BC-304 vs. Imperial Star Destroyer

[Mister Oragahn]

I agree with Jimbo.

In several episodes we have seen the lack of power by the ships in StarGate when to actual TNT equivalence. When the ships attack the earth and various other planets the firepower demonstrated is a Joke.

I couldn't understand what your link Mister Oragahn about Kelowna was about. I read it and didn't understand it.

But it is a fact that Hat'aks do jack to a planet. In one of the episodes i remember Hatak's firing at the planet surface from orbit. The hits were NOT visible at all from orbit. If it was indeed 200megatons per shot, this would be CLEARLY visible from space. Also when they attack earth, it takes them days to take over the planet.

If they had 200 megaton shot guns. THey fire say 60 shots per minute. 40 ships. Thats what 2400 shots per minute. That would easily take out earth and all its centres in one minute.

People have said that earth is capable of self destruction. With its current arsenal of sub 50 megaton warheads this is possible.

The TNT equivalnce attributed to ha'taks just don't stack up.

This is compared to ISD which is said to at least be capable of some planetary destruction by itself.

Your quote about the girl seeing the forests begining to burn is significant. To see forests burning from space is significant. Especially when seeing a hatak shoot at the surface of a planet seems to do nothing.

You cant say daedy can beat an ISD or vice versa. You have to prove that stargate weapons are just as effective against ISD shields as turbolasers are in SW universe.

One of the SSD's has a laser which supposedly has the firepower 2/3rds of the death stars main laser.

If a ISD is even 1000th the size of a SSD, it should have 1000th the firepower/energy output. It begs to ask the question how powerful 2/3000th of a death star beam is. I'd say pretty powerful.

Actually, if you think about what you wrote from another perspective, you'll understand that the reasonings you've been through are erroneous.
You may want to reconsider your claims.

[Dutch_Razor]

Have a look here:

Asteroids:

During its hunt for the Millennium Falcon, the star destroyer Avenger used its minor guns in the brim trench and on the hull to clearing asteroids in its path [TESB]. These observations indicate a lower limit on the energy delivered by a single blast from one of the smallest turbolasers. These were probably not full-power shots, but were merely intense enough to remove the asteroids with minimal trouble and waste. The asteroids were on the order of several meters to several dozens of metres in diameter, and composed chiefly of iron and similar metals. Realistically, the asteroid composition may have been silicate (eg. like granite or basalt) or dominated by iron-like metals.

The energy delivered by the turbolaser shot must raise the asteroid material from the initial temperature to the melting temperature (Tf), then supply the latent heat of fusion (Lf) to change the state frm solid to liquid, and then raise the temperature to a boiling point (Tv) and provide a latent heat of vaporisation (Lv). The boiling point is pressure-sensitive; in principle it might be close to the melting point because vaporisation of the exterior of the asteroid occurs in a nearly perfect vacuum.

Solid iron has a density 7870 kg/m³ and a heat capacity of 449 J/kg/K near room temperature, latent heat of fusion Lf=2.67x105 J/kg and Tf=1811K. The heat capacity increases with temperature, but we can use these figures to determine a lower limit on the amount of energy needed to melt a ball of iron in space. With a diameter of 10m, starting from 0°C (arbitrarily chosen, though the real initial temperature was probably lower) the energy required to melt an iron asteroid is > 3.94 TJ. This whole quantity of energy is delivered to the object within the duration of the turbolaser bolt, no more than a fifth of a second.

Asteroid diameters of 5m - 20m have been suggested [Stephen Comblidge, Peter Chung: private correspondence and newsgroup contributions] implying minimum melt energies of 0.49 TJ to 32 TJ respectively. This is comparable to the energy yield of a kiloton of TNT, 1 kt = 4.2 TJ. For further comparison, a small and primitive fission bomb might have an explosive yield of 20kt.

The latent energy of vaporisation may alone exceed the amount of energy needed to melt the body, let alone the amount needed to raise its temperature to the boiling point. In terrestrial conditions, the latent heat of vaporisation of a 10m diameter iron ball is approximately 25.8 TJ. Estimates of the melting plus vaporisation energy [by Eric Vandersall] are 32TJ and 260TJ respectively for 20m and 40m diameter asteroids at an initial temperature of about 206K. These are uncertain as detailed values, since the heating process process is non-equilibrium, supersonic and takes place in vacuo. Nevertheless, these results are plausibly indicative order-of-magnitude estimates. Therefore, considering the maximum observed fire rate of at least 1/s [in the asteroid field and in battles throughout the saga] we can estimate a lower limit on the power of each of the small anti-fighter point-defence cannons as between 250TW and 2000TW. The sixty-four visibly large dorsal heavy cannons must have considerably greater power than even this lower limit.

* * * * * *

A turbolaser blast from the star destroyer Avenger vaporises an asteroid. The time interval between the first and last frames is much less than a second. In the first two images we see the surface material on the destroyer's side of the asteroid being progressively vaporised before the material on the other side or in the asteroid's interior.

(http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.htm...onry-asteroids)

A nice scientific explanation of the energy required to destroy that astroid iin the movie. All C-Canon (books) which contradict G-canon (movies) must step aside for the G-canon, if you take that calculation and redo it yourself you will come to the conclusion of a multi-kiloton firepower, per small turret.

True, that astroid did destroy the bridge of the battered SD, I missed that.

[Mister Oragahn]

Have a look here:
(http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.htm...onry-asteroids)

A nice scientific explanation of the energy required to destroy that astroid iin the movie. All C-Canon (books) which contradict G-canon (movies) must step aside for the G-canon, if you take that calculation and redo it yourself you will come to the conclusion of a multi-kiloton firepower, per small turret.

True, that astroid did destroy the bridge of the battered SD, I missed that.

Looking at where the bolts were coming from, it appears they were fired by medium turbolasers.

That said, you've seen the yields yourself.

Isn't it funny that the same author demonstrates a firepower in the kioton range, and then suddenly decides years later, without any form of evidence, that cannons can now throw gigatons of energy. ******s quickly jumped on the firepower going crescendo from one SD design to the other to say that since 200 GT was for the old Acclamators, then the ISDs should be way above that. Without any form of evidence or demonstration.
So it's BS. Plain and simple.

[Dutch_Razor]

I don't give a damn what else he said that calculstion checks out.

An earth railgun would not be able to deliver the same kind of energy:

E=0,5xmxv^2 , m= approx 3 kg (going by RL railguns), E=1E12 (note : Tera is actually 1E12)

which gives v as 816497m/s. (0.8 lightspeed).

Almost an impossibility to achieve in normal speed for us mere humans I'd say (especailly given an Earth railgun usually works at 3500 m/s)

(edited)

[PG15]

Actually, E = 0.5 x m x v^2 (v-squared).

So that gives a speed of only 26 km/s; definatley doable.

[Dutch_Razor]

I stand corrected, but it is still 816497m/s

[darth_timon]

Right, since this thread has suddenly merged with the other one, I'm a little confused, so I'll be addressing things piecemeal.

On the issue of the 'Beach Head' firepower calcs, I would like to state that the link I posted earlier refers to calcs done by working out the size of the explosion (which in turns gives us the yield of the explosion) and Carter's statement that that explosion provided that shield with 70% of the energy needed to encompass the planet. The remaining 30% energy would have come from the Ha'taks and the Prometheus, with some energy also coming through the wormhole.

So let me assure any doubters that the calcs are not meaningless.

Secondly, in 'Camelot', when the Odyessy is struck by an Ori beam, we hear the technician very clearly say that the shields are down by 50%. Now, we don't see the 304s take any further hits from the beam weapons, which means the shields would have the chance to regenerate, even if they don't regenerate very much. That's probably why the Ori ships then double-teamed the Korlev- in order to guarantee a kill.

Spoiler:

In 'Company of Thieves' we see two Ha'taks firing upon each other. They exchange several shots before one of them is destroyed. In 'Off the Grid' Ba'als Ha'tak takes several shots before the shields fail.

Using the examples in the spoiler tag, we can work out roughly how much firepower an Ha'tak can absorb and from there, all we have to do is double it to work out what a 304 can withstand.

If an Ha'tak can take 12 25GT shots before the shields fail, that works out at 300GT. 12 shots might actually be too small a number, as I can't recall a few of the episodes all that clearly. If we're generous and say 24 shots, that would give us shield strength in the region of 600GT for an Ha'tak, which would need to be doubled to 1,200GT for a 304. This still means it would only take twelve broadsides from an Accalamtor troop transport to take out a 304's shields (fact is, that the AOTC ICS is canon and there's no getting around that. I'm not going to get into a slanging match about the integrity of Curtis Saxton and Mike Wong, so save any jibes you might have about them).

If we apply logical thinking to this, then an ISD, a ship 30 years more advanced than the Accamator, a ship that is a dedicated warship rather than a troop transport, must logically have more firepower. Her shields would be designed to face off against opponents of equal firepower. She would present a challenge in the same sort of league as an Ori warship.

[Jimbo-DR]

To but in, the equation is E=MC^2, correct, and not E=MV^2?

[PG15]

Right, the first one is for mass conversion into energy. E = (1/2)MV^2, however, is for just the kinetic energy of something.

Really, if we're talking about something travelling that close to light, we'll need to bring in relativity.

[fugiman]

But what you say is wrong. You provide no evidence, only beliefs.



Fighters in that case is irrelevant.
Crew experience? Indeed, I think it was sufficiently demonstrated in ESB as being quite poor, between a captain exiting hyperspace out of the plan, so the rebels were warned of their approach, star destroyers ramming each other thanks to the cornering worth of a beached whale, coupled to the fabulous anticipation of their captains, whom the most graduated of them was completely fooled by Han's trick.
And let's not forget, above all, how those experimented captains were peeing their pants about their security with the idea of flying their ship through an asteroid field, or completely forgot to shoot down the biggest asteroids, you know, for example, to avoid the complete destruction of a star destroyer's bridge, instead of providing training for their cannoneers by taking potshots at 7m wide asteroids.
The firepower part has been adressed, you didn't listen, so I won't bother asking you to make an effort since you're obviously not even trying to defend your claims.
As for the reinforced hull, it's ********.

Just because you are right about a lot of stuff and know a bunch of big words doesn't give you the right to be an ass hole

but anyways the SD crews have lots more experience. I mean you can't just base it off of the movie where the bad guy is suppsoed to make stupid mistakes like that. I mean how good of a movie would it be if the bad guys figuered everything out and were super smart and could beat any rebellion. So lets see who has more experience in space combat the Empire who has traveled the stars for years and years or Earth who has been able to build ships for about two years and still have to get most their technology from the Asgard.

Also lets say that the Deddy and a SD went to toe to toe with out unending upgrades. The Deddy has a few nukes (very powerful I know), 16 F-302s and rail guns while the SD has the Imperial-class Star Destroyer has 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannon batteries, and 10 tractor beam projectors. It carries a full stormtrooper division, 20 AT-ATs, 30 AT-STs, eight Lambda-class shuttles, 12landing barges, and six TIE squadrons.

Also

Since its introduction, an improved model of Star Destroyer also saw action. The Imperial-II Star Destroyer is an upgraded model with increased hull shielding, and more weapons, sporting 100 turbolaser emplacements, 20 ion cannons, and 10 tractor beam projectors.

Proving it has crazy amounts of firepower compared to the deddy and has upgraded hull shielding

There are entire nations that, throughout their history, do not expend as much energy as a Star Destroyer does during a hyperspace jump. Powering the 1.6 kilometer-long craft is nothing short of a miniature sun -- a solar ionization reactor bulges from the ventral spine, using its raging fires to fuel the giant warship

Thus proving having a huge power source over the Deddy or the Oddy with out a ZPM



Source

http://www.starwars.com/databank/sta...stroyer/?id=eu

[Mister Oragahn]

Just because you are right about a lot of stuff and know a bunch of big words doesn't give you the right to be an ass hole

Yes, liebel and a nice smiley, all packed in one. That's just cute.
It's easy to throw opinions, claim they're facts, and insult people when you're called on your own flawed methods.

but anyways the SD crews have lots more experience. I mean you can't just base it off of the movie where the bad guy is suppsoed to make stupid mistakes like that.

Yeah, you mean, we must be selective, that's the solution!
Funny how the film where the bad guys supposedly make the worst mistakes when they're piloting star destroyers, because the good guys have to win, is also the same film where the rebel alliance is defeated, left on the run, Luke beaten up and Solo betrayed and captured.
But besides that, it's allright! Good guys always win, so let's ignore the inconvenient bits!

I mean how good of a movie would it be if the bad guys figuered everything out and were super smart and could beat any rebellion. So lets see who has more experience in space combat the Empire who has traveled the stars for years and years or Earth who has been able to build ships for about two years and still have to get most their technology from the Asgard.

You're talking about experience like if in this precise case, it will make a difference. Please tell how the magic card called experience will chaneg fate when it simply comes to nuking a ship's ass.
Yes, a general's experience-powered super intellect will deflect nukes and enable him manoeuver his ship beyond its mechanical abilities because... he's been flying for years and he's smart.
Yup. How couldn't I see that??

Also lets say that the Deddy and a SD went to toe to toe with out unending upgrades. The Deddy has a few nukes (very powerful I know), 16 F-302s and rail guns while the SD has the Imperial-class Star Destroyer has 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannon batteries, and 10 tractor beam projectors. It carries a full stormtrooper division, 20 AT-ATs, 30 AT-STs, eight Lambda-class shuttles, 12 landing barges, and six TIE squadrons.

The Daedalus has a few nukes?
The last time they had only type of nukes onboard, for unknown reasons that is, they still managed to launch a hell of a number of them!
Now we've seen that they can have mark 3s, mark 8s, sometimes 26 MT nukes, eventually carry one gatebuster for good measure, and may even have a small stock of gigaton ones, considering how it's utterly easy to have any.

Besides, did you miss the evidence I provided about Star Wars fighters' ordnance actually putting holes in ISD shields? Did you miss the parts where those warheads (photon torpedoes for the vast majority of them) had yields in the kiloton range?
There are even fresh extracts at SFJ.net, from Vector Prime, describing the extent of photon torpedoes power, and sound extremely close to high yield kiloton weapons.
It means, at best, that a focused barrage of warheads fired from a wing of fighters, totaling a couple of few megatons, fired at a spot on the shield's surface, while put a hole in it.
Have you missed the part about how small fission nuclear explosives leave big gaping holes in the metallic hull or new republic's warships?
Where are those petaton level shields? Where is that magical neutronium armour that can withstand gigatons or even teratons of fire?

Also

Since its introduction, an improved model of Star Destroyer also saw action. The Imperial-II Star Destroyer is an upgraded model with increased hull shielding, and more weapons, sporting 100 turbolaser emplacements, 20 ion cannons, and 10 tractor beam projectors.

Proving it has crazy amounts of firepower compared to the deddy and has upgraded hull shielding.

Proving what? You don't even know by which factor the upgrades went by, and you don't even know from what level they started.
Oh, I see, they started from the "200 gigatons of firepower" that come straight out of the blue! Of course!

There are entire nations that, throughout their history, do not expend as much energy as a Star Destroyer does during a hyperspace jump. Powering the 1.6 kilometer-long craft is nothing short of a miniature sun -- a solar ionization reactor bulges from the ventral spine, using its raging fires to fuel the giant warship.

Thus proving having a huge power source over the Deddy or the Oddy with out a ZPM

This must be a joke. We don't even know what kind of nations WEG's author was talking about, and we know nothing about their power consumption, and any assumption on this would be unreliable and unacceptable, because this statement an insanely wide range of different models, from the most conservative to the most far fetched. There's no consensus to reach on that. The statement is absurdingly too vague to begin with.
And how funny it is that they actually make it clear, in that line, that ISDs use energy production methods that make it identical to the workings of a "miniature sun" and rely on "solar ionization". Those exact same elements which completely contradict Saxton's claims about hypermatter anihilation he uses to support the yields he's been claiming.
A good job shooting one's own foot!
Yes, because matter anihilation and fusion are literally apples and oranges.

[fugiman]

You know Mister Oragahn you are like a child that thinks they know everything and just try to show everyone up. So I guess you win because you have the hypothecial numbers coming out you ass So I can't compete with that but I will say that the SD would win so there. Thats all I got so please do not moch me for not knowing big numbers or big words but just what I see from movies and have read from books. So there thats it

[Mister Oragahn]

You know Mister Oragahn you are like a child that thinks they know everything and just try to show everyone up.

Not really. I prefer well reasoned observation and someone who can defend his claims. Beliefs, on this matter, don't interest me, especially when put in sharp contrast with more tangible thoughts and reasonings.
I'm going to tell you the point. You make claims, you back them up. That simple. Then don't cry wah wah because people use "big words" to actually add meat to their opinions.
Now, ring me when you'll be done with your insults and your whining.

So I guess you win because you have the hypothecial numbers coming out you ass

Thank you. That said, despite my huge and over inflated ego, I'm afraid my hole isn't large enough to allow the release of so many and so large numbers as the ones I've presented over several pages, based on observation and deduction.

While you, on the other hand, only presented hard solid facts. I bow before you. Me and my humble goatse hole.

So I can't compete with that but I will say that the SD would win so there. Thats all I got so please do not moch me for not knowing big numbers or big words but just what I see from movies and have read from books. So there thats it

It's more about how you shoud drop your pride, and stop being over defensive just because some people actually spend time trying to tell you that you may be wrong even on the simple interpretations of events featured in the books and films.

Now it's just a show, you have your beliefs. Right. They've been heard. No need to insist on them, especially since they've not changed since the first time you voiced your opinion.

[fugiman]

Damn straight my opinion has not changed but I bow to you because no one else seems to have any numbers or big words to back them up so there, I guess you win (but not in my heart )

[ManiacMike]

Damn straight my opinion has not changed but I bow to you because no one else seems to have any numbers or big words to back them up so there, I guess you win (but not in my heart )

Stormtroopers in the millions have splendiferous cornifications in their cranium, so their powermass in their bodies can lead to astronimical atrosities in the aerosphere. Then the SUPERCALAFRAGELISTEXPIALADOCIOUS human tauri exponential exasterbates the poop theory.

Big words = make me giggle like a school girl.


I like how everyone here argues about fictional ships then call other people stupid when they cant prove anything.

Theres never been a ship in space with weapons so I highly doubt anything can have a piece of fact about space explosions and power.