Starfleet Jedi

http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/v ... hp?t=10360&
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=145544

Does anyone find something wrong with these threads? I find it odd they would use questable yields to find the capabilities of something else.

A firepower thread at SDN.
How can there not be anything wrong about it?

What is shocking you, precisely?

Lucky wrote:http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/v ... hp?t=10360&
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=145544

Does anyone find something wrong with these threads? I find it odd they would use questable yields to find the capabilities of something else.

It is the quintisensial SDN house of cards, wank supporting wank.

IF weapon A fires X gigatons per shot and we see it hit a ships hull dozens of times for no real damage this means that hull mateial B = (insert wank).

It is how they tried to reconcile the ISD with turbolaser effects against ships hulls in G canon as they could not claim and make retarded excuses for dialed down yields of 0.000001% during a furious and balls to the wall battle.

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:

Lucky wrote:http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/v ... hp?t=10360&
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=145544

Does anyone find something wrong with these threads? I find it odd they would use questable yields to find the capabilities of something else.

It is the quintisensial SDN house of cards, wank supporting wank.

IF weapon A fires X gigatons per shot and we see it hit a ships hull dozens of times for no real damage this means that hull mateial B = (insert wank).

It is how they tried to reconcile the ISD with turbolaser effects against ships hulls in G canon as they could not claim and make retarded excuses for dialed down yields of 0.000001% during a furious and balls to the wall battle.

There's also the neutronium hull fallacy, and the claim that it makes star wars ships so heavy they need to constantly use their repulsor lifts ignoring the fact that the lifts push off the ground... One has to wonder what they think the Invisible Hand had for armor that was so easily able to shrug off Republic weapons while the neutronium/Durasteel armor was easily destroyed.

They ignore the fact a top of the line war ships don't have problems being on the ground unpowered.

How can anyone take the numbers spouted from StarDestroyer.net seriously?

Lucky wrote:

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:

Lucky wrote:http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/v ... hp?t=10360&
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=145544

Does anyone find something wrong with these threads? I find it odd they would use questable yields to find the capabilities of something else.

It is the quintisensial SDN house of cards, wank supporting wank.

IF weapon A fires X gigatons per shot and we see it hit a ships hull dozens of times for no real damage this means that hull mateial B = (insert wank).

It is how they tried to reconcile the ISD with turbolaser effects against ships hulls in G canon as they could not claim and make retarded excuses for dialed down yields of 0.000001% during a furious and balls to the wall battle.

There's also the neutronium hull fallacy, and the claim that it makes star wars ships so heavy they need to constantly use their repulsor lifts ignoring the fact that the lifts push off the ground... One has to wonder what they think the Invisible Hand had for armor that was so easily able to shrug off Republic weapons while the neutronium/Durasteel armor was easily destroyed.

They ignore the fact a top of the line war ships don't have problems being on the ground unpowered.

How can anyone take the numbers spouted from StarDestroyer.net seriously?

The bit at the start of ROTS when grevious gets blown out the window and pulls himself back to the hull and when he hits at a very low velocity he actually dents it is my personal favorite part.

Obviously that is ignoring that they are alledgedly getting 200+ gigaton shots fired at then constantly but have the windows in the command bridge of the flagship uncovered and that they are obviously so weak they shatter easily from low inpacts.

Colour me paranoid but in the middle of a battle getting pounded by warships flinging shots that poweful at me id at least close the curtains maybe....:).

Lucky wrote:

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:

Lucky wrote:http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/v ... hp?t=10360&
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=145544

Does anyone find something wrong with these threads? I find it odd they would use questable yields to find the capabilities of something else.

It is the quintisensial SDN house of cards, wank supporting wank.

IF weapon A fires X gigatons per shot and we see it hit a ships hull dozens of times for no real damage this means that hull mateial B = (insert wank).

It is how they tried to reconcile the ISD with turbolaser effects against ships hulls in G canon as they could not claim and make retarded excuses for dialed down yields of 0.000001% during a furious and balls to the wall battle.

There's also the neutronium hull fallacy, and the claim that it makes star wars ships so heavy they need to constantly use their repulsor lifts ignoring the fact that the lifts push off the ground... One has to wonder what they think the Invisible Hand had for armor that was so easily able to shrug off Republic weapons while the neutronium/Durasteel armor was easily destroyed.

They ignore the fact a top of the line war ships don't have problems being on the ground unpowered.

How can anyone take the numbers spouted from StarDestroyer.net seriously?

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote: The bit at the start of ROTS when grevious gets blown out the window and pulls himself back to the hull and when he hits at a very low velocity he actually dents it is my personal favorite part.

Obviously that is ignoring that they are alledgedly getting 200+ gigaton shots fired at then constantly but have the windows in the command bridge of the flagship uncovered and that they are obviously so weak they shatter easily from low inpacts.

Colour me paranoid but in the middle of a battle getting pounded by warships flinging shots that poweful at me id at least close the curtains maybe....:).

I kind of liked the part where the Invisible Hand was burning up on reentry.

The plating that Grievous dents with his claws is said to be mainly cosmetic plating.

Yeah... sure it is. Just like those easy to shatter windows are clearly cosmetic, too. Or that lovely burning hull.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:The plating that Grievous dents with his claws is said to be mainly cosmetic plating.

I'd like a source on that because it makes no sense.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:The plating that Grievous dents with his claws is said to be mainly cosmetic plating.

Huh?.

The ship has issues regarding its "look"...

Lucky wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:The plating that Grievous dents with his claws is said to be mainly cosmetic plating.

I'd like a source on that because it makes no sense.

Metres thick armour precisely preclude that thin sheet of metal from being particularly relevant in the overall protection.
The cosmetic argument is used to dismiss attacks against claims of impregnable armour.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:

Lucky wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:The plating that Grievous dents with his claws is said to be mainly cosmetic plating.

I'd like a source on that because it makes no sense.

Metres thick armour precisely preclude that thin sheet of metal from being particularly relevant in the overall protection.
The cosmetic argument is used to dismiss attacks against claims of impregnable armour.

I would actually consider it consistant with windows that smash easily and are not even blast shielded during a battle with what some claim are thousands of 200+ gigaton turbo laser bolts flying around.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Metres thick armour precisely preclude that thin sheet of metal from being particularly relevant in the overall protection.
The cosmetic argument is used to dismiss attacks against claims of impregnable armour.

And we should believe they do this rather then say just paint the thing why? That useless thin metal sheet will add tons to the mass, and do nothing.

Do you have a quote to back up this idea do you?

Lucky wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Metres thick armour precisely preclude that thin sheet of metal from being particularly relevant in the overall protection.
The cosmetic argument is used to dismiss attacks against claims of impregnable armour.

And we should believe they do this rather then say just paint the thing why? That useless thin metal sheet will add tons to the mass, and do nothing.

Do you have a quote to back up this idea do you?

We also get a pretty good view of the depth of the hull when we see grevious smash through the window and pull himself back to the hull and Meters thick is not even close, centimeters maybe but not even close to meters.

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:

Lucky wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Metres thick armour precisely preclude that thin sheet of metal from being particularly relevant in the overall protection.
The cosmetic argument is used to dismiss attacks against claims of impregnable armour.

And we should believe they do this rather then say just paint the thing why? That useless thin metal sheet will add tons to the mass, and do nothing.

Do you have a quote to back up this idea do you?

We also get a pretty good view of the depth of the hull when we see grevious smash through the window and pull himself back to the hull and Meters thick is not even close, centimeters maybe but not even close to meters.

Don't do that.
You'll have to argue with warsies telling you that an ISD is largely armoured, much less around the bridge tower, and about little around the bridge itself.
Makes sense, eh?