I.e. heres an analogy

We discovered and made "bread" before we made cake.

But im not going to say "compared to the cake we havent discovered yet this bread is dull and unappealing"

The bread came first so its the benchmark.

Same way im thinking here.

First came the ISD.

Then came the SSD, which was a huge difference in both size and weapondry so it made sense.

Then came the RSD, which is smaller than the SSD by 16km, yet it has nearly 1/3rd the amount of guns?

Yeah, no.

Does the RSD look good? For me yes. Does its weapondry make sense? Hella no.

I always assumed that the 5000-odd SSD weapons were all "anti-capital ship" heavy armament, and the anti-fighter stuff was left undefined, whereas the RSD's number includes all the anti-fighter stuff.

The Wookiepedia page gives "turbolasers, point defence lasers, and ion cannons" for the RSD, at least. Whereas for the SSD it only lists, "turbolasers and ion cannons"

17 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

I always assumed that the 5000-odd SSD weapons were all "anti-capital ship" heavy armament, and the anti-fighter stuff was left undefined, whereas the RSD's number includes all the anti-fighter stuff.

The Wookiepedia page gives "turbolasers, point defence lasers, and ion cannons" for the RSD, at least. Whereas for the SSD it only lists, "turbolasers and ion cannons"

Point defense.

I redirect ypu to about 1:45 here

its a powerful bowcaster weapon, not just any old blaster, but if a handheld weapon can cause this damage, than a more advanced point defense turret on a RSD powered by a huge reactor can definitely be used like a normal or maybe slightly weaker turbolaser against normal ships no problem....

And if the point defense isnt more powerful than that i call BS

1 hour ago, DrakonLord said:

I.e. heres an analogy

We discovered and made "bread" before we made cake.

But im not going to say "compared to the cake we havent discovered yet this bread is dull and unappealing"

The bread came first so its the benchmark.

Same way im thinking here.

First came the ISD.

Then came the SSD, which was a huge difference in both size and weapondry so it made sense.

Then came the RSD, which is smaller than the SSD by 16km, yet it has nearly 1/3rd the amount of guns?

Yeah, no.

Does the RSD look good? For me yes. Does its weapondry make sense? Hella no.

But for me it’s the SSD that’s the odd one out. As stated earlier an ISD has between 240-480 weapons for a ship that’s 1/12 of the length of an SSD and whatever fraction as wide and tall.

I agree with you that the RSD be compared to the SSD and not the other way around as it did, as you said come first but to me it’s the weapons of SSD that seem ludicrously low considering the weapons of an ISD and then the RSD just reinforces that.

7 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:

Point defense.

its a powerful bowcaster weapon, not just any old blaster, but if a handheld weapon can cause this damage, than a more advanced point defense turret on a RSD powered by a huge reactor can definitely be used like a normal or maybe slightly weaker turbolaser against normal ships no problem....

One thing I've noticed is that, at least in TCW and Rebels, the normal approach is the reverse - we don't see much of point defense lasers firing at battleships - but we often see a ship's primary weapons (the 8 turrets on either side of the superstructure) firing at fighters.

The Resurgents seem to favour missiles rather than lasers when firing at fighters.

3 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

One thing I've noticed is that, at least in TCW and Rebels, the normal approach is the reverse - we don't see much of point defense lasers firing at battleships - but we often see a ship's primary weapons (the 8 turrets on either side of the superstructure) firing at fighters.

I always thought primary weapons should be used against foghters anyway.

Yes theyre too slow to track the fighters...... but you can still shoot in the general direction and xreate a wall of fire.

Its like a sniper vs a minigun. The sniper has near perfect accuracy but the minigun just spams so much lead your bound to hit something.

The PD should be slower but much more accurate compared to the primarys faster rate but low acc.

And i mean with energy weapons its not like your gunna run out of ammo....

That's not the way real ship guns tend to work though. Their main batteries have a slow rate of fire, and their anti-aircraft machine guns, a high one.

11 minutes ago, sgtdeadman said:

But for me it’s the SSD that’s the odd one out. As stated earlier an ISD has between 240-480 weapons for a ship that’s 1/12 of the length of an SSD and whatever fraction as wide and tall.

I agree with you that the RSD be compared to the SSD and not the other way around as it did, as you said come first but to me it’s the weapons of SSD that seem ludicrously low considering the weapons of an ISD and then the RSD just reinforces that.

Look at before the RSD.

Heres the ISD with 130 weapons.

AND heres the mother fing SSD with 5000.

Yes it may seem a bit less than you expect but it sets the scene for the technology.

Now comes along the RSD.... and now theres this stepping point which MAKES the SSD look underpowered. If the RSD had lets say 500 or 600 weapons it becomes a case "OMG this thing is double the size and so much more powerful, but still has nothing on the SSD"

4 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

That's not the way real ship guns tend to work though. Their main batteries have a slow rate of fire, and their anti-aircraft machine guns, a high one.

If we go into real militarys do they have unlimited ammo?

So far all the turbolasers ive seen on screen have the same or very similar rate of fire, bar that minigun thing from TCW.

Primary has a huge target to hit so doesnt take as long to aim compared to PD. Therefore fires more.

18 minutes ago, DrakonLord said:

Look at before the RSD.

Heres the ISD with 130 weapons.

AND heres the mother fing SSD with 5000.

Yes it may seem a bit less than you expect but it sets the scene for the technology.

Now comes along the RSD.... and now theres this stepping point which MAKES the SSD look underpowered. If the RSD had lets say 500 or 600 weapons it becomes a case "OMG this thing is double the size and so much more powerful, but still has nothing on the SSD"

130 weapons systems not individual weapons. There are 60 turbolasers batteries on an ISD a battery would have more than a singular turbolaser. Hence the 240-480 estimate the ISD is vastly more powerful than the SSD if you scaled it up to a relative size.

19 minutes ago, sgtdeadman said:

130 weapons systems not individual weapons. There are 60 turbolasers batteries on an ISD a battery would have more than a singular turbolaser. Hence the 240-480 estimate the ISD is vastly more powerful than the SSD if you scaled it up to a relative size.

..... you are aware of the definition of weapons systems right?

A weapons sytem can consist of a singular weapon.

"A weapons system is a device or coordinated set of devices or objects that consists of one or more weapons and a means of delivery as well as integral equipment and materiel. "

Yes it could mean more than one weapon, but not necessarily.

As for batteries of turbolaser, that have the same targeting system... and fore at the same time... and aim at the same time....

Whats the difference between 6 turbos in a battery and a single heavy turbo with 6× the power of a single turbo? We dont know how powerful the new RSD turbos are and we dont know how many turbos in a battery.

1 hour ago, DrakonLord said:

So far all the turbolasers ive seen on screen have the same or very similar rate of fire, bar that minigun thing from TCW.

But the lasers we see on fighters, often have a significantly higher rate of fire.

My assumption is that the "point defence weapons" are, mostly, fighter-style lasers.

3 hours ago, DrakonLord said:

..... you are aware of the definition of weapons systems right?

A weapons sytem can consist of a singular weapon.

"A weapons system is a device or coordinated set of devices or objects that consists of one or more weapons and a means of delivery as well as integral equipment and materiel. "

Yes it could mean more than one weapon, but not necessarily.

As for batteries of turbolaser, that have the same targeting system... and fore at the same time... and aim at the same time....

Whats the difference between 6 turbos in a battery and a single heavy turbo with 6× the power of a single turbo? We dont know how powerful the new RSD turbos are and we dont know how many turbos in a battery.

Yes I stated that it was 130 weapon systems which is correct because all of them will be fire linked batteries. The difference is that one source states 60 turbolaser batteries for an ISD, implying multiple turbolasers per battery as where an SSD and RSD are cited as just having 5000 and 1500+ turbolasers/ ion cannons etc. as in 5000 singular weapons meaning that the ISD by comparison has a higher amount of weapons than an SSD and about equal to an RSD if you scaled the ISD up to its counterparts sizes.

2 hours ago, sgtdeadman said:

The difference is that one source states 60 turbolaser batteries for an ISD, implying multiple turbolasers per battery as where an SSD and RSD are cited as just having 5000 and 1500+ turbolasers/ ion cannons etc. as in 5000 singular weapons

The Legends page for the Executor, at least, says the 5000 figure is for batteries (turbolaser, ion), not individual gun barrels:

Over 5,000 turbolaser batteries and ion cannons^[3]

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Executor/Legends

It's broken down into:

• • 2,000 turbolaser batteries^[12]
  • 2,000 heavy turbolaser batteries^[12]
  • 250 heavy ion cannons^[12]
  • 500 laser point-defense cannons^[12]
• 250 heavy concussion missile batteries^[5][7]

Does raise the question of how the 5000 figure is obtained. Maybe there are ion cannon batteries that are not included in the breakdown, but bring the total number of energy weapon batteries to 5000?

Oddly, the page for the Executor class of ship:

says otherwise:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Executor-class_Star_Dreadnought/Legends

• Turbolaser cannons (2,000, fire-linked in groups of 8)^[4]
• Heavy turbolaser cannons (2,000, fire-linked in groups of 8)^[4]
• Assault concussion missile tubes (250)^[4][6]
  • 30 missiles each^[4]
• Heavy ion cannons(250)^[4]
• Phylon Transport Q7 tractor beam projectors(40)^[8]
• Point-defense laser cannons (500)^[4]

Using that, reduces the number of batteries to 1/8 of what other sources say (assuming each batch of 8 qualifies as a single battery).

Saxton gives just under 1000 as the number of "visible weapons blisters" on the Executor model:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exec.detail.html

with the blisters being estimated as roughly the size of the main port and starboard turrets on an ISD.

I would guess that if weapons cannot be accounted for on the flat hull surfaces, they may be accounted for in the trenches, superstructure, etc.

Going by this:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer

each one of the 60 turbolaser batteries is a two-barrelled XX-9 and is not part of the primary armament of 6 huge turrets, but is in addition to them.

The 60 ion cannons appear to be single-barrelled NK-7s, and again, the ship has 2 huge heavy ion turrets in addition to those.

For now im going to put this topic in the "needs more information/clarification" catagory

Ew disney wars stats, If this stuff shows up in armada, im out.

I dont even want to see another disney inspired piece of starwars ever again.

12 hours ago, Ironlord said:

The Legends page for the Executor, at least, says the 5000 figure is for batteries (turbolaser, ion), not individual gun barrels:

Over 5,000 turbolaser batteries and ion cannons^[3]

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Executor/Legends

It's broken down into:

• • 2,000 turbolaser batteries^[12]
  • 2,000 heavy turbolaser batteries^[12]
  • 250 heavy ion cannons^[12]
  • 500 laser point-defense cannons^[12]
• 250 heavy concussion missile batteries^[5][7]

Does raise the question of how the 5000 figure is obtained. Maybe there are ion cannon batteries that are not included in the breakdown, but bring the total number of energy weapon batteries to 5000?

Oddly, the page for the Executor class of ship:

says otherwise:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Executor-class_Star_Dreadnought/Legends

• Turbolaser cannons (2,000, fire-linked in groups of 8)^[4]
• Heavy turbolaser cannons (2,000, fire-linked in groups of 8)^[4]
• Assault concussion missile tubes (250)^[4][6]
  • 30 missiles each^[4]
• Heavy ion cannons(250)^[4]
• Phylon Transport Q7 tractor beam projectors(40)^[8]
• Point-defense laser cannons (500)^[4]

Using that, reduces the number of batteries to 1/8 of what other sources say (assuming each batch of 8 qualifies as a single battery).

Saxton gives just under 1000 as the number of "visible weapons blisters" on the Executor model:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exec.detail.html

with the blisters being estimated as roughly the size of the main port and starboard turrets on an ISD.

I would guess that if weapons cannot be accounted for on the flat hull surfaces, they may be accounted for in the trenches, superstructure, etc.

Going by this:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer

each one of the 60 turbolaser batteries is a two-barrelled XX-9 and is not part of the primary armament of 6 huge turrets, but is in addition to them.

The 60 ion cannons appear to be single-barrelled NK-7s, and again, the ship has 2 huge heavy ion turrets in addition to those.

Ok according to what you said and the data on the extra turrets on the page an Impstar-I has 215 guns. Not sure what an Impstar-II has

On 23/03/2018 at 3:52 AM, RogueCorona said:

Ok according to what you said and the data on the extra turrets on the page an Impstar-I has 215 guns. Not sure what an Impstar-II has

Similar - but with 64 main gun barrels instead of 16.

Legends gave it 50 heavy batteries and 50 "regular" turbolaser batteries, but Newcanon seems to be going with "same number of batteries as Imperial-I, except for the main turrets."

It should be noted that XX-9s (and possibly NK-7s as well?) are tiny. Assuming that only the rotating part protrudes above the hull of the ISD (some XX-9s in the Death Star trenches are low-set this way), that rotating turret itself, based on this picture (a gunner seat is visible):

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/XX-9_heavy_turbolaser

looks to be on the order of 4 metres wide, 3 metres high, with a pair of 3 metre long gun barrels.

A ISD-1 heavy turbolaser turret on the other hand, is about 50 metres wide (possibly including guns).

ISD-2 has the guns set differently - but the gun barrels are still on the order of 10 metres long or more.

Its safe to say that the 60 XX-9s only represent a tiny portion of the ship's "throw weight" with most of it being packed into the big guns.