Author:
His Divine Shadow (the other one)
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 20:11:58 11/09/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: user-sjk2-22.dial.inet.fi/194.251.251.22
In reply to:
Warspite
's message, "Re: Romulan - Imperial scenarios" on 09:36:12 11/09/02 Sat
>>And you should know a laser does not glow in space,
>>like this one did.
>
>The quote does not say it glowed! It doesn't even say
>it is visible!
*sigh*
Then why does it say "A bright red bar of light" in the book?
>Can you provide the e-mail script? The implication
>from the quote is that it was NOT a turbolaser, since
>it says that it struck with force 'like' a turbolaser.
There is no such implication, not even remotely implicated, you should know that laser battery is a colloquial term, stop playing semantics games.
================
>I was wondering about the laser beam attack that was faked by a capital ship
>hiding outside the Coruscant system, was that a turbolaser attack?
Yes, it was.
================
>Again, you are thinking of the wrong example, I was
>talking of the first TIE encounter, when they approach
>the DS. They don't use the turret guns, they use the
>forward guns and the range is way less than visual.
>This is confirmed during the escape from Tatooine,
>where Star Destroyers are clearly visible, but still
>out of their weapons range. In TESB, the Falcon was
>clearly in visual range of the SSD but was still out
>of weapon range.
In TESB they didn't want to kill the MF, in TESB they speak of Ozzel dropping out too close for the system, which wasn't good since they wanted to bombard Hoth from afar.
As for the ANH escape, why do you think they want to try and kill them? I don't see any evidence, only assumptions so contradictions can be manufactured.
As for the first encounter, there was never any firing then.
As for the DS approach, why the heck do you think anti-capship guns could target fighters from afar?
Do you expect 16" guns on battleships to be able to hit fighters?
>It depends on whether you believe the high firepower
>calcs rally. However, ragrdless, we have seen a SSD
>have one section of its shields dropped by 80 protons
>rated at 1.5MT each. A VSD's shield were dropped by
>just 22 torps.
they aren't calcs, they're facts, written forever in stone and sanctioned by Lucasfilm.
As for the proton fallacy,it's getting boring, protons are unknown unconventional weapons designed for shield piercing, they use some unknown proton-scattering warhead, ofcourse there are mentions in the Imperial Sourcebooks which gives capital protons the same power as heavy turbolasers.
The 1.5MT figure is pure unadultereted bullshit and it honestly makes me sick to my stomach, it's based on a baseless assumption by Lord Edam, the BTM does not say anything of the kind, he just assumes a bar stand for so and so many joules, noone takes that seriously.
>I wouldn't doubt an SSD is capable of 'planetary
>disruption. If each turbolaser was 'just' 50MT
>(personally I would rate TLs in 100-200MT range, but
>I'm just making a point here),
Personally I think you're in such deep denial no amount of facts will snap you out of it.
> and there were 250
>turbolasers, the SSD would fire 12.5 GT per salvo.
>That is plenty to cause massive planetary disruption.
Ok, you better put down the bong because you apparenly have about zero knowledge of what 12.5GT would do.
It won't do anything near what you think, it could take out say most of los-angeles pretty nicely if it was a bomb, but it sure won't cause any planetary disruption(the quote refers to a gravity weapon that pulls on planets and disrupts them).
>If they SSD fires just twice a minute, that would give
>In fact, just an hours bombardment (say 2 shots a
>minute) would give 1.5TT, which is probably be more
>than enough to end most life on a planet.
Irrelevant at any rate, since
>So the answer is no then, since that example is not
>from a novel or film which is what I asked for. Comics
>are notorius for over exageration. As Steve Sansweet
>says:-
*snip*
Irrelevant since there are no novels contradicting it.
And the answer is a rining loud fucking yes, and it's fact.
I also note you ignore the other sources, concession accepted.
>The fact is there are no examples in any of the films
>or books where explosions are shown of this magnitude.
>Since films rate about everything, and novels above
>comics, that is important.
There is no contradiction, no dice.
Plus a source higher than the novels corroborates the picture.
Creation of contradiction, failed.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 