BC-304 vs. Imperial Star Destroyer

[darth_timon]

Consider the context of the statement from the quote that Dankayo was evenly cratered. The implication of the text is that the ENTIRE planet was cratered, and not by a small handful of incredibly large hits, but a series of shots that would place Heavy Turbolasers in the gigaton-range but less powerful than the Mark 9 Nuke detonated in 'Beach Head'. Anything less than this (IE, in the kiloton or megaton range) would take days or weeks to completely crater the surface and that does not make for an effective demonstration of firepower, which the Empire is quite fond of.

Oraghan, simply put, I am not prepared to go through every last page of this thread looking for references that back up your claims. You presumably know the books/sources that reference the old Sith ships dishing out damage to Imperial-era warships and you presumably have sources for your other examples.

Perhaps you would also care to quote the relevant events, instead of vaguely referring to them.

I also find it incredible that you think the glassed city in 'Jedi Knight' was not about killing it's inhabitants. Think about it logically for a second- the Empire was clearly making an example out of that city. An example that is not effective if people can A: escape and B: survive. Moreover, by turning the city into molten lava, you are going to kill a lot of people anyway.

More later.

[Mister Oragahn]

I don't think even Mr. Oragahn understands what I'm saying:
You can 'evenly crater' a planet with two craters because they're equidistant.
'Evenly cratered' has absolutely no bearing on how much of the surface is covered, as long as the craters are at equal intervals.

Ahem, this is my point as well. I didn't use the term equidistant because I didn't want to repeat what you were saying, but my point exactly means that. The amount of distance between equidistant points can be enormous.

It does not need to be exactly equidistant, as long as it roughly ressembles an averaged dispatch of craters. You may have a few more craters here or there, but that's not worth a complex description, when "evenly cratered" is explicit enough.

Darth_Timon is the one who has issues getting it past his own beliefs.
He prefers his own assumption over a simple dictionary definition.
Not only he favours his own flawed belief over a fact, but adds another layer of insistance by now claiming that most craters would be stacking upon each other, just to be sure to cover the whole surface.

Consider the context of the statement from the quote that Dankayo was evenly cratered. The implication of the text is that the ENTIRE planet was cratered, and not by a small handful of incredibly large hits, but a series of shots that would place Heavy Turbolasers in the gigaton-range but less powerful than the Mark 9 Nuke detonated in 'Beach Head'.

What is this context which seems to exist only to support your wanked estimations?

Anything less than this (IE, in the kiloton or megaton range) would take days or weeks to completely crater the surface and that does not make for an effective demonstration of firepower, which the Empire is quite fond of.

Oh, because Dankayo is now an official demonstration of firepower, no more a mission to destroy a tiny rebel base and find out important information.

You just don't get it, do you?

What's the damn point sending mopup operations if the frakin complete surface of the planet has been totally cratered? What are your fancy troopers supposed to do? Take photos and drink booze on the edge of craters, talking about wives and kids, eating sausages??

To boot, slagging the base, only to send troops inside the base for mopup operations is just a perfect argument in favor of imperial moronism. At least, we can lessen the overall embarassment by pretending that the mopup stuff was to actually patrol around the base and eventually find stuff there, not in the slagged base.

On another hand, the utter stupidity of the situation would have you ponder if the base was really slagged or not, or if it was just another case of authors using inapropriate words to describe a certain level of destruction, which if used and understood literally, would mean an even greater level of destruction than what really happened.

Oraghan, simply put, I am not prepared to go through every last page of this thread looking for references that back up your claims.

Too bad, because you should.

You presumably know the books/sources that reference the old Sith ships dishing out damage to Imperial-era warships and you presumably have sources for your other examples.
Perhaps you would also care to quote the relevant events, instead of vaguely referring to them.

I don't have the references in a neatly ordered book at hand's reach, nor in a text file whatsoever. When I need one, I go search for one on internet. So if I need to post it again, I have to research for it. That's why I post in a thread, and expect people to do a bit of effor on their side actually read my post(s).
I won't repeat myself like a broken record just because someone wants me to rehash the stuff that's already been posted in the same thread on and on and on.

If you're not arsed to readthe thread, it's your fault, not mine. It just serves to show that you don't care about actually looking at the whole evidence, and you confort yourself with your limited pool of knowledge and your denial stance.

I also find it incredible that you think the glassed city in 'Jedi Knight' was not about killing it's inhabitants.

It primarily was about destroying the city. That's the most simple and direct conclusion one can reach.

Yours... adds a layer of bias and assumption which is not necessary.

Think about it logically for a second -

Because you do?

the Empire was clearly making an example out of that city. An example that is not effective if people can A: escape and B: survive.

Of course it can.
Look at what happened 9/11 when just three buildings were destroyed and a few thousand people died.
Tell me there was no utter shock, and that this didn't fuel a vast range of extreme emotions, exploited in the case of a war machine, to make a point, precisely.

Now what do you think woud happen if all of New York would be entirely leveled, with 20% of the population dead?

Oh, yes, I see. The demonstration is not effective.

Moreover, by turning the city into molten lava, you are going to kill a lot of people anyway.

Of course. And that's enough. It will be a very costly side effect on the number of deaths and injuried people. You don't even need to plan killing people, since in the first volley of kiloton or megaton shots from your hundred of cannons hitting a large city, there will already be millions of deaths.

There's just no evidence that the order was to forbid all inhabitants from leaving the city, and having all - or nearly all - of them dead.
Just how many times will you need to read this before you get it?
It is your assumption. It is flawed.

I already explained how in a few shots, by targetting astro docks, and, eventually, launching all your squadrons of TIEs, they will forbid the vast bulk of a population from escaping, before even starting to blow the whole city to pieces.
I also told you that your assumption that most inhabitants could quickly reach ships is absurd.

You're just being completely obtuse, just to enforce your wishful belief that ISDs have an insane level of firepower, so in a very few shots, they can literally bury a whole megacity and kill all people before they had time to even understand what happened.

Even if 50% of the people escaped, the Imperials' case would still be made. Besides, even if there were survivors, just think for one second about what they have lost.
For those who survived, just think about their friends or beloved ones who did not. Just think about what they've left behind. Houses, business. Chances are that most refugess are now poor miserable people without a roof.
Easy targets for pirates, easy preys for slave trading and criminal cartels.

I'd go as far as to say that only destroying the city and killing 10% of the population is already thousand times more than enough to understand the point the Imperials were trying to make:

Don't mess with them.

Seriously, look at earthquakes in modern countries. People are terrified by the level of destruction it causes on buildings, even though the casualties are pretty low.

Plus, once again, I'll repoint to KOTOR, when Malak attacked Taris, many people died, yet the cannons were barely spitting more than a couple of hundreds of tons of TNT each.



So the conclusion is rather simple.
You're clearly not even aiming at a conservative stance. You are utterly biased towards the highest firepower figure possible, which is not the way it goes.
There's no point continuing arguing with you, until you remove your eyelids.

[TKG]

Oraghan, simply put, I am not prepared to go through every last page of this thread looking for references that back up your claims.

Not prepared or not willing?

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Ahem, this is my point as well. I didn't use the term equidistant because I didn't want to repeat what you were saying, but my point exactly means that. The amount of distance between equidistant points can be enormous.

I apologize. I misunderstood.

[s09119]

I'm sorry, but no. Just no. Using the destruction of Taris as justification for the "not much damage" argument is just desperate. That was 4,000 years before conventional Star Destroyers even showed up, and weapons can gain a LOT more power in a matter of decades, forget millenia.

Star Wars EU does, however, does point to the fact that Star Destroyers aren't all that powerful. In Episode IV, Han notes that it would take the entire Imperial fleet together to destroy a signle planet. That's over 200 Star Destroyers (One of the books confirmed that number, I'll try and find it...). Therefore, they aren't nearly as powerful as some people are claiming.

[Mister Oragahn]

I'm sorry, but no. Just no. Using the destruction of Taris as justification for the "not much damage" argument is just desperate. That was 4,000 years before conventional Star Destroyers even showed up, and weapons can gain a LOT more power in a matter of decades, forget millenia.

How so? Blasters and lightsabres still have the exact same properties since that era. Same power, same everything.
The whole galaxy had reached a technological plateau.
Droids back then were just as intelligent as they were during the Galactic Empire. Hyperdrives, shields and repulsorlifts worked just as the same, with the same abilities and accelerations.

The Sith Interdictors were replicated by an ancient factory, the Star Forge, a giant machine constructed by a race which controlled the whole galaxy long before the existence of the Old Republic, and used the original model of a Republic Interdictor Cruiser used by Malak.
Think the Alterans, but in Star Wars.

Apparently, there would even be a book, or a source, somewhere, saying that an "Interdictor Cruiser could outgun the Interdictor-class heavy cruiser built in the Galactic Civil War by Kuat Drive Yards."
Though I'd like to double check that source, the detail seems too clear to be a mistake of some sort.

Funnily, it's absent of wookipedia, the supposedly Star Wars wiki. Though it's indeed very complete, this wiki is also written by a bunch of guys sucking on Saxton's juices. That's just why you see the exact same claims about firepower, shields and Death Star II size (900 km, sure lads, sure).
Of course, it's then without a surprise that the information from the more neutral and classic wikipedia has been dismissed, since we see the firepower of Sith Interdictors in action, which doesn't reach the insanity that a certain branch of SW fans harbor.

Star Wars EU does, however, does point to the fact that Star Destroyers aren't all that powerful. In Episode IV, Han notes that it would take the entire Imperial fleet together to destroy a signle planet. That's over 200 Star Destroyers (One of the books confirmed that number, I'll try and find it...). Therefore, they aren't nearly as powerful as some people are claiming.

Many have tried to get a reliable interpretation out of Han's words at that time, but his sentence is too vague and incomplete to make something sound out of it.
Dodonna's dialogue isn't better either, and only makes sense firepower wise if you consider that, during the briefing for the pilots, he was talking about the turbolaser defense grid they rebels would have to deal with to complete their mission.

Look here for a good take on the question.

[Jimbo-DR]

As I recall he says "an entire fleet with more power than I...". He didn't actually indicate what fleet, did he?

[Mister Oragahn]

Indeed, in the film, he doesn't finish his sentence.

"with more (fire)power than I've..."

[TKG]

http://site.voila.fr/anubis91/bscap449.jpg

While this was originally posted by Anubis 91 on an entirely differing thread it is the image I was talking about with the arcing smoke contrail from the deady firing off a nuclear warhead. Sorry if I deraile dthe current course of the conversation but this goes back to when we were discissing the details on the daedelus/prometheus's missile doors and launch angle.

[Mister Oragahn]

We've seen it in First Strike as well, when the Daedalus fires missiles at the satgate.

That said, I have issues with the idea that there should be any trail of smoke left in space like that. There's nothing to stop the expansion and the cooling.

[TKG]

I agree, it's a dubious special effect that keeps getting used.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Actually, there would be smoke. The only thing wrong is that the explosions would die out much faster and be far smaller. The smoke is completely okay from a realistic viewpoint.

[Mister Oragahn]

The smoke is completely okay from a realistic viewpoint.

I'd disagree.

[TKG]

smoke in space isn't realistic.

[IcyNeko]

http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/s...ic1793443.shtm

Smoke in space will happen, but not like they show in scifi. Particles fly out of a hull breach at all different directions, and disperse. YOu wouldn't see a cloud following the ship. The air/dust/smoke particles would be dispersed rather quickly upon exiting space.

What Battlestar does is fairly accurate.