton bombs are enough to wipe out Mimbari warships. The fact the highest showing on firepower by the Old Ones in B5 doesn't exceed thousand of terawatts and Star Trek factions like the Federation or Romulans are considered good matches for them makes this hilarious.

And the fact that you seem to think volume = firepower is still hilarious. You have apparently no idea how canon works, no idea how continuity times in, and still grasping at straws.

Concession accepted.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> So in other words, you have no idea what your talking about, which is hilarious when two megaton bombs are enough to wipe out Mimbari warships.
> 
> And the fact that you seem to think volume = firepower is still hilarious.
> 
> Concession accepted.



I never conceded anything.  What I am arguing against is the ridiculously exaggerated firepower of the Star Wars ships from the ICS and other unreliable sources that you are relying on to prove your point.

You even brought up the fact that two megaton bombs were enough to destroy Minbar warships, right?  *That should also be enough to wipe out Star Destroyers, which are of a much smaller volume, as well.*  What you are missing is that what you are essentially claiming to be the "base yields" of Star Wars turbolasers and weapons are actually more than enough to send even an Imperial Star Destroyer into oblivion in one shot.

What you are citing is actually a perfect example of how those writers have no genuine sense of scale, if they are using those kinds of numbers.

Just look at "Revenge of the Sith", and the damage the heavy turbolasers of the Venator did to Invisible Hand.  There's no way in hell that what you'll see comes even close to megaton-range of destructive power.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

In other words you STILL have no idea what your talking about.



Concession accepted.

Now let's see, B5 warships are considered glass cannons, have vastly inferior shields and armor, and shitty firepower, were as Star Destroyers can take teraton to petaton levels just fine.

So they get stomped.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Mar 31, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]muGR6A_Qfe8[/YOUTUBE]

Explicit mention of 100 megaton yields with no one surprised by said number


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> The fact the highest showing on firepower by the Old Ones in B5 doesn't exceed thousand of terawatts and Star Trek factions like the Federation or Romulans are considered good matches for them makes this hilarious.









Then it is obvious that no one on Narutoforums has bothered to do calculations for the universe.

The Shadow Vessels main gun exceeds 250 Megatons (or *1 million terawatts*) easily, and the Excalibur's main gun *is based on VORLON DESIGN!*  Said design means that the main gun of the Excalibur has a *visually quantifiable* power output of *1.0 to 7.0*10^21 Joules.*  That's an energy output measured in *TERATONS* in TNT equivalent, a good four to five magnitudes of power higher than the stated level of the turbolasers in that paperback you cited.

If you also want another piece of information that is canon, the Excalibur was meant to be fitted with the same bio-armour that the White Star is fitted with.  However, because it would have taken six months, and they did not have the time to do it due to the Drakh Plague, Excalibur was rushed into service with only the plasteel-crystalline alloy armour it was made with.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

None of what your claiming is remotely true.

Good to know your basically making shit up since most of their firepower showings are against the Young Races whose ships would get toasted by Federation ships.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> [YOUTUBE]muGR6A_Qfe8[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Explicit mention of 100 megaton yields with no one surprised by said number



Those are *missiles.*  That is something I am not surprised by.

Either way, the Imperial Star Destroyer is all turbolasers, no missile launchers, so missiles of that yield won't be in the fight from the Imperials.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Wrong again.

ISDs have torpedo and missile bays and launchers but they aren't used.

Hell if the Excalibur has teraton () yields, why the fuck do they require specialized planet-killers if they can output gigaton to teraton yields easily?

Your hilarious reaching is getting worse by every post. A troop transport single HLT can output 200 gt's in one barrel out of four per second.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Mar 31, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> Those are *missiles.*  That is something I am not surprised by.
> 
> Either way, the Imperial Star Destroyer is all turbolasers, no missile launchers, so missiles of that yield won't be in the fight from the Imperials.



I don't understand why you'd not be surprised by missiles. They aren't used by capital ships, now ask yourself why. If those weapons are really that powerful and the ships could be taken out so easily it's moronic to not be using them. I don't find visuals to be particularly reliable in sci-fi series overall because of a wild amount of inconsistency. The animators have a poor grasp of what it should look like etc. Thus we end up with a serious logic gap.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> None of what your claiming is remotely true.
> 
> Good to know your basically making shit up since most of their firepower showings are against the Young Races whose ships would get toasted by Federation ships.



I am terribly sorry, but did you even *READ* the links that I provided!?

Calculations for the level of First One Technology, both weapons and armour-wise, is clearly provided in both of those links.  What I am claiming does have precedence, because people have worked on multiple essays at B5Tech to calculate the power of Babylon 5 weapons, and I gave you the entire section on First Ones Technology.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> I don't understand why you'd not be surprised by missiles. They aren't used by capital ships, now ask yourself why. If those weapons are really that powerful and the ships could be taken out so easily it's moronic to not be using them. I don't find visuals to be particularly reliable in sci-fi series overall because of a wild amount of inconsistency. The animators have a poor grasp of what it should look like etc. Thus we end up with a serious logic gap.



Remember, we're arguing with a guy who think teratons are enough to "vaporize" the Executor. And that volume and size has something to do with that for some god unknown reason.

Google Stardestroyer.net and look at what they've calced for Babylon 5, top tier race heavy warships get easily taken out by two megaton bombs.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Mar 31, 2012)

I mean I try to pretend plot shields and such don't exist for the purposes of this section but there are times when shit happens that just doesn't make sense. Like aim a powerful energy weapon at a main character (or their ship) and watch it be underwhelming. I know we don't like to use that as a justification and all but really it does happen and I really can't ignore it. So I'm left with someone fucked up. So, who did it? The in universe military that should be competent enough to know the yield of a weapon they use/got used against them or the people animating it with a budget? This really isn't hard for me...

Now, I have no idea what "actual" Star Wars yields should be and I'm not going to claim to. I'm only left with the notion if that missile is that powerful the guns used on capital ships should be at least that powerful since they're used over the missiles. Otherwise the whole thing just makes no damn sense. That's where I'm coming from. And I apply this to every sci-fi series.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Warships are in the teraton to petaton ranges in SW are, UD.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> ISDs have torpedo and missile bays and launchers but they aren't used.
> 
> ...



The troop transport is *supplying* the missiles to the capitol, not firing them off in salvos.

As to the bold...What is this hypocrisy?  If the Galactic Empire supposedly has Star Destroyers that can easily put out triple-digit teratons of firepower, then why go through the trouble of building the Death Star to *blow a planet to smithereens?* 

The Planet-killers and the Death Star all have the same purpose: the utter destruction of a planet, even if the Shadow Planet-killer's methods are different than the Vorlon Planet-killer and the Death Star.  This means that your claims is hypocritical.  

As for the power of the Excalibur's main guns, if you actually bothered to *read* the link I provided for you, there would be a freakin' essay on the weapons of the Excalibur.  I'll post it again, in case you don't get the picture:



As for the Acclamator's yields, you are *still* relying on the ICS for your sources.  Don't you have anything else to rely on than a pretty picture book?



Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> I don't understand why you'd not be surprised by missiles. They aren't used by capital ships, now ask yourself why. If those weapons are really that powerful and the ships could be taken out so easily it's moronic to not be using them. I don't find visuals to be particularly reliable in sci-fi series overall because of a wild amount of inconsistency. The animators have a poor grasp of what it should look like etc. Thus we end up with a serious logic gap.



Because missiles are explosive ordinance.  They are *meant* to pack outrageous amounts of firepower into a small package.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Because more like you have no idea what your talking about if you think missile ordnance is important parts of a Star Destroyer's firepower when has nothing to do with orbital bombardments or full power barrages to base-delta-zero planets.

Keep grasping.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Mar 31, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> Because missiles are explosive ordinance.  They are *meant* to pack outrageous amounts of firepower into a small package.



But the logic doesn't follow when a race or civilization that could use said missiles chooses not to. Why do they do orbital bombardments with turbo lasers? Why are capital ship engagements not with missile spams? Can you not see the flaw here? The logical gap here is far too massive to swallow. Surely you can see that.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> Because more like you have no idea what your talking about if you think missile ordnance is important parts of a Star Destroyer's firepower when has nothing to do with orbital bombardments or full power barrages to base-delta-zero planets.
> 
> Keep grasping.



Base-Delta-Zero bombardments are not the topic of this thread.  The topic is a one-on-one battle between the Excalibur and an Imperial Star Destroyer.

I never stated that the missiles were an important part of a Star Destroyer's fire-power.  I simply stated my belief that Imperial Star Destroyers do not have missiles as part of their arsenal of weapons.

You boast about the ICS statistics as if it were a gospel sent by God, but when I provide you links to actual calculations for Babylon 5, you scoff at them and call them BS.  I am *trying* to be civil, but you just brush everything aside as if some god already dictated who the victor is.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

No, your arguments were refuted and the fact that your trying to cherry pick canon as well as ignore visual evidence and claim EU is not part of it as hilariously petty and a tactic of a troll who has no idea what their talking about.

BDZing shows their level of fire power.

Stop crying sour grapes.

And the only thing I said in relation to the fucking ICS was that it confirms visual evidence when point-defense guns and anti-fighter batteries boast triple digit megaton yields. 

Get over it.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> But the logic doesn't follow when a race or civilization that could use said missiles chooses not to. Why do they do orbital bombardments with turbo lasers? Why are capital ship engagements not with missile spams? Can you not see the flaw here? The logical gap here is far too massive to swallow. Surely you can see that.



But missiles have to be taken off an assembly line; turbolasers and the like, even though they run on Bacta, take power from the reactor of the starship.  To top it off, collateral damage is also an issue.  Missiles and torpedoes are indiscriminate in what damage they do, while the entire energy in a energy attack are focused on one target, and do not do omnidirectional damage.

But the fact of the matter is that an Imperial-class Star Destroyer *does not* have missiles as part of its armaments.  That means bringing up missiles in this thread as part of the battle is pretty much irrelevant, since the Star Destroyer will not use missiles.  I never said that missiles make up a great part of a Star Wars vessel's strength.


----------



## Omnirix (Mar 31, 2012)

In TESB, we also the rebel base build a *planetary* shield on Hoth to protect themselves from BDZ orbital bombardment. They wouldn't need to do that if the ships' firepower aren't up to scale with the numbers.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> No, your arguments were refuted and the fact that your trying to cherry pick canon as well as ignore visual evidence and claim EU is not part of it as hilariously petty and a tactic of a troll who has no idea what their talking about.
> 
> BDZing shows their level of fire power.
> 
> ...



WHAT VISUAL EVIDENCE!?

What are you, blind or something!?  *Triple digit megaton yields* just to deal with *fighter craft*?  Do you not realize that is ludicrous?  Triple megaton yields have energy outputs that register as *City+ level * attacks in the Outskirts Battledome, *which is what we are in right now!* 

You are indirectly implying through your statement that the power to destroy a city is required to take out one star fighter from Star Wars.  *That* is the real fallacy!


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 31, 2012)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> I don't understand why you'd not be surprised by missiles. They aren't used by capital ships, now ask yourself why. If those weapons are really that powerful and the ships could be taken out so easily it's moronic to not be using them. I don't find visuals to be particularly reliable in sci-fi series overall because of a wild amount of inconsistency. The animators have a poor grasp of what it should look like etc. Thus we end up with a serious logic gap.



Let's look at the movies themselves

We see asteroids being completely vaped by an ISD's smaller guns and in AotC, Slave 1 fragmenting asteroids with its guns, which left mere scorch marks on Obi-Wan's starfighter.  Then there's that funky seismic mine or whatever, which completely devastates the area around it.  Would it make sense for a cap ship's weapons to be less powerful than the ones displayed by Slave 1, regarding cherry-picked visuals?  Fuck no, it wouldn't


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Mar 31, 2012)

> Why are you trying to use a scene from "Return of the Jedi" in movie format to validate a scene described in the "Revenge of the Sith" novel, something that is two levels of Canon lower on the levels of canonicity than the actual film "Revenge of the Sith"?



ROTJ is a G canon level that shows proof, ROTS novel was edited by George Lucas line by line and is also G canon, thus another G canon source. It was already posted but why not?



> Originally posted by *Matthew Stover's blog*
> Though I did not personally watch him do it, *I received from LFL a Word document of Revenge of the Sith with Mr Lucas' edits, which was distinct from the edits I'd already gotten from Sue Rostoni and Howard Roffman and the rest of the LFL crew, and this document was edited in such a detailed fashion that even individual words had been struck off and his preferred replacements inserted, as well as some passages wholly excised and some dialogue replaced with the dialogue from the screenplay. If that's not line-editing, I don't know what is. What's in that book is there because Mr. Lucas wanted it to be there. What's not in that book is not there because Mr. Lucas wanted it gone*
> 
> Period




Also


> *Sigh* How quickly this thread devolved to this. No one is even trying to bring into question Excalibur's feats.
> 
> Oh well, I guess that's because Excalibur's feats are solidly set in canon



Because apparantly the movie scene you choose to ignore, the novel that was edited by Lucas line by line which supports it, the various other works and secondary sources like encyclopedias which are worked on by various employees from Lucas films ltd all which are canon don't count?Seems to me that you ignore any instance in G canon that supports you then choose instances that do?The latter of which can be handwaved as low end showings especially when multiple sources say otherwise, you would think Lucas Films ltd were trying to tell you something when they have many of their canon material including two G canon sources to support something.

Do I take this as a concession that without:
-Limiting canon sources
-Ignoring instances in G canon that prove otherwise

The ship in question will lose to the ISD?Seems to me you do.

But seriously, don't really care who wins nor do I think SW ships are unbeatable, there are stronger but downplaying what consistent info is given plus ignoring a feat that proves to support it is'nt the way to say the opposing side wins against them. TCW suffers from budget constraints, ROTJ actually has a feat to support it and many other scenes in the movies do, so does the ROTS novel edited by Lucas, so do all other sources. Crimson Dragoon used canon sources(G canon) to support his point, all you do is cry "It's EU so it must be ignored".


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Heroic Trunks said:


> In TESB, the rebel base build a *planetary* shield on Hoth to protect themselves from BDZ orbital bombardment. They wouldn't need to do that if the ships' firepower aren't up to scale with the numbers.



"...Com scan has detected an energy field protecting an *AREA* of the sixth planet of the Hoth system." - Imperial General to Darth Vader, "The Empire Strikes Back" film.

It was a theater shield that was protecting the Rebel base, not a planetary shield covering the entire planet.  I do not know where you got that gemstone of information from, but it contradicts directly with the film.


----------



## Shiba D. Inu (Mar 31, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> [YOUTUBE]lchA-lwqrPw[/YOUTUBE]


where is that clip from ?


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> Let's look at the movies themselves
> 
> We see asteroids being completely vaped by an ISD's smaller guns and in AotC, Slave 1 fragmenting asteroids with its guns, which left mere scorch marks on Obi-Wan's starfighter.  Then there's that funky seismic mine or whatever, which completely devastates the area around it.  Would it make sense for a cap ship's weapons to be less powerful than the ones displayed by Slave 1, regarding cherry-picked visuals?  Fuck no, it wouldn't



You are comparing nickel-iron asteroids to the durasteel armour and deflector shields of starships.  Even then, the sesimic mine induced fragmentation, vaporization.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fluttershy said:


> where is that clip from ?



That clip is from the "Revenge of the Sith" film.  This took place shortly after Anakin killed Count Dooku in the movie.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> WHAT VISUAL EVIDENCE!?



Asteroid vaporization/atomization with anti-fighter batteries and the entire chemical process/state of change taking place in 1/15th of a second.

Get over it and stop trolling.



Catalyst75 said:


> "...Com scan has detected an energy field protecting an *AREA* of the sixth planet of the Hoth system." - Imperial General to Darth Vader, "The Empire Strikes Back" film.
> 
> It was a theater shield that was protecting the Rebel base, not a planetary shield covering the entire planet.  I do not know where you got that gemstone of information from, but it contradicts directly with the film.



It was covering the entire planet was encompassed by the shield, quit harping at semantics. Nor would they want to bombard the entire planet since the entire operation was for Vader to capture the Alliance leadership and capture Skywalker.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Mar 31, 2012)

Can everyone just admit modern sci-fi suffers from horrible explosion scaling issues? I'm not talking about any one series in particular. One of my favorite series, Stargate, suffers greatly from it. Shit happens.

Would I love for every explosion to be accurate? Fuck yes! But I'm just that nerdy. Do I think it is practical? Fuck no...


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> Asteroid vaporization/atomization with anti-fighter batteries and the entire chemical process/state of change taking place in 1/15th of a second.
> 
> Get over it and stop trolling.



That was never my intent in starting this thread, nor has it been my intent throughout the entire thread!

I am not the one using picturebooks meant for grade-school children as evidence!


> It was covering the entire planet was encompassed by the shield, quit harping at semantics. Nor would they want to bombard the entire planet since the entire operation was for Vader to capture the Alliance leadership and capture Skywalker.



*Future Trunks* was the one who brought it up, and I simply countered.  I even used a clip from the film to support what I said.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Can everyone just admit modern sci-fi suffers from horrible explosion scaling issues? I'm not talking about any one series in particular. One of my favorite series, Stargate, suffers greatly from it. Shit happens.
> 
> Would I love for every explosion to be accurate? Fuck yes! But I'm just that nerdy. Do I think it is practical? Fuck no...



I already sent a VM to one of the mods.  When they get back on line, it is likely that they'll shut this thread down.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Catalyst75 said:


> That was never my intent in starting this thread, nor has it been my intent throughout the entire thread!
> 
> I am not the one using picturebooks meant for grade-school children as evidence!
> 
> ...



What the hell are you babbling about here? This is from the film itself directly, during the asteroid chase scene.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> What the hell are you babbling about here? This is from the film itself directly, during the asteroid chase scene.



I was babbling about you used the ICS and that "Story of Darth Vader" book when trying to validate the ridiculous yields of Star Wars weaponry.

Yes, I have seen the asteroid scene, and I know what happened there.

But here's a reality check: on the asteroid calculator, the numbers only go up to triple digit *KILOTONS*, not the triple digit megatons you boasted about.  You were off by over three magnitudes of power.


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

Wrong.

Blaster cannons and light-turbolasers >= triple digit megaton yields.

MLT > double digit gigaton yields.

The visual evidence says your wrong, concession accepted.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Blaster cannons and light-turbolasers >= triple digit megaton yields.
> 
> ...



What?

None of the asteroids the Star Destroyer was vaporizing even come close to a size that requires triple megaton yields of energy to vaporize.  Not even the nickle-iron asteroid that decapitated the Star Destroyer in "The Empire Strikes Back" meets the proper size requirement.

Do you want to know what the *exact size* of an asteroid that requires triple megaton yields to vaporize is?  

*237.3 metres,* which is a volume of 7.000E+6 of nickel-iron ore.

The asteroids the Star Destroyer was seen destroying are positively tiny in comparison.  Based on a visual, they are only roughly the size of the Star Destroyer's *nose.*

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URdX-jfMktg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fang (Mar 31, 2012)

No.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Fang said:


> No.



*Looks closely at video clip*

While the numbers are correct, you are inflating the energy required to vaporize the asteroids far in excess of what the numbers of the Asteroid Calculator actually state.  It is not triple-digit megatons, but triple kilotons.

To get triple digit megaton levels of energy, the energy would have to be 4.184*10^17 Joules or higher.  Vaporization energy for an asteroid 40 metres in diameter is 479.1 kilotons, or 2.0*10^15 Joules.  That is two magnitudes of power lower than your boasting of triple-digit megatons.


----------



## Nevermind (Mar 31, 2012)

Don't even know why the asteroid "decapitating the Star Destroyer" thing was brought up.

I always saw that as being an obvious low-end outlier if you want to take it at face value.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 31, 2012)

Nevermind said:


> Don't even know why the asteroid "decapitating the Star Destroyer" thing was brought up.
> 
> I always saw that as being an obvious low-end outlier if you want to take it at face value.



It was an event that took place in the movie.  I wouldn't exactly call it an outlier if it is in one of the highest sources of canon in the Star Wars Universe.  

-------------------------------------------------------------

How about we stop looking at power output of weapons and look at other factors, like speed and armour strength.


----------



## Distracted (Mar 31, 2012)

Locking by request.


----------

