Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Space Weapons Comparisons Part 2 - Star Wars and Star Trek!!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 сер 2024
- In part 2 we will compare the destructive power, range, and accuracy of photon torpedoes, quantum torpedoes, phasers, turbolasers, and
proton torpedoes, using the benchmarks from part 1.
Part 1 can be found here:
• Space Weapons Comparis...
The new patron poll for the Chiss Ship design is open for all to participate!!
/ resurrected
One-time Paypal Donations here: www.paypal.com/donate/?token=...
Music credits:
Scientific Reasoning by TeknoAxe: • Scientific Reasoning -...
I seldom write in the comments as my Opinions are just what they are...mine. Now, I understand all the desire to fully explain how if all these universes were just thrown together, figuring out which faction/group would win. Now, for trivia. Gene did away with Lasers because NASA explained that a "Phased Energy Beam" would be far Superior to a "Laser" Gene also created "Photon" torpedoes because again, They could be scientifically explained. Gene spent Years creating the most workable and scientifically explainable weapons, ship designs and propulsion/engines that he could in the 1960s. Star Wars, by George's own words, had little forethought put into any of these areas. He wrote a story and created everything else around the story. I like Both Star Trek and Star Wars. I also see them for what they are, entertainment. Star Wars is a Fairy Tale, where good and evil are in a constant struggle, where Star Trek, at least the series I like and watch, are about exploration and discovery. Both have great points and very weak points. For a good example, ALL Star Wars weapons were designed in theory to be in a constant war, as that Universe has yet to see a single minute of peace. Star Trek designed their weapons for multiple tasks, Like from the first TNG episode where they used the ships "Phasers" to "feed a new life form. Again, they do not exist in the same universe. Both are good, but both are Galaxies apart in every possible way. Gene calculated for months not only how the Ships would travel through space, but how fast they could travel and how to even avoid the theory of time travel at the speed of light. Where George, again, didn't even think about how fast or even how the ships would travel through space, only that it fit into his story as best as possible. Please, everyone enjoy that shows for what they are, entertainment.
It seems to me that Star Wars fleet rankings and physics systems are aerial-inspired, while Star Trek fleet ranking and physics systems are marine-inspired.
As someone who served in the United States Navy in a combat position,: Ops, as an Electronics Warfare Operator I can attest to what you said about the fleet in Star trek versus Star Wars is true
Also, what the gentleman you responded to said about NASA and lasers is also equally true a particle weapon is more efficient and more destructive per watt of energy used than any laser could possibly hope to be. This is because when people calculate in sci-fi world yield based off of watts consumed what gets missed all the time is efficiencies inherent in these designs. In other words, how much of those Watts actually make it through the device in the form of the destructive beiam being used.
In the end all that I want is is an energy measurement of potential.
To get an idea of this you can take lighting for example. A fluorescent light bulb at 40 Watts is more efficient at making more light from those 40 Watts than it incandescent bulb. Don't believe me? Put a fluorescent tube 4 ft in length the standard 40 watt bulb next to a 40 watt incandescent light bulb and turn them both on and see which lights the room brighter. Likewise, LED is far more efficient than virtually anything it making light. We're down to the point of single digits in Watts making the same amount of lighting as incandescent upwards to 100 watts..
so as you can see, Watts don't tell us anything other than how much power is consumed period or how much work is being done period how efficient network is at creating destructive force is what's important and particle weapons basically are way more efficient than lasers. Hence why the US military has left laser technology behind largely for weaponry and is focusing on particle weapons.
Can you define what is meant by "Phased Energy Beam" It's just for context, a research link would also be appreciated.
@@joncouncil4454 The US military failed miserably to build a Particle beam weapon. It was the Soviets who were successful! The US military tried X-Ray, Gamma Ray Lasers and LISP weapons (Plasma sent by carrier Lasers) and failed miserably!
It's fascinating to read how worked up people get over which fictional universe has more powerful weapons than the other.
Ikr those starwars fans are hysterical 🤣
Star wars laser "Fair" in accuracy? Have you ever WATCHED a Star Wars movie? XD And I'm not shitting on Star Wars, I love three of the movies (and tons of games, some books, etc.), but boy, do they miss a lot.
Expecially handheld lasers used by the stormtroopers
Keep in mind that in space, all range is visual range. It just depends on your optics.
6:54 The ten peta-joule laser you keep mentioning only outputs that much power for a tiny fraction of a second. The amount of energy it actually uses is nowhere near as much as is needed blow up an asteroid.
Reading the comments section and this has basically transformed into another star trek vs star wars.
It just never ends with you people.
I do recall in TNG seeing Ferengi photon torpedoes being shot down by the Enterprise phasers. I don't recall the episode but if it rings a bell, a wormhole was found by both parties and thought to be stable. When negotiations didn't go well, the Ferengi tried to destroy the wormhole by firing a couple torpedoes which the Enterprise intercepted with phasers fire.
Yup they called it a 'ferengi missile', though.
Headless Chicken of Toronto I think Ferengi weapons are not a good example of Star Trek tecnology, especially since a single Akira class was enough to destroy a whole fleet of Ferengi battleships.
Give any type of beam weapon adequate time and computing process, and it can hit a missile. A lot of tabletop Traveller battles have not only scores of sandcasters trying to dilute enemy beams but also turret after turret firing beam and pulse lasers to hit enemy missiles.
Makes for an impressive battle, but range is considered here. Missiles in Traveller take time to reach their targets depending on range and if the to-hit roll was successful or not (which case they simply arc away into enemy jamming). Beam weapons can easily pick off those marks even one turn away, roughly somewhere within 1k kilometers.
This is, of course, based off of military - grade weapons of the Imperium. The Third Imperium has the technology to have those targeting suites :)
In most situations, photon torpedoes are moving too fast to be shot down. Larger projectiles like missiles or plasma torpedoes have heavier yield but are slower.
If you look at the "Star Fleet Battles" board game rule set written by Franz Joseph, it allows you to defend against missiles and plasma torpedoes using point-defense phasers, but that is not allowed on photon torpedoes.
What you are describing is something of a staple in Sci-Fi, And even being used to a limited extent today. It's called point defense weaponry
3:30 - Yeah? How many times have you seen a Photon Torpedo miss it's target while the guidance system is active?
Volleys of photon torps do seem to often splash all over facing shields instead of simultaneously striking specific target points.
Seen one extreme-precision shot fired from orbit (and through several km of water) take out a photon torp. Seen a tractor beam capture one, seen another used to deflect one.
@@pwnmeisterage
But never a *miss* while the guidance system is active.
@@Idazmi7 Photon torps can miss. Most of the volley hits target but sometimes one or two strays get evaded or fly straight away as a clean miss. Star Trek tends to credit hits to the skill of the weapons officer and misses to the skill of the helmsman - strange that accuracy inherent to the torpedoes themselves is rarely mentioned, stranger indeed in a setting where ship computers can apparently pilot and shoot things with some competence. Hit ratio is very high, though, at least 90%.
@@pwnmeisterage
_"(...) Hit ratio is very high, though, at least 90%."_
Exactly my point. And those misses are generally the result of interference or extreme target maneuvering, such as in _Elaan of Troyus_ (torpedoes missed a dodgy little ship that was booking it at Warp 8) and _Wrath of Khan_ (interference from the Mutara Nebula).
@@Idazmi7 don't forget "The Changeling," where a torpedo hit Nomad (about 1m in length) at 90,000km. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have even better targeting systems by TNG.
Actually a pretty decent review. Although I would rate the ST weapons slightly more powerful. BUT, in many cases, accuracy is more important than having the most powerful weapon. SW weapons can't hit a planet when they are in orbit, for goodness sake. Hell, X-Wing pilots were lucky to hit the Death Star while they were INSIDE IT. Whereas ST weaponry is EXTREMELY accurate. On low power, a Galaxy class pinpoint obliterated dozens of Jemhedar fighters and Maquis fighters, hitting half a dozen at a time. Federation torpedo launchers can easily launch anywhere from 1 to a couple dozen torpedoes per launch. And they are variable yield, capable of being as low powered as a few kilotons of detonation power, all they way up to hundreds of megatons. Quantum torpedoes are INSANELY powerful, potentially one of the .osr powerful weapons a ship can carry. They use the basic power of the universe, and detonate using quantum explosives, ripping their targets apart at the quantum level. Specifically designed to strike the Borg, the theory was that the Borg could not adapt to something that was hitting them at the most absolute basic level.
In addition, the design of SW Turbolasers is, as the screens show on both tv and movies, are much more similar to WWII naval deck guns, like the 3" anti-aircraft guns in a destroyer or cruiser, than a futuristic energy weapon. In Revenge of the Sith, during the Battle of Coruscant, we actually see energy shells being loaded into, and kicked out of after firing, a breech of the turbolasers on several capital ships, exactly like a naval deck gun. The lower level turbolasers also moved by Stormtroopers or Droids moving the guns basically by hand, cranking the guns into position.
This is in stark contrast to the ST universe, which generally features extremely futuristic weapons emplacements, not the least of which is the Federations Type X Phaser Bank, which is the strip type phaser bank seen on most "modern" Federation starships.
Lastly, maneuvability. ST ships just kinda sit there, and are as maneuverable as a rock in a stream. ST ships, even capital ships like the Galaxy class or Sovereign Class Enterprises, much less the Defiant, could literally spin on axis, end over end, evading every shot of the extreme slow moving and slow reloading, though massed volley, turbolaser fire, while picking each turbolaser cannon off from extreme range - probably OUTSIDE turbolaser range - and then blasting the Star Destroyers shield generator with multiple photon torpedo hits. By that point the Star Destroyer is completely useless as a warship, and could be destroyed at will or not at all, depending on the needs of the Federation.
Basically, boil it down, the Empire doesn't stand a chance, except they have MASSIVE fleets of ships to call on, and hundreds of thousands of ships, and, if we believe ST: Picard, the Federation only had ONE major shipyard capable of building massive capital ships, and only has a few thousand ships at most. Which falls into "quantity has a quality all of its own" as Stalin said.
I agree with you, and i like this channel, but... author is extremely biased in Star Wars favor, often disabling, or "accidentally" omitting most of Star trek abilities and powers in his videos.
@@rohenthar8449yea, looking at the newer feats that both Trek and Wars have, it's clear that not alot of effort was really put into this video and was only parroting things from noncanon tech manuals
I'm also sure a joint Romulan and Cardassian fleet obliterated 30% of a planets crust using a single volley of Phasers and Torpedoes.
Worf also stated that a Klingon armada obliterated the tribble home world in the latter half of the 23rd century and in TOS, the Enterprise was repeatedly stated to be capable of destroying a planet pretty easily, even not intentionally.
The ultimate argument winner:
-Xindi super weapon: 3 km in diameter, can destroy a planet. Is 200 years old in TNG.
-Death Star: literally a small moon, can also destroy a planet.
Xindi was not a race of the Federation. Not only that, SW has the Centerpoint Station that can literally move stars and wipe out planets light years away and it is 100,000 years old by the time of the films......
catmani2 Considering the average Xindi warship was slightly superior to the NX-01 the Xindi do not seem to have tech any where near TNG Federation level or even TOS.
Also Centerpoint Station is A not-canon and B Star Trek has species that can wipe out entire civilizations from history with a single ship, species that can destroy entire solar systems without even trying and species that can literally create and destroy Universes.
And if we enter soft canon (things that are Canon but could be changed) we have the Federation fighting fucking temporal and multiversal wars at Doctor Who level in the 31rst century.
I could also mention the Star Trek non-Canon stuff but that is just to op for anything Star Wars Legends can offer.
Well, if you throw in the Iconians, Doomsday Devices or ascended omnipotent beings, I guess all bets are pretty much off and any human-crewed ship is nothing more than an ant.
Stoney3K Centre Point Station was built by Star Wars precursors so it obviusly needs to fight against Star Trek precursors.
Well, both the Iconians and the Doomsday Devices are *ancient* in the Star Trek timeline, but since these are completely overpowered factions, it's not a fair comparison to include them anywhere.
I'd love to see you do some weapons comparisons from some classic Anime shows, like Star Blazers/Space Battleship Yamato. There's some cool weapons in there, including the Yamato's Shock Cannons and the Wave Motion Gun.
Or the Reflex/Synchro Cannons from Robotech/Macross.
star trek voyager had muskets that had equal yield to a supernova when fighting Q using Q weapons
It is just a representation of Q's weapons.
Now imagine Q Continuum's Space Force.
The Star Destroyer DID NOT vaperize that meteorolite at all! It simply blown it up, as the rate of energy transfer would not be sufficient to cause total vaperization before the rock is broken up due to part of it expanding. It would be comparable to glass shattering when being overheated rapidly.
Torpedoes should have more accuracy score because... The variable yield was described by Malcolm Reed as being able to "knock the com array off a shuttlepod without scratching the hull, or put a three-kilometer crater into an asteroid." ....
I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed out yet, but the weapons used by human ships in stargate before the Asgard upgrades were rail guns and nukes that might have had naqahda that would increase their destructive power 10 fold. Goa'uld ships and the asgard seemed to use high energy plasma bolts. We can see possibly a smaller version of the 304 railguns being used defending Atlantis during a Wraith assault.
I think you've totally under estimated the destructive power of phasers. In "Enterprise" during a test firing that goes wrong they show their phasers at the time as having the power to destroy something the size of Mount Mckinley. By Tos they state that their phasers can lay waste to a planets surface and by TNG era they are ridiculously over powered.
I believe the exact words I used were that they could disintegrate virtually anything they touch due to the nature of the fictional subatomic particles called nadions. Our nukes today can do all that you described though.
Great video! Keep up the great work!👍🤘👍
The tech manuals on phasers are way off, because the shows themselves, which override tech manuals, show/talk about Phasers destroying mountains from orbit, and cutting continental plates apart for various reasons throughout the shows. During the the assault on the Founders homeworld by the Obsidian Order fleet in DS9 they completely destroy the crust of the planet with a volley from a few dozen ships. This means that they are somehow doing damage way beyond what they are saying, which makes sense with what you said.
Lets remember that the Tsar bomb still did pretty much no real damage to the continent itself. So a Phaser would have to be doing damage equal to hundreds of times, if not thousands of times more damage than the Tsar bomb if they are able to cut continental shelves apart and destroy the crust of a rocky planet. This pretty much puts the Enterprise's phasers on par with the single reactor blast from the Death Star we see in Rogue One....and we know the Enterprise can fire their phasors VERY quickly.
There is the problem that 1.5 kg of antimatter creates. This quantity comes from the technical manual and as such has to be considered dubious or at least incomplete especially when the source material wasn't from any specific on screen source or the internal official screen-writers guide. All such technical manuals are simply licensed products.
So to resolve the antimatter issue with the discussion below, we can use known facts about current nuclear bombs. They use a conventional explosives in a very special arrangement to compress the fissile material that is the source or the real destructive power. The conventional explosives are the initiator and are not even close to the kiloton forces that a nuclear bomb creates. Since the TNG manual reference is a licensed product and not from on-screen material and no specific reference to a screen writers guide supports this, we can cannot assume that the antimatter explosion is the only source of the explosive force of a photon torpedo. This is important since the discussion below seems to indicate that the explosive force is several magnitudes larger....
TNG and later series refer to photon torpedo yields in units called "isotons" so this needs to be resolved to some extent.
But I first want to preface this with the fact that "explosion radius" which is used in this exercise is not some point at which forces simply cease. Forces continue to expand at decreased energy, pressure, etc. No attempt is made to reconciled how an old Earth pressure or energy level would be used as the delineation point (Earth terms) versus Star Trek (future fictional Earth terms). I do assume that whatever the value is, they will be equivalent because of the fact old engineering standards tend survive the millennia (just google how the width of ancient Roman chariot wheels determined the width of rail road tracks). But on to the discussion...
TNG photon torpedoes are defined with a maximum yield of 18.5 isotons in the TNG Technical Guide. But again, licensed publications such as this should be considered dubious (within the fictional universe) unless the information came from actual screen time or from an official screen writers guide. And what is an "isoton" anyway? To answer that we need some concrete examples from on-screen.
- A 25 isoton photon torpedo explosion could destroy an entire city within seconds. (VOY: "Living Witness")
- A 54 isoton yield gravimetric charge could blow up a small planet. (VOY: "The Omega Directive")
- A 90 isoton bomb of enriched ultritium had the explosion radius of 800 kilometers. (DS9: "A Time to Stand")
- 200 isotons was the explosive yield of a Photon torpedo with a class-6 Warhead. (VOY: "Scorpion, Part II")
- A 5 million isoton explosion of a multi-kinetic neutronic mine could affect an entire star system. The shock wave had a dispersive force radius of 5 light years. (VOY: "Scorpion, Part II")
Based on the above I think it's reasonable to conclude that the 18.5 isotons is an appropriate value for TNG era (pre-DS9 and pre-VOY) photon torpedoes. even though I find no specific mention of that value on screen.
Setting aside (forever) that Star Trek cannon has specialized weapons that can destroy an entire star system and it's surrounding area... let's look at the smallest example above that gives a detonation radius in order to determine what an "isoton" refers to: 90 isotons and 800 km radius. That radius is roughly the gulf of mexico. Something with that amount of energy clearly decimated the Earth (the Permian-Triassic extinction event that caused mass extinction and created the Gulf of Mexico). And something a little more than half that yield (the 54 isoton example above) could clearly destroy a small (dwarf?) planet. Realize that destroying a small planet doesn't necessarily mean vaporizing it. So at least the 90 isoton example is reasonably comparable to a known event and can be extrapolated to include the 54 isoton example by reference. But now we are left with how to convert isotons to conventional units.
- Hiroshima bomb size was 15 kilotons and a blast radius of 1.7 miles.
- The Tsar Bomba, a 50 megaton bomb, had a blast radius of 7.7 miles.
So it took over 3,000 times the warhead yield to get a 4.5 times larger blast radius.
To arrive at a definition for "isoton" we need to extrapolate the Tsar Bomb to 64 times it's radius (500 miles or 800 km).
- Method 1: Energy density of an expanding sphere is inversely proportional to the square root of the radius. So 64 times the radius requires 4,096 times the energy at the center. So now we have 90 isotons = 50 megatons times 4,096 = 204.8 gigatons of TNT. Thus 1 isoton is 2.275 gigatons.
- Method 2: 3,000 times the warhead yields 4.5 times the radius. Each time we increase the radius by a factor of 4.5, the warhead needed increases by a factor of 3,000. So to get 64 we need 7.7 miles * 4.5 ^ 2.78. So the warhead yield is 3000 ^ 2.78 = 4.6 petatons of TNT.
I prefer the lower method 1 as a more reasonable example because Earth's atmosphere would affect the explosion radius if it were rated as amount of atmospheric pressure. I prefer the purely space based example of method 1. I did not find a Joule rating of the theorized asteroid source of the Permian-Triassic extinction event to develop a third method to divine the meaning of isoton. I'll leave that to someone else.
Therefore, the stated 18.5 isotons for a typical photon torpedo is reasonably equivalent to 2.275 * 18.5, or 42 gigatons of TNT.
Assuming that the isoton scale is a linear instead of geometric or logarithmic.
Also, the Star Trek photon torpedoes are travelling at FTL effective speeds and Star Trek ships themselves can engage in combat while at FTL speeds should not be discounted either. Guidance and targeting against FTP targets as well. Nevertheless, I do recall an epic battle in the DS9 (IIRC it was Cardassia ships and the Foudners' Jem Hadar ships attacking DS9) where the station was able to shoot down incoming torpedoes; but, I don't recall any ship being able to do it in any Star Trek episode. Thus, FTL combat ability gives a decided advantage to Star Trek (regardless of nominal yield of the Star Trek weapons). B5, for example, might not even be able to see, much less target an incoming photon torpedo before it hits. Not to say that given the chance, other empires (Star Wars, B5, etc) wouldn't be able to eventually develop such technology; but that's another discussion.
In a roleplay on Discord I made a space faction that mainly used loads of railguns and gatling auto-cannons, and some tactical Tsar Bombas and positron beam lasers (Essentially a spinal mounted antimatter electron beam).
I was wondering how well that would do? Considering that a lot of sci-fi energy shields are based on electrons.
The assumption that the asteroids in the Empire Strikes Back are made of iron is likely to be wrong. In Wookiepedia, an article about the field states that they are rocky with various mineral deposits. Some have concentrations of iron and other metals, but they are not monolithic chunks of metal. Because of this, the calculations of the destructive power of turbolasers that are based on that scene may need to be re-assessed. starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Hoth_asteroid_field
I think this one is pretty much spot on as well. Completely agree on the SW lasers being most likely plasma based. I just can't see them working as "flak" curtains that we often see them in the movies. This would work if the "containment" is set to fail at some distance from the firing ship, letting the bolt detonate in vacuum. Also a good point on phasers demonstrating higher destructive effect then the power consumption of their emitters would assume. It's never consistently demonstrated how or why they work the way they do in the technical manuals or the movies/shows, but the fact that they can do several radically different effects based on setting (stun, generate heat, disrupt subatomic bonds) seam to give credit to the hypothesis that their modus operandi is not related to direct energy projection. And to end it up, just a small point on disruptors, they seam to be slightly more powerful version of phasers, but less efficient in energy consumption.
Cheers, and great videos mate!
Given the fact we never saw a Shield wall or bubble around ships in Star Wars (before The Last Jedi) I just assumed that the Flak-style explosions were actually Lasers and Torpedoes being detonated by deflector shields. Since we couldn't see the shield bubbles, and the Death Star shield was a good distance from the surface, I just figured Star Wars shields are farther from the ships projecting them than they would be in Star Trek or Stargate.
Personally, I'm just going to make like TLJ never happened and pretend this is still the case.
The worst thing to judge power of weapon or shield strength is by the tv show\movie. The power of weapons on shows and movie is always dictated by how fast they want the battle to play out. Example is watch episodes of Stargate Atlantis 2 wraith hives will fight each other and just because the heroes are on board one the hives they will take forever to kill each other trading hundreds of shots with each other. A few episodes later just because they want the scene to play out faster two hives will shot at each other and within 10 shots they somehow kill each other. Same thing can be seen in Star Trek and Star Wars. Best and probably the most famous example is Executor Super Star Destroyer from Return of the Jedi. Ship has the ability to absorb the firepower from entire fleets and still function yet all of a sudden a tiny fighter rams into the ship takes it out. Works for a dramatic moment in the movie but translate those ships to reality some how and the fighter would have been like a bug on a windshield to the Executor.
+Evilactions
OMG yes. This is so true. Especally with the SSD part.
I have to agree. Turbolasers are not just anti-capital ship weapons, they are planetary bombardment weapons. A single turbolaser blast can supposedly annihilate an entire city (talking a large city, like maybe Theed on Naboo, not quite Imperial Center on Coruscant) if said city lacks decent shields.
Of course, weapons in both Star Trek and Star Wars are often inconsistently portrayed in their destructive yields. In Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, even when Chekov warns Kirk: "But, sir, we're firing directly on your position!" when Kirk orders a danger-close photon torpedo, the torpedo's detonation yield is, relatively speaking, very unimpressive. By all rights, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy should be (as Chekov might say in Star Trek VI) "simply waporized".
Same thing in Star Wars Rebels....season 3 I believe. Grand Admiral Thrawn's star destroyer, The Chimaera, is firing turbolaser blasts at the ground of a planet where a powerful Force wielding creature exists. The turbolasers are detonating right behind Kanan as he tries to outrun the blasts. By all rights, Kanan should just be blasted into random energy, even at the considerable edge of a turbolaser's purported impressive blast radius.
So, what is the precise detonation yield of photon torpedoes or turbolasers?
The Yield of Plot.
(just like in dealing with a ship's engines in sci-fi/space fantasy)
How fast is Warp 5 (Star Trek) / light speed (Star Wars)?
The Speed of Plot.
:)
True :( it is much easier to make comparisons in game universes; which will be fun to do eventually. Games have to have consistency or they are unplayable.
Great video!
For Star Wars Lasers/Turbo Lasers, the reason why I'd assume they're used in relatively short ranges is due to shields. We see in TLJ that a cruiser can withstand a barrage of turbolaser fire almost indefinitely if its shields are up(which is why missiles and fighters are used, since they can pierce ray and particle shields). If I remember correctly, a shield's "hit points" is less of how much damage it can absorb and more of how much energy a shield can absorb before the generator overloads. Because of this, close-range firepower allows a ship to batter down a shield, overloading the generators, and also gives an increased chance of landing shots.
When comparing Star Trek and Star Wars, you have a big problem in that they're not really comparable. Both have ridiculous power levels in different areas, and unlike harder sci-fi universes, the focus is not in consistency, but in what looks good on screen.
Because Science estimated that going by the blast door scene in Phantom Menace the output of a lightsaber was probably strong enough that just holding one in hand would feel not unlike standing on the surface of the sun in regards to energy output, and if you somehow kept the heat contained hitting someone with it wouldn't chop off a nice cauterized limb, it would turn all the water in the target's veins to gas near instantly and explode them into a shower of gore. So that tells you basically the amount of thought for realism over style Star Wars puts in.
I completely agree. The weapons are used to bombard cities, bases and ground forces planet side, so range isn’t an issue. I believe your explanation is the most reasonable
Boisegang yeah Mon cal shields are biased in almost every sci-fi universe we know of. Star Trek creators have NO idea on how tiny 300 gigawatts of energy is so their *shields* must be very weak and can be taken out by heavy turbolaser fire in seconds.
@@aurorathearcticwolf4243 it was 400 gigawatts. And it was from a ship that was literally made of magic.
the last jedi is rule defying garbage.
i have to say i love both universes equally but i also have to pint out that all star wars turbo laser and laser cannons are manned gunnery type weapons so all their accuracy should be poor as well as range because it’s line of site
It is worth noting that lasers in my universe come in a variety of calibres. Laser cannons, for instance, are the smallest of lasers a ship may utilise, and are likely the ones used to take down that asteroid. There are larger laser cannons, at that, and the destructive potential increases the bigger the laser cannon is. Turbolasers are much larger than laser cannons, with a greater range and a much larger destructive yield. Some turbolasers, such as that of the Resurgent-class Battlecruiser Finaliser, are also modified with kyber crystals to even further enhance their performance. Other turbolasers, such as that of the Mega-class Star Dreadnought Supremacy, are also fired in arcs and are pin-point accurate over long distances. Another much more potent laser would be the superlaser, but that needs no explanation. Thus, we can conclude that our lasers come in many forms, and classifying lasers as one general weapon is not generally accurate.
There are other weapons you may have missed, also, such as the Mass Driver cannon, a form of projectile-based cannon that fired at speeds of over 2.5km/s, comparable to most railguns. The AT-TE utilised this form of weapon.
Agreed with the "laser" lingo being used for a too-wide variety of beam-based and bolt-based techs, since apparently some smaller-sized spacecraft on your universe also use common lasers and not only blaster variants.
I think they already classified Mass Drivers on the previous video. The proton burst beams however I've yet to see if they get mentioned (apart from the giant superlaser category).
Yes, I'd like to see other weapons covered.
"Brought to you by..." I recommend the grammarly app but you are still a genius!
For another weapon video, take a look at some of the exotic weapons! Some examples:
Thalaron Radiation (Star Trek)
Drej Mothership (Titan A.E.)
Covenant Beam/Plasma Swords (Halo) (cause we all know how Star Wars lightsaber work)
DON'T forget Drifter superweapons in EVE online
Cool video, you win a new suscriber.
yea for the weapons you show it is pretty good, look up the transphasic torpedoes, polaron beams, and tetryon beams, they are all from Star Trek but talk about over kill
I would like to note that we shouldn't judge weapon yields by their tech manuals, dialog statements or effects on man made objects, they should be judged against objects we know the composition of.
We never see a standard Star Wars ship weapon destroy any natural object larger than those asteroids, which are smaller the a 1.5 km Star Destroyer.
On Star Trek on the other hand, we have seen their standard compliment level mountains, which are usually 1km +.
Thus we can pretty surely say that by raw destructive power, standard Star Trek weapons surpass standard Star Wars ones...
I have to say i only really know star wars and star trek...i agree with your looks on the weaponary of both with their advantages an weaknesses...
You should do one for ships now...you could use categories(speed both FTL and sublight, weapon load out not like this video just how many, ect)
In the version of Star Trek that exists only in my head, the main job of phasers is to drain enemy shields, whilst the job of torpedoes is to deliver the coup-de-grace once the shields are gone...
How does one measure the range of a missile in space? If they don't have to change course to track a target they will travel on forever unless they finally do hit something. Do you go by when the power for the guidance system runs out?
Photon torpedoes are actually safer that way. When the power for the containment field runs out they will self destruct. A missile with a chemical warhead might stay live for centuries.
So it looks like I need to add Asgard plasma beams, and Quantum Torpedoes to my shopping list. Thanks - I'm off to Walmart!
Quantum Torpedos are 1000X more powerful than Photon Torpedos, at full yield. They utilise different energies, over completely different matter-states to achieve the gain.
I believe I commented about this in your explanation of SW lasers, but they’re Plasma Bolts that are accelerated through a rail gun like mechanism in order to retain & maintain their shape until impact OR when it reaches a certain distance to function like flak.
Could you do some weapons from video games, like Halo, Mass Effect etc.
Some things about Phasers. In the Enterprise-D’s encounter with the Borg, they damage “20%” of the Borg Cube as per Worf’s tactical assessment. Working off of a 3km long cube, that’s 27 cubic kilometers, 5.4 of which the Enterprise’s phasers vaporized in a three shot volley, for about 1.8 cubic kilometers worth of Borg Cube destroyed per shot.
Excellent deduction there! Really brings into focus just how powerful phasers would be against an unshielded and unprepared target, which the Borg Cube would have been on the first few shots.
@@michaelwillis8966 And then they just stopped firing for... reasons.
@@Swiftbow Picard had no idea of the threat he was facing. Having destroyed that much of the ship, he assumed the Borg Cube was crippled. If it had been any other ship, it probably would have been dead in space.
@@Acrosurge That's quite the leap, considering they hadn't identified any key systems.
Hell, you could blow away 20% of any of the Enterprises' and they'd still be a threat if you managed to miss the warp core.'
Pulse phaser on the defiant worked very well. Seems to have the more benefits then phasers without a limited magazine of torpedoes.
There were ranges for the Star Wars weapons in the older games (X-Wing, Tie Fighter, X-Wing vs. Tie-Fighter,...) or at least you couldn't fire them if the enemy was too far away.
could i suggest LOGH weapons and the weapons from Gundam ie Mega particle cannons and what not
I seem to recall that the A-wing fighter specs I read state that it is armed with actual laser cannon and not laser initiated plasma weapons. I don’t know about other fighter craft in SW in terms of their anti-fighter directed energy weapons.
The Romulan vessel shown at the end of the video which you plan to do an article on is the V-30 Winged defender heavy cruiser. Apparently it was supposed to inhabit the later 1970's TV series Star trek phase 2 which never came to fruition but some of the sets appeared in the first Star trek film ' The motion picture' released in 1979. It also appears in the 1985 Fasa wargaming publication Romulan ship recogntion manual, which while no longer in publication can be still found on the second hand market.
If you go with a wedge-shaped capital ship. I suggest you arrange the guns parallel to the edge instead of parallel to the keel, like star destroyers. This would greatly improve their firing arc to have minimal blindsides.
If you ever pick up book universes could you do an entry on the Honorverse ships and weapons?
ha man can you do a space weapons comparison of halo, warhammer 40k ,starcraft and mass effect please do so for your fans
The Reaper weapons on Mass Effect might be hard, those things seem basically Vorlon/Shadow level power, while the rest of the weapons are extremely comparable to The Expanse and BSG, Halo Ring effect would fall under the same type of weapons that was ignored like Death Star lasers (well more like solar system killers than planet killers, less yield than the death star laser per individual target but supernova+ level impact), while the rest of the weapons there is like a hodgepodge between Expanse level tech for the humans and Star Trek level tech for the aliens. WH40K is the one I'm curious about.
Never, ever throw in 40K. Just...no. It will always end in "For T' Emperor!" as a human tsunami of Guardsman drowns every other universe in the blood of the faithful. It doesn't matter if other universes have higher tech. It's the sheer scale of 40K that means it'll win.
@@ScreamingTc inb4 someone mentions the Xeelee/Time Lords/The Culture
Wouldn't 40k curbstomp the crap out of everyone else?
There is a video that talks about this... 40K can't be used in these comparisons. This is due to the level of tech and also the just shere power of everything being on a totally different scale than any other game/movie. Basically the end of any video that tries to use 40k is ... "I just wasted your time as you knew coming into this that 40k won"
Macross (SDF Macross not Robotech) vs Gundam vs battletech in mechs and weapons.
I would say Gundam would win by default, but in turn it depends on the type of Gundam. If you are dealing with Gundam 00 and Gundam Unicorn the higher end would beat the majority of capital ships and the like featured in these two videos. Macross being in general a more realism oriented show is mostly equivalent to the likes of X-Wings in power, not much more, infinite missile barrages aside, while the actual SDF would probably be comparable not far from the Death Star laser. Battletech is even more in the realism turn, and a few superweapons aside more comparable to modern tanks and the like in power. Drop one average Gundam into that setting and nothing but an ancient mech would be more than cannon fodder to be exploded by the hundreds.
Majority of "Super Robot" genre from Evangelion and up tend to drop into the super weapon category meanwhile, with the likes of the Demonbane and the Gurren Lagann going into universe killer territory.
The gas in the laser blaster is explosive in nature it's like a cross between plasma and photon torpedo all in one shot
can you do an analysis of the tactics of the uss defiant
stealthy outrider vessel
what bothers me about the defiant is that 40 starships were destroyed at wolf 359 and didn't make a dent. how many normal starships is the defiant worth? how many would you still need to destroy one cube? seems to me that the defiant's main weapon against the borg should be a massive antennae array that bombards the borg with computer viruses.
could you do a video on the weapons from andromeda, farscape, mass effect and halo (and maybe doctor who, like daleks ships as we've seen a lot of them) as well
What role would contructs like "Photonic Atoms" play into this? Light particles that behave like Actual Atoms, Forming Crystals and Gasess. Would that effect some views on certain weapons?
I think lumping Star Wars lasers and turbo-lasers into one group isn't quite fair. You are spot on with lasers, but the destructive potential, accuracy, and range on turbo-lasers scales up quite more than the smaller fighter and self-defense turret lasers. When you bombard a planet, you're using turbo-lasers. When you are in ship to ship combat, you're using turbo-lasers.
Agree. One analogy I have heard about lasers/turbolasers is liking them to WWII anti-air guns/big guns. Lasers/AA guns are for hitting small fast moving craft and turbolasers/big guns are for capital ship combat and bombardment. So lasers would be 20mm and 40mm cannon, light turbolasers would be 5-in. and 6-in. guns and heavy turbolasers would be like the 14-in and 16-in guns.
Completely agree as well. The fact that we don't see beyond-visual-range turbolaser duels doesn't mean the ships can't shoot that far, or even do so accurately; it just means the director recognized that it makes for cooler space battle set-pieces to actually show both sides' ships in the same shot blazing away at each other.
For that matter, it's amazingly unfair to say that Trek phasers and torpedoes have excellent ranges because a tech manual said so, when the only times they ever shoot at something they can't see is when the target is cloaked. Just about all the rest of the time, they only ever fired when they were at Battle of Jutland ranges of a dozen or so kilometers - and what the hell is this about phasers being super accurate? Even at point blank, they still routinely miss at those ranges. Either they almost never get the target locks he mentioned, or Starfleet hires the same rookies as X-Com.
I do think that Phasers got their accuracy placed way too high. While in TNG they are generally accurate, one simply just has to take a look over at DS9 and the Dominion War to see that not all shots hit. As far as star wars lasers go, I believe they have better range than described, but the accuracy at such ranges is so bad that you would need to be firing hundreds of turbolasers at a time to hit anything moving. Also, Trek phasers have very long ranges, but do miss once range gets beyond visual if the target is moving very quickly.
Edit: I know what the Last Jedi says, but this was clearly done for plot reasons and since no actual range is given, basing anything off those scenes is just speculation.
One simple line from almost any Star Trek show tells you how accurate the weapons are. "Evasive Pattern Blablabla!" If a big hunk of metal like a capital ship can 'evade' shots, then they aren't all that accurate.
TatsumiyaLightning This. It doesn't help that the special "evasive maneuvers" are always comically simple, too.
Riker: "Engage pattern Riker-alpha!"
Helmsman: "You mean, 'gently bank left,' sir?"
Riker: " ...Yes."
Helmsman: "Aye, sir, engaging maneuver."
_[half_ _the_ _incoming_ _fire_ _somehow_ _misses_ _from_ _2_ _kilometers_ _away]_
A couple of things for your B5 weapons last episode...
according to efni.org. the Omega Destroyer uses particle beams as their long reaching raking weapon not lasers, though many races in B5 call them lasers they are all particle beam weapons more akin to phasers/disruptors. The effective range for the Omega's particle beams is 26,000km and requires a lot of energy (1,050TW) to rake an enemy with a continuous beam punching through over 45m of steel.
Do you think you could do a video on the Kontos class Star Frigate?
I know off a explanation in cannon as to why they are caller Proton Torpedoes. they called it a proton torpedo because rather than doing damage via direct application of the antimatter explosion they cause but, were doing it through that cascade of protons. that they use a baradium main charge, detonated by a proton Detonator. (Baradium is a highly volatile element used in thermal dementors and was used to create some of the most powerful explosive weapons in the star wars galaxy. Depleted baradium could be used as Slugs (bullets)) ( this is what I remember correct me if I'm wrong)
but the point is they are anti matter torpedoes so I don't know about yield but they are under represented here.
The gauss rifles in the game Star Conflict are stupidly actuate and quite powerful
How about the Tri Cobalt device? Like in Voyager.
I am impressed with those B5 slashing energy weapons on the Narn heavy cruiser that slice through other ships and in the last episodes through an entire space station 1000 years in the past like butter. They however look difficult to aim.
The biggest advantage The Federation has over the Galactic Empire is massive ranges and accuracy. While the turbolasers can be fired to hit targets from orbit, maybe a little further away, Federation ships can engage at 300k km. The biggest advantages the Galactic Empire has is numbers and speed. It's literally 300 member worlds and thousands of colonies vs a million systems, and untold colonies/settlements.
Firepower is debatable since we have many contradicting scenes in both Star Trek and Star Wars, they both have on screen evidence of dialing up weapons power levels, so they either cause a pockmark on a rock to blowing up/vaporizing stone walls/pillars.
I will admit the Star Wars side builds it's ships in a more martial fashion, so theres all those weapons emplacements to factor in too.
Either way it's fun to compare all the nerdy stuff.👍
I feel like arguing both in a wider scope and in narrow scope. So, I will.
Babylon 5 also had nukes and while it explained their use, made it clear that a megaton grade device was weak. One of the TV movies, Thirdspace, from memory, had Sheridan deploying an using a 500 megaton, 'enhanced' device. If my memory is correct on the matter, we're dealing with the inverse square law, where an spherical burst of hard X-Ray energy. Nothing but hard X-Rays and the type of radiation that just plain kills you and weakens metal for exposure to.
In the case of the turbolaser versus asteroid, I believe we need to look at exposure over time more than amount of energy. It would take that much energy to blow it up, but to do it in a period of a fraction of second, implies that there's also more energy going into it. Additionally, from memory, we also have debris moving away from the blast, again, more energy left over from the impact.
I don't have exact numbers, but you can't destroy energy, only transform it, twice in this instance. We're seeing an transformation from the impact, thermal energy, to kinetic momentum, energy, from the debris. That should change the calculations slightly.
Widening that scope slightly, I think you could apply that for many of the other weapons, as well. Phasers have a 'burn' time of a few seconds, at least during/post TNG. Or are delivered in bursts of fire, the phaser cannon of the Defiant or TOS era weaponry. The impact of Babylon 5 lasers and pulse/plasma weaponry looks to be much the same as well. Lasers seem to have a 'burn' time, while the multiple impacts of other weapons do matter.
Babylon 5 again, while the Vorlon 'lightning' weapon was never detailed, from memory Shadow weaponry was. It was described as a form of anti-proton weapon. When it hits something, it literally breaks the nucleus of the stuff it hits.
Source, various game system documents that detail either the Clark regime agenda, plans to develop weaponry from the Shadows, as well as some RPG material. Licenced material too.
Staying on B5, we also have other explosive devices, in the form of missiles, as used by the Earth Alliance, and mines by the Centari. Also, by the Centari we have a nuclear equivalent weapon, I'm not sure of the exact name of, but they do seem to possess them. As used by Londo to help send a message to a certain individual.
Now, onto the narrower scope, I think it's worth while considering as well, doctrine here. What's classed as long range in one universe doesn't compute as long range in other.
Star Wars and BSG would have doctrinely limited ranges of engagement. They work to line of sight on a whole. Presentation wise, so too do most of these universes, however, there's examples you can use to argue otherwise. At least in the scope of both their strike fighter doctrine and their capital ship doctrine.
In Star Wars and to a degree in BSG, they have strike craft capable of FTL, Rebel Alliance fighters, the Raptor. So it's a method of movement, as opposed to an offensive, direct doctrine asset. Only in the X-Wing do I see it being used in a method I would call doctrine, same goes for Shadow of the Empire, though the latter is more distant. Microjumps to deceive the Imperial forces pursuing them. It could even be a Rogue Squadron exclusive trick.
Babylon 5 is one which has the possibility of behind line of sight engagements. See Sheridan's destruction of the Black Star. Supposedly impossible to destroy, yet, he managed it. Dirty trick? Sure.
I would also offer that a universe like The Expanse, in universe, fundamentally happens at weapon ranges that are 'extreme' by the conditions shown by other universes. All weapons are beyond line of sight, except for point defence systems, arrays. Everything else is designed to operate at levels where the human eye can't see the target.
Stargate SG1, well, fits into both tropes. The Goa'uld, Ori, Wraith, Asgard, other groups, work within line of sight. For different reasons, from ego, the Goa'uld, to unconcern for their physical form, Asgard. Technological limitations, Wraith, Ori, fits between ego and capability. Yet the weapon of Stargate Command show a potential for beyond line of sight engagement, as well as the Jaffa resistance, in the use of Al'kesh and Gliders are a long range strike asset. Matched on the Stargate Command side by the 302. The Daedelus and Ha'tak, Wraith vessels also have extensive hangers.
To the degree that secondary explosions disabled a Wraith cruiser, if not destroyed it.
Star Trek is the difficult question here. We both have both very close engagements seen, as well as engagements that happen at extreme ranges. Now while not wanting to point to specifics, we've had pursuits of hostile vessels and engagements in warp. That to me says that for something like to be practical and possible, you need to have the weapon range and potential to be able to engage at long ranges.
I believe in some instances, we've had the Defiant come out of warp, hot, ready and firing. That to me, says that speed of impact, violence of action are factors in their doctrine. They are permitted and trained to do so under set conditions for advantage. See also, a certain Picard maneouvre.
While you can answer this, yes, it's down to the knowledge of the writers and their research, but excluding doctrine as presented, does make a weaker foundation to argue from. Numbers don't matter when the people using them don't seem to be able to make full advantage of the capability at their disposal.
so im guessing the final call for what ship will win will be empire/chiss, battleship or corvette i cant make up my mind on what people will vote for on this one but ill be really surprised if im wrong.
It was close between battleship and cruiser/heavy cruiser, they chose cruiser, so will make it something like a heavy cruiser or battlecruiser. :D
Surprised and saddened that Andromeda isn't here. Great show in some ways, not so great in others. But the warships and technologies were well done - Andromeda Ascendant was a "Heavy Cruiser" equipped with an impressive variety of weaponry, defense, and tactical systems - unlike the ships of other sci-fi series because it was actually meant to fight different threats in different ways. Advanced multi-role multi-purpose capability without needing as much lazy writing, wondrous treknobabble, or heroic ass-pulling to seem "realistic" and "immersive".
I would largely say that I agree with your analysis.
One caveat: BSG, I am pretty sure that in at least one or two episodes those large turrets are firing missiles not rounds.
A really well thought out essay. Well done.
I completely agree with you on the notion that in Star Wars, which is "space fantasy", the term "laser" and I'll add "light speed" are generic terms....in the way that one might say "What kind of Coke do you want?" (as in a waiter or waitress at a restaurant asking what kind of soda do you want).
I realize that this essay is about sci-fi weapons, but if you'll indulge me:
In the realm of dealing with superluminal velocities in Star Wars, I do not believe it was hyperbole on the part of Admiral Piett in The Empire Strikes Back when he says to Vader: "If the Millennium Falcon went into light speed, she'd be on the other side of the galaxy by now." I believe he was speaking literally. Unless the galaxy represented in Star Wars is considerably smaller than our own Milky Way galaxy, then Star Wars ships are apparently much, much faster than Star Trek ships.
When one looks at a layout of the Star Wars galaxy, even some of the most commonly known or mentioned planets lay at variable points throughout the entire galaxy. In Star Trek, the galaxy is laid out in four quadrants....and the territory of the United Federation of Planets, even at the time of The Next Generation, is only a miniscule part of the Alpha Quadrant. When they refer to the Voyager, being stuck in the Delta quadrant (opposite corner of the Milky Way) and making its way back home, they do say that even at maximum warp, it would take Voyager, what, 70 years to get home (IIRC, been a long time since I watched "Caretaker".) And as many of us geeks know, maximum warp in Star Trek is....well...you know....really fast. (Sorry, Galaxy Quest moment there. :) )
But in Star Wars, the ships are making trips to worlds well on the other side of their own galaxy in a matter of hours, or even, at most, a couple of days. Even ships with the slowest hyperdrives (indicated by a higher number in their hyperdrive multipliers) can travel between two distantly spaced worlds in a time that would make a StarFleet Captain feel like he was driving a car from the late 1800's.
Again, this is assuming that the size of the Star Wars galaxy is roughly the same as our own Milky Way.
I know I'm not the only one who's considered this.
Thanks for indulging me. :)
On the matter of Star Wars' proton torpedoes, I do believe their yield is about 2 kilotons, if I remember the old Star Wars Encyclopedia correctly. So, about a tenth of the Fat Man/Little Boy bombs. That may have changed and its explosive yield might be larger, since the data I refer to is at least 25 years old.
Star wars torpedo can be said to be as large as 100 Megaton per clone wars episode some CIS ships uses theme in "star wars clone wars TV show also on star wars manual book for technology.
So I like it as a very basic breakdown but what was not brought up was difference like shield tech star Trek ships can modulate their Shields to better adapt. then it also didn't take in maneuverability and speed in which weapons can be targeted. Is Thier targeting computer comparable which is very important and if they can modulate the energy frequency of their Shields that would be real game changer for a star destroyer being comparable.
can you do side arms/infantry weapons next?
In star wars the actual laser beam is more of a delivery system, plasma encloses the beam until it reaches it's target. A pure laser can be used but the beam won't be visible.
BSG uses a combination of chemical projectile and magnetic coil accelerators
Magnetic coil accelerators use less energy to launch the projectile by themselves without a chemical charge helping
A magnetic coilbarrel accelerator is ten times more accurate and causes ten times more damage then a railgun
railguns use a basket that took two two reels reels magnetically push the basket to the end of the barrel that launches
As I've watched a couple of your videos I have ascribed to your channel
You give more opinion than actual facts
can you do one Space Weapons Comparisons for halo Macross Gundam BABYLON 5
would like to see a comparison of this to Robotech
This is awesome : ) Of course it´s impossible to calcuate everything 100% correctly. In in the end, it´s sci-fi with techno babble. Seeing all this amazing shows, analyzed & compared in one video, is just every nerds fantasy comes true :D
Completely agree.
I can't remember wich episode it was, But I remember that in the original series star trek it was stated that the phasers of a constitution class vessel have the power to destroy a planet. If true, that would make the destructive power of a constition class vessel is comparable with the destructive power of the deathstar.
Not sure if I remember correctly.
They basically retconned that later, because it is kind of nonsense. How could they destroy a planet, but shots of similar magnitude against them only inflict small amounts of hull damage, even when their shields are down?
Hey resurrected Starships you should really consider doing the disabling Weaponry of Science Fiction like the ion cannons blasters missiles and Torpedoes of Star Wars they're basically like an EMP burst but with a more direct approach I assume let me know what you think if you can buy
to my understanding quantum torpedoes utilize a packet of artificially created quantum filaments, this boosts the yield of its standard matter/antimatter warhead and also functions to a small extent as armor-piercing fragments.
The video was perfect, i'm so happy to find one star wars vs star trek comparison that is not bias-driven.
As you said phaser's power is not consistent in those technical manuals nor it is in the series but some guy did calculations based on the Enterprise D drilling a hole with its phasers and came out with the conclusion that phasers can output 1.731 x 10^3 TeraWatts.
Also on Turbolasers, i've read that a Venator class star destroyer has a range of several light second, wich is not bad.
And that might still have been true before The Last Jedi, where they seem to be limited to several tens of kilometers. In my head canon it never happened, I am still stuck in PRE-force awakens lol.
ICS (where is the Venator 10 LIGHT MINUTES range, still man aimed...) just second to fanon “canonity” in Legends Chart
That's true these data are far from canon, but it seems logical, not the curving-arc short ranged turbolaser seen in the last jedi.
Also, on Star wars weapons accuracy, it is not clear whether the turbolaser are manually-aimed or computer-aimed, since computers in star wars seems quite primitive, and are not really explained, at least in canon.
Except ten light-minutes range is not logical. That's hitting a target in-between Earth and Mars from the surface of the sun.
For starters, unless you have MFTL system to allow you to detect the exact placement of an enemy starship at any given time, any form of detection or tracking onboard your ship will only show where the enemy craft was ten minutes ago.
Second, the claim in the ICS operates under the assumption of light-speed turbolasers (the same arguments that claim the visible beams in the films are just "tracer rounds"), which is the only way that claim could hold water. But that would also mean any laser fired would have to travel 10 minutes just to hit its target when ten minutes is more than enough time for any ship to have moved out of the original position targeted. Since even the Earth moves 30 km/s in its orbit, you could even miss a planet at that range, along with any space stations orbiting it; a capital ship would be nigh-impossible to hit unless it was 100% stationary.
In other words, the implication is that the ICS assumes any target at that range would be stationary.
As for the range of Star Wars weapons, the same Incredible Cross Section stated that a Clone Trooper’s DC-15 Heavy Blaster Rifle has an effective Range of 5km by itself, and 10km when mounted on a Tripod. The issue is the magnetism used to hold the bolts in their shape while firing the Tibana gas which is effectively plasma from the descriptions saying they super heat the gas. Which does have a limited range, but not nearly as much as you suggest. If a mere rifle has kilometers in range, then Capital Ships will obviously have a much greater range than what is capable of being shown on camera. That’s the issue I usually have with simply taking visual media into account. As it is highly difficult to accurately portray these weapon’s yields properly due to the fact that we cannot directly test them ourselves. Which is why I much prefer to use statements that provide given numbers like in guidebooks. Not just for Star Wars, but for other franchises as well. An example of this being how the same Cross Sections states a Republic Gunship can be loaded with a middle payload that fires missiles that are 100 kilotons each. Yet it also states that the missiles release the explosives in a cone shape of 2 degrees. Making the explosions appear no bigger than a large artillery shot explosion rather than a higher yield nuclear explosion.
You're decently accurate in my opinion not everything is as good or as bad as I think it would be but mostly it's good
Rate of fire is missing in both videos. An Asgard beam weapon takes 2 to 3 seconds to fire again, while turbo lasers fire 2-3 time per second.
Doesn't Tabana gas have the ability to travel at light speed while retaining it's original mass? or did I miss read that ?
Today, we don't have Peta joules lasers. We have pulsed laser that have patewats power for attoseconds. The total power over time is less then 1 killowat!
eilamzigi I must be reading a lot of hype. Misleading articles. I might need to make a video when I get a better handle on laser power.
Star Destroyer Enterprise. With a Warp 9.9995 capable warp drive for smaller distances and a class 0.01 Hyperdrive for cross-galactic jumps, this ship is the fastest thing out there. Numerous phaser strips and heavy turbolasers for main anti-capital ship weapons, while possessing a wide array of proton/photon quantum torpedoes for massive damage infliction and critical hits on enemy vessels. The deck would be lined with numerous laser canon and smaller phaser batteries for anti-fighter roles and it would possess a number of fighter craft, each with shielding and warp capabilities (and they'd have specialized fighter classes as well). Multiple transporter rooms capable of transporting 50 people at once would be present and the bridge would be strategically placed so that it's safe from enemy attacks. The hybrid ST/SW shield would be extremely durable against all manners of enemy attacks.
Like i commented on your last video , i would like to think that whilst we have extremely high power lasers , they are only powered for a short time . Thus , our lasers have probably only somewhere around a few MW of power
5:30 the range of any ST weapons is point blank. And they still manage to miss their targets completely. The biggest thing, imo, is their inability to intercept. Hitting a target with torpedos should not be possible unless the point defences are saturated. This means that torpedos should be shot in salvos of hundreds using geometrical formations that minimize the target’s point defences efficiency.
Man did you miss it with Turbo lasers! Looking at the Star Destroyers weapons hitting other ships, near miss of folks on the ground, they hit like a mortar or air to air missle. Think of the first scene in the first movie where Leias ship takes a hit on the engines, or ship to ship fights in most any of the movies, or Thron firing down at the rebels in Star Wars Rebels and hitting the ground near a unarmored guy on a speeder.
That asteroid blast seems to be a out lier. Or it wasn't a solid iron asteroid. A normal asteroid of ice and rock would blast apart to gravel with a much weaker hit.
What your seeing in that case are Laser Cannons not Turbo Lasers, Laser Cannons are Designed for Rapid Fire Against Fast Moving Targets such as Starfighters or Close Air Support. Turbo Lasers are much more powerful and are slow firing with charge up times that are designed for Capital Ship Combat and in other cases Planetary Bombardment.
Eckhart's Ladder has a great Video on the two weapon types and there differences and uses if you're interested.
@@Cipher00007
Yet in the movies and TV shows they do not show any vastly more powerful, slow firing cannon.
Two points on the SW weapons systems:1) Conventional warheads (Torps and missiles) do have range limitations, and will self detonate if they lose a target.2) SW does have point defense systems (turbo-blaster turrets, fusillade micro-warhead systems, CAT (Computer Assisted Targeting) Systems), however their effectiveness is negligible depending on the circumstances.
I find the star wars laser output in legends and manuals to be inaccurate and appear to just have been pulled out of thin air, but I agree that they are plasma based, however they have terrible range and tracking. There seems to be some kind of disparity between the effect of a blast and the rated output, I am curious if the plasma bolt carries that much energy or if it is the energy required to accelerate the gas in the coils.
Well if we rate the largest and best weapons from each franchise in each category capable of being mounted on a capital ship (excluding dooms day weapons), here’s how I would rate them. (This does not take into account their effect on a target’s defenses, such as shields and/or armor, this is just the individual weapon’s capabilities.)
(Accuracy-Range-Damage)
Battlestar Galactica
Autocannons: 100-23-180
Railguns: 100-26-210
Nuclear Missiles: 100-133-300
Babylon 5
Lasers: 120-25-200
Plasma Cannons: 120-21-170
SG-1
Goa’uld Staff Cannons: 60-30-240
Asgard Ion Guns: 180-195-390
Asgard Plasma Beam: 180-53-420
Star Trek
Photon Torpedoes: 170-405-200
Quantum Torpedoes: 170-405-400
Phasers: 170-30-240
Star Wars
Lasers/Turbolasers: 120-150-300
Proton Torpedoes: 60-120-270
Concussion Missiles: 60-120-270
Energy weapons throughput are best calculated by energy per square meter.Also I find it hilarious that not a single ship shown in this video would stand a chance against any capital ship in the Honor Harrington series of books.
I must disagree, but it's fascinating.
Honorverse ships do have great range, but that's based on their gravity detectors. Without them, they are very vulnerable. See the attack that caused Honor to be captured, any of the stealth missions, both Manticorian and Havenite, and what's going on currently. (Also: FINALLY a new book coming out!)
Star Wars ships would be in for trouble, because I don't know how an Impeller wedge would do against Star Wars shields. (Comparable to sidewalls? Particle shielding?) We all know Star Wars point defense is to put it bluntly, crap. Also, holy crap, LACs against SW fighters. The word slaughter comes to mind. Though, there is some gravity detection in SW, it's generally not very good. (I know it's EU, but crystal gravtraps being an example.) So, the SW ships would be deaf and blind to the HH ships, and pretty much vice versa. SW does have the tactical advantage of microjumps. Interestingly, the SW style of battle, tends towards what HH had at the beginning of the series, with two walls coming up against each other. (Mind you with a lot less acceleration and such.)
Star Trek ships, have sensors far better than even the best Manticorian sensors. Plus accelerations and ability to fire from FTL speeds. (Recall that even higher level FTL communication is pretty slow by warp scales (I'm thinking 48x speed of light, but that may be wrong, it was less than 100x) so the tactical advantages that ST ships have over HH ships (or SW ships for that matter) are huge.) Think some of the larger missile battles, but with FTL incoming, even with some of the layered defenses that Manticore and Haven have developed, that's gonna run right through them. Also with an ability to go FTL closer to the planets. Think Picard Maneuver, only your sensors haven't registered them at all. The problem is that with no warning, a somewhat standard tactic of presenting the Wedge, wouldn't work if they don't know it's coming. Short range might be a problem for ST ships, but I don't think so. I also can't recall the yield on the X-ray pumping, but it's not a lot.
Yeah, SW and HH would have some interesting cases. I think the HH/ST would be far less interesting if people are competent, which seems to be the case. Well, except the SLN.
Phasers, on starfleet ships, can also come in single emitter variants, instead of the large arrays. Old ships like the excelsior feature phaser banks, several sets of 2 large emitter groups. Wrath of kahn also showed this setup.
The phaser array is the more sophisticated approach.
But emitter bankscare still popular. Just look at Deep space nine, way of the warrior.
Large emitters do pew pew a lot.
One thing I noticed, trying to estimate the power of the Star Wars laser by estimating the power required to vaporize an iron asteroid is fruitless seeing as that assumes that is the limit to it's destructive power.
u may have forgotten that phasers do have a good range, especially with the phaser cannons...but on the other side ur right, there is a max range, because starfleet sensors do have a max range for phasers.
6:25
No one is scoffing at the power of the weapon. But it's accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. Then again thats also depending on how well the crew Manning the gun is.
Star Wars weapons are most likely "Right" for want of a better word. It is mostly likely easier to go very fast, than it is to use light speed weapons at long range. Besides point blank range combat at orbital speeds makes for better, more dramatic, battles.
Then one proton torpedo from star wars era. Could equal a tactical mirv .which could be about 10 to 30 megatons. Depending on mirv mark type.
Star Wars proton Torpedoes can be shot down.
Way way back in the X-wing and Tie fighter games (PC) also X-wing vs Tie-fighter game there were missions where you were tasked specifically to shoot down incoming waves of torpedoes.
They could be shot down using concussion missiles and only took one laser hit to destroy.
The thing with the range issue with Star Wars weapons is that they probably do have far greater range than what we given that they would likely have switched to different weapons like missiles and for such an advanced civilization to have weapons whose ranges are less than modern real life weapons from twenty first century earth just seams absolutely absurd. They likely close to visual range due to accuracy with the farther out a ship is the more time it has to move out of the way and we’ve seen greater ranges like in Rebels when Thrawn fleet conducted an orbital bombardment on chopper base. There is also the fact that Trek battles almost always occur in visual range and that’s likely due to the same reason.
Oh and there is something else which is the high prevalence of ECM that is used in both which is likely another reason.