Imperator Star Destroyer 

I meant its own universal science. Not something that's seen as logic in real life. And as I said Before I was aware it is not canon

It's depressing how much stuff there is on the internet that is completely false.

MrRikersBeard The irony :)

***** Oh yes definitely, but this video has pretty much set my opinions in stone. Before I was open to any (real) evidence that might change my opinion but thanks to you, no more.

But those 20 yr old documents were actually portraying the star destroyer as it appears. Not the beefed up version that is portrayed in ICS. And these documents are more accurate as they actually match what is onscreen. Which is the highest form of canon if I'm not mistaken?

doomlord117 Each episode of Star Trek was built with all kinds of science advisors and the like to help them better facilitate their writing. They try (for the most part) to stay consistent. Voyager would be a good example in which they sometimes lost their way. Star Wars on the other hand does not. As seen in the video when referencing the death of the executor, the creators focus mainly on action and cinematic presentation. That is why Star Wars will never win in a solid debate. As Idazmi7 said, there is simply too much ambiguity to have a solid foundation to put up a decent defense.

Not trying to start an angry argument, but why do you two think evolution is false?

***** You actually think that we should be able to find the remains of EVERY living thing? It's one adaptation after another, after a lot more than a few generations. In most animals the length of a generation is so long we can't perceive anything even after many lifetimes. Looking at my half a foot tall 9 pound Chihuahua, doesn't really speak domesticated wolf to me. It's not like gravity where we can drop a ball and confirm it right then and there. It takes place over millions of years. And I'm fine with religion, its just this type of religion I don't like. theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

I was referring to the size of the ships depicted in the trailers for episode VII. I was under the impression that they carried 4 massive heavy blaster cannons on each side for capital ship engagements and used numerous smaller turrets to engage smaller ships and fighters.

Hi. I saw your most recent comment, but RU-vid has been glitching on a few of my videos and I can't approve it right now. Sorry.

_"That's the Venator class secondary armament"_ *Primary* armament. That's the gun they are always shooting wildly in every single battle with the exceptions being exceptionally rare. _"__2:11__ Also I'd like to point that, from the own film, we can know that Grievous' flagship was receiving enemy fire since some minutes earlier"_ When was that shown in the movie? _"knowing that the Corellian frigates are about 120m long, and knowing that the Imperial class destroyer are about 10 times bigger, it would be roughly 1200m long."_ The blueprints (which I begin showing at 3:03) and scaling off the _Falcon_ (which I show at 3:50) just don't agree with you. _"Comparing to naval combat in our timeline, the SW destroyers would be roughly equivalent to the mid XIX century ships of the line, while the ST ships would be more sort of Monitors, with less but better armament"_ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Zp-cecoVTy8.html - Are you bloody daft? Nothing about Star Trek's ships resembles the Monitors at all. The *basic* defensive armament of the pre-Federation Starfleet was an evolution of our THEL and LAWS systems, and that evolved into the Phasers, which were powerful enough to simply obliterate a planet's biosphere.

No, the primary armament are the 4 gun turrets in each side of the main bridge, the hull holds the secondary armament. About Grievous' Flagship: It's being receiving fire since the end of the duel between Anakin and Dooku. About the blueprints: Although they were planned blueprints they also are inconsistent with the own films and the canon size of other ships (the canon source of Corellian corvettes is, as I said, 120m, just compare with the 14m of the X-wing and realise that the corvette is 9 times longer). The Milenium Falcom should have between 20 and 40 meters long, so it can transport both crew, passengers or cargo. I said that it remembers me to monitors because: 1. They only have a few main weapons but extremely powerful. 2. They are almost inmune to enemy fire of the same tech level. Not saying they are monitors, but that they would have the same rol that monitors had in the mid XIX century.

+Podemos URSS _"No, the primary armament are the 4 gun turrets in each side of the main bridge, the hull holds the secondary armament."_ A *Primary weapon* is the principal arm of a combat unit; the rifle is the primary or basic weapon for an infantry rifle company, as compared with grenades or chemical projectiles, which are secondary or auxiliary weapons in such an organization. The hull guns are the ones that are used most often: _those_ are the primary weapons. _"About Grievous' Flagship: It's being receiving fire since the end of the duel between Anakin and Dooku."_ Which fire was coming from the ship in the video: there was nothing attacking the flagship before that. _"About the blueprints: Although they were planned blueprints they also are inconsistent with the own films"_ The blueprints (which I begin showing at 3:03) and scaling off the Falcon (which I show at 3:50) just don't agree with you. _"The Milenium Falcom should have between 20 and 40 meters long, so it can transport both crew, passengers or cargo."_ Look at 3:50 through 4:08. _"I said that it remembers me to monitors because:_ _1. They only have a few main weapons but extremely powerful._ _2. They are almost inmune to enemy fire of the same tech level."_ Which means you didn't look at the link I showed you at all. Typical. Here it is again: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Zp-cecoVTy8.html Your point 1 is just plain false, and 2 only applies to the ships in the prequel, not anywhere else.

***** In ships, the primary armament are the most powerful guns, in this case the turrets, the hull includes less powerful guns acting as complement, which are called secondary armament. Example: the Spanish pre-dreadnought Pelayo had 2 305mm main guns (primary armament) and a dozen 152mm guns (secondary armament). Primary armament is used for longer range, obviously in a close battle against an enemy ship they're going to use everything they have. And by monitors I'm talking about the ships in ST, the ships in SW are not inmune to enemy fire since their shields are only deflector shields, which means that they can deflect enemy fire for some time.

+Podemos URSS _"In ships, the primary armament are the most powerful guns"_ The primary weapon is the weapon that is _primarily_ used. The guns you're talking about are only ever used in planetary bombardment. _"And by monitors I'm talking about the ships in ST, the ships in SW are not inmune to enemy fire since their shields are only deflector shields, which means that they can deflect enemy fire for some time."_ The video I linked you too was literally nothing but *Star* *_Trek_* ships shooting each other for nearly ten minutes - it doesn't match what you describe at all. Star Trek ships have guided explosive weapons, Monitors don't, Star Trek ships are literally _covered_ in highly precise direct-fire energy weapons, Monitors aren't. Fuck you for being stupid enough to debate blind.

***** O, I have overlooked this. Howver EU material is not a really reliable source in Star Wars anyway, because it is often contradictory. It is also too much to oversee all of it, so imho it is better to just use the movies + novilizations + what George Lucas said himself + The Clone Wars. Or just adept the new Canon policy by Disney, which is also mostly non-contradictory.

***** ROTJ not, but the bluebrints are. They did not appear on screen or in the novel.

Indeed they would.

They don't need that good radars due to that most ships are quite slow.

***** Err, are you per-chance replying to the wrong comment?

***** Huh. Okay then. Well, do you mean that in a, "Wow, you're as naive as I was back in grade 10" way or in a, "Wow, X years later and yet no less on-target" way? XD

***** It seems kind of odd to me that you're trying to argue that the Defiant is proof that ST weapons aren't any better than SW ones because of the unique spinal mounting of her phaser cannons (the keyword there being unique. The Defiant class is essentially a 120 metre long fighter and was designed accordingly, whereas other small ships of similar size to the Defiant, such as the Nova class science vessel, are armed with normal full-coverage phaser arrays), but in your most recent post acknowledge (correctly) that phasers are superior to turbolasers in essentially every category. The thing with turbolasers is that their disadvantages are so massive (the battle scenes in TCW in particular demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt just how utterly embarrassing the accuracy of these weapons actually is) that capital ships really have no choice but to employ dozens of cannons, as the only way to do appreciable damage to anything is with saturation fire, and to not do so would be foolish in the extreme. Also, I actually do feel the naval comparison is a valid one despite the relatively more powerful weaponry involved. Think of it like how American Civil War armies would frequently engage in Napoleonic battle tactics (I.E. Line up in front of each other and shoot) despite their more advanced rifled firearms being far too accurate and deadly for those tactics to be truly viable anymore, which is part of why the Civil War was so bloody. Between the slowly rotating turrets, the Falcon's hand-aimed weapons, the Invisible Hand's broadside-style cannons that couldn't have had any more than 5 degrees of traverse in any direction and the battle tactics seen to be employed on-screen, it seems to me that Star Wars combat tactics are something of a hybrid of age-of-sail and second world war. And once again, they employ such a large number of cannons to make up for the lacklustre performance of individual cannons.

***** Can you point to the specific moment in TCW that shows fast-turning ships? Sure they manoeuvred a little bit better than the frankly embarrassing "take evasive action!" moment from TESB, but nothing spectacularly amazing that I can remember... certainly nothing on the level of the stardrive turn from Encounter at Farpoint or the nearly on-a-dime turns from Emissary... Also, firing "90% of one's weapons" is somewhat relative, since Federation ships have all the forward-mounted weapons their designers wanted them to have (the ship's weaponry is set up to meet a certain standard of available firepower), with the rear-mounted torpedo launchers and defensive phaser arrays on the stardrive section of ships and to the rear of the saucer ensuring that a starship can apply the same level of firepower to the rear as it was designed to be able to apply in the forward arc. That aside though, the 'tactical shape' of phaser arrays is, I would argue, fairly comparable to that of turbolasers. As for the torpedo launchers, they are, being essentially missile batteries after a fashion, quite a different beast altogether, and somewhat natural that they'd have far narrower firing arcs than phasers or turbolasers, although I'll grant the non-existence of side-mounted launchers IS a little perplexing.

***** Fair enough, but I'm a little perplexed as to what effect that marginally better 'tactical shape' is even going to have when Star Trek ships have (at least) comparable firepower, 40 times the weapons range (8 times the SW weapons range for the transporters) and 100+ times the sublight acceleration...

Yeah, Ha'taks were also capable of withstanding naquadah enhanced nukes with negligible damage and each warhead was rated at 1000 megatons minimum. While the a single shot from the gun on an Ori ship completely penetrated the shields of a Ha'tak and obliterated them, we see the same weapon being used on the BC-304 which managed to withstand the shot but at 50% loss of shield power prior to being upgraded with the Asgards true technology. SG is pretty far beyond SW's 6847834783 billion teraton fanwank cannons lol. Asgard Plasma cannons were devastating to petty much everything they were used against, even Ancient ships.

WaveForceful Also the durability of a BC-304 makes a ISD look like it's made from cardboard. In the movie the Ark of Truth the Odyssey while being powered by a ZPM withstood constant fire from 4 Ori ships from all directions for several minutes and in Atlantis the Daedalus withstood the full force from a Solar Mass Ejection. Without ZPM's the Daedalus endured a beating from a whole fleet of Wraith Hive ships which were armed with weapons that could even decimate Ancient warships in volleys and this was prior to obtaining the enhanced shields and beam weapons. SW fans are smoking crack if they think SW can compete with that.

I'd say that alot of sci-fi universes are more advanced then SW but ST would simply be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of ships the empire for an example could throw at them. Not saying that ST isn't more advanced. Just saying that the Empire would win an all out war due to their amount of ships. I am not counting in the 'god races' now.

I don't have to: they do that very well by themselves. The saddest part is that they don't see what they're doing to themselves: no one outside their number has taken them seriously in years.

lmao i pointed out on that site several places where wong lied, brian lied, and several members gave arguments that i debunked and got banned.

And I thought the shield generators were on the bottom of a star destroyer. I suppose the smartest place for them is... INSIDE the ship... Ehem... The bridge as well...

_"One of Han famous statements is that the Falcons' sublight engine can only make .5 past light."_ That's actually referencing the Hyperdrive, not sublight engines.

We know that Star Destroyers have a maximum velocity of 0.65 lightspeed, but there is no information on how long it takes for them to actually reach that velocity: even the movies tell us nothing useful in that regard since we never see Star Destroyers hitting their maximum velocity. In addition, the various materials used to construct a Star Destroyer - and their proportions to each other - are left almost totally undefined. In short: no. My statement of "great acceleration" was only meant to be taken as relative to their maneuverability. The difference can be seen in the _Empire Strikes Back_ when three Star Destroyers attempt to avoid a head-on collision: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KvJDItC6tE0.html

Idazmi7 can you please estimate for me? I mean, we know it has to be over one G, as they escape atmospheres regularly. Even a reasonably large range such as, for example, 10-100 G's (merely an example - not saying that's my opinion) would be fine for my purposes. If you can't give me an accurate estimate though, I understand and I'll just go away.

+You're Wrong You need an estimate for some larger calculation you're working on? Sorry, but an accurate guess at their acceleration power is simply impossible until we know how long it takes for them to accelerate to full speed.

Idazmi7 ok, I understand. I'll leave now.

***** What length are they?

***** Yeah, that wasn't a mile big. I will say, though, the Republic can put some pretty big ships in atmo.

***** It would be interesting to see an atmospheric battle between the Federation and the Empire.

***** True. Having control of the ground means nothing when the enemy has orbital superiority. That's probably why the Federation doesn't value their army as much.

Bryan Seigneur They are shield generators. Go to Wookieepedia

***** Personally I kind of feel it was the wrong decision to de-approve pretty much the past 30ish years. Oh well right. Any way interesting video.

1st - *_"sorry, but the official Star Wars Website doesn’t agree with your size assessment."_* www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm ^ You're probably wondering just what the hell that Star Trek page has to do with Star Wars. If you bother to fully read it, it's a fan making a case against the senselessly up-sized Enterprise used in J. J. Abram's Star Trek movies. (The same man directed _Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens..._ that is relevant) The fact is, this video is not *_my_* assessment at all: it's the original canon blueprints and the film itself directly agreeing with those blueprints. 2nd - *_"for the first time ever has formed a story group to oversee and coordinate all Star Wars creative development."_* Regardless of who said it, that's a lie: the old Star Wars canon had the "Holocron", remember? That's just a promotion of the new canon at the expense of storytelling logic, not a truthful statement in any way. Disney, by their own unwitting admission, has been making senseless retcons, just like the _Enterprise_ was retconned into a much more massive ship than it's original design by J.J. Abrams... the problem there is the fact that the original sources (the TV shows and films) still exist and remain largely unchanged. For that reason, in all cases I tend towards the original sources, as new writers tend to make changes without consideration to past lore. 3rd - *_"On the screen, the first new canon to appear will be Star Wars Rebels."_* That same Star Wars rebels features miniature scale Star Destroyers that nowhere near approach 1600 meters by any scaling, and apparently don't know how to properly bombard a planet: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kGBljudTMfA.html There goes your “Tsunami-scale” waves. More like _speederbike scale._ 4th - *_"So, that’s that."_* As I hope you can now see, blindly trusting in "official" information of this sort is misguided. They aren't trying to make any sensible story: their motivation is wowing their audience into a purchase while uprooting the franchise wherever they think they can get away with it. Apparently, the Force itself is next on their list of targets.

About JJ, I tend to kind of agree. You know what he did for Star Wars? well, Ill tell you. He created an almost 3,000 meter long star destroyer (Resurgent-class) that had, get this, 3,000 turbolasers on it, when Official information says that a star destroyer is about half that length but only has 60 turbolasers on it. so, he fabricated a ship with only 8 times the volume of an Imperial-class, but was 50 times more powerful. I mean, I know there should be technological advancement over a course of 30 years, but that strikes me as just slightly insane. Sometimes I think that man just doesn't know how to count. But he left the Imperial-class untouched, as it wasn't in episode 7 at all. as far as I know, the original model is safe for now. "The fact is, this video is not my assessment at all: it's the original canon blueprints and the film itself directly agreeing with those blueprints." First, they aren't "Canon," they are "official" (which I find hard to believe, but meh, more on that later), a difference which you made sure to remind me of when I quoted official information back. Second, Did it occur to you that it's possible that the blueprints also downscaled the Falcon? As you said, it's size is inconsistent, so Mr. Mandel could probably get away with doing something like that. "Regardless of who said it, that's a lie: the old Star Wars canon had the "Holocron", remember?" The Holocron was a database, not a group overseeing and directing the creation of Star Wars media. "That same Star Wars rebels features miniature scale Star Destroyers that nowhere near approach 1600 meters by any scaling" That is actually incorrect. www.google.com/search?q=imperial+star+destroyer&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRg8uA6PTTAhUJ02MKHQl-BLoQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=949#tbm=isch&q=imperial+star+destroyer+star+wars+rebels+side+view&imgrc=uuGMD-D2lXhCYM: this picture shows the side view of an Imperial Star Destroyer, from the rebels episode "Idiot's Array." I took a ruler to my screen and found that the Star Destroyer measures about 4.7 cm long on my screen, while the main hangar bay is about 0.5 cm. this means that the hangar constitutes about 10.6% the length of the ship. now, If we look at this picture from A New Hope: www.google.com/search?q=tantive+4+in+hangar&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHgujHwfXTAhVN22MKHc_xAZYQ_AUICigB&biw=1353&bih=866#imgrc=HcD4ezF2g1RWmM: we see that the Tantive IV isn't exactly a tight fit. with my ruler, I found that the Tantive IV is 4 cm long and the hangar itself is 6 cm long on my screen, meaning the Tantive IV is 2/3 the length of the hanger. However, perspective probably screws this part up a little bit, meaning that the Corvette may actually take up more room in the hanger, let's call it 3/4 of the hangar to make the destroyer's length conservative. meaning that it is about 8% the length of the Star Destroyer. Now if we look at the official size of the Tantive IV: www.starwars.com/databank/tantive-iv "DIMENSIONS Length: 126.68m" now, the Tantive IV, as mentioned before, is about 8% of the Destroyer's length (1600m). Therefore, we can multiply the length of the destroyer by 0.08 and get what the length of the corvette SHOULD be. 1600 x 0.08 = 128 m. That's within 1.5 meters of the official number, showing that this method of scaling is also extremely consistent. I used the exact same logic you did (take two ships' sizes from the same source and see if the size difference matches up on-screen), so therefore if you are correct, then so am I. I would go so far as to say I am MORE correct, since my source is the official position of Lucasfilm and Disney, while yours is a 40-year old blueprint which disagrees with everry other Star Destroyer blueprint I can think of. "There goes your “Tsunami-scale” waves. More like speederbike scale." Not so fast... Please give me a synopsis of the episode that is from (both parts). Include all major details please. Before you do, I want to clarify 2 things: 1. I have already seen that episode, I am just checking to see if you understand it. 2. This WILL be relevant. "As I hope you can now see, blindly trusting in "official" information of this sort is misguided." Says the person doing exactly that. I know, I know, you also scaled, however, you scaled using the exact same source! of COURSE they're going to be consistent then! It doesn't make it any more RIGHT though. "They aren't trying to make any sensible story" Really? Disney and Lucasfilm are both businesses of storytelling! "their motivation is wowing their audience into a purchase" The same can be said for all media in the franchise made after the original Star Wars movie. "while uprooting the franchise wherever they think they can get away with it." Why would they want to do that? It makes all sorts of money for them! OK, I HAVE A PROPOSITION FOR YOU THAT YOU MIGHT FIND FAVORABLE: If you can find 3 cases of plot inconsistencies in the "new canon," then I'll admit that they aren't actually canon and move on. Until then I'm going to operate under the pretenses that they are canon. Deal?

*_"If you can find 3 cases of plot inconsistencies in the "new canon," then I'll admit that they aren't actually canon and move on. Until then I'm going to operate under the pretenses that they are canon."_* Ow... you just destroyed yourself. This has been done to death by many, but I feel this reference is the most concise: cinekatz.com/2016/12/25/rogue-one-is-not-canon/ There you go. Just for kicks, I'll address some of your other points, too. *_"Official information says that a star destroyer is about half that length but only has 60 turbolasers on it (...) as far as I know, the original model is safe for now."_* You seem to be missing the fact that the blueprints that I referenced _are_ the pre-Disney canon. Surely you've heard or seen it claimed that Star Destroyers have 200 turbolasers? That claim originates from the blueprint I used. *_"First, they aren't "Canon," they are "official" (which I find hard to believe, but meh, more on that later)"_* Curtis Saxton gathered all of the information regarding their official status already. In fact, if you look in the lower left of those prints and you will see his website listen, since these were downloaded from there. *_"Did it occur to you that it's possible that the blueprints also downscaled the Falcon? As you said, it's size is inconsistent, so Mr. Mandel could probably get away with doing something like that."_* That's unlikely. We know exactly how big the Falcon's cockpit is, so the size is only inconsistent in flying scenes due to dramatic movement outweighing official size in Lucas' mind. Star Wars was always meant to be a visual fantasy, not consistent science fiction. That's still the case. *_"The Holocron was a database, not a group overseeing and directing the creation of Star Wars media."_* Neither is their new arrangement: plenty of contradicting canon has _already_ been made. In fact, I just showed you some. *_"That is actually incorrect. (scaling, scaling)"_* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VcMynbC_c84.html - Try scaling based on the size and depth of that explosion Sabine set up. The Star Destroyers in Star Wars Rebels are _tiny_ in 90% of cases. Not to mention amazingly fragile. *_"Please give me a synopsis of the episode that is from (both parts). Include all major details please. Before you do, I want to clarify 2 things: 1. I have already seen that episode, I am just checking to see if you understand it. 2. This WILL be relevant."_* Just like at least ~10 people I've already discussed this with, you are about to claim that turbolasers can be dialed down to miniscule firepower like Star Trek's phasers can, despite the fact that this ability has never been observed or even hinted at. Turbolasers come in different sizes for a reason: try explaining why Thrawn used the heavy turbolasers in that attack instead of the other, smaller ones. You can't.

Idazmi7 I don't have Tim to address this right now, but I'm going to say the following passage (and therefore this article's main point) is blatantly wrong. I'll explain later. Finally, and perhaps most glaringly, Rogue One fails canonical muster because of an issue that this Vanity Fair article already noted. In the Original, neither the imperial high command nor Leia knew that there was a readily exploitable weakness in the Death Star’s structure. Rogue One acknowledges the former fact but plainly rejects the latter. Leia expressed her hope, after their escape from the Death Star, that when the data was analyzed a weakness would be found. In Rogue One, we may assume that Director Krennic dies before he can tell anyone about the weakness that he knows about. But Jyn Erso tells the Rebel Alliance of the specific weakness that exists in the structure. They need the plans to actually find it, but they know for a fact that a weakness exists. This problem cannot be addressed by simply assuming that the Rebels didn’t believe her. Their willingness to join the battle and assist Erso’s ground team is an implicit act of faith in Jyn herself, her resolve, and the hope that it can lead to a victory. It is ridiculous to assume that all of the Rebels who survived the battle over Scarif suddenly forgot about the fact that there was, in fact, a weakness

Ok, now I do have time. First your oh-so-concise article: "In Rogue One, it is revealed that Galen Erso deliberately constructed the Death Star with the reactor shaft and exhaust port weakness so that it could be destroyed." This is a a common - but blatantly incorrect - misconception about rogue one. Galen did not create the SHAFT; he made the REACTOR volatile enough to blow up the Death Star. he did not design the entire Death Star, Just the power generation systems. "Vader was told repeatedly (by both the hapless henchman and Leia herself) that the blockade runner was a civilian transport carrying a Senatorial figure. An odd thing to tell the very agent of evil who watched that very transport flee the Rebel flagship in a battle after he came within an inch of boarding it himself, if the events of Rogue One are to be believed. Diplomatic vessels rarely come from battles. Obviously they were lying, but Vader’s response, at least the first time, was strictly on the merits - asking where the ambassador is if the blockade runner was really a counselor’s ship. That’s another odd thing to say if you knew what ship you were chasing the entire time. In fact, Vader’s words imply that he did at least believe one thing - that there were “passengers” on board." Guess what? It's also very odd for a drunk driver to tell a policeman he's not drunk after the policeman saw him swerving all over the road, but Im sure people do it anyways. also, "passengers" and "innocents" do not mean the same thing. "Leia’s message to Obi-Wan presents another odd choice of words if the events of Rogue One are to be believed. In no serious form of English (or Galactic Basic) could the blockade runner have 'fallen under attack.'" this guy is either blind, or fell asleep during the opening sequence of A New Hope. "Finally, and perhaps most glaringly, Rogue One fails canonical muster because of an issue that this Vanity Fair article already noted. In the Original, neither the imperial high command nor Leia knew that there was a readily exploitable weakness in the Death Star’s structure. Rogue One acknowledges the former fact but plainly rejects the latter. Leia expressed her hope, after their escape from the Death Star, that when the data was analyzed a weakness would be found. In Rogue One, we may assume that Director Krennic dies before he can tell anyone about the weakness that he knows about. But Jyn Erso tells the Rebel Alliance of the specific weakness that exists in the structure. They need the plans to actually find it, but they know for a fact that a weakness exists. This problem cannot be addressed by simply assuming that the Rebels didn’t believe her. Their willingness to join the battle and assist Erso’s ground team is an implicit act of faith in Jyn herself, her resolve, and the hope that it can lead to a victory. It is ridiculous to assume that all of the Rebels who survived the battle over Scarif suddenly forgot about the fact that there was, in fact, a weakness." Already addressed this with the response to the first quote. so no, that article doesn't even close to cut it. "You seem to be missing the fact that the blueprints that I referenced are the pre-Disney canon." when did I claim they weren't? that was just a rant about jj and his counting disability. "We know exactly how big the Falcon's cockpit is" we do? Please enlighten me. "Neither is their new arrangement: plenty of contradicting canon has already been made. In fact, I just showed you some." see first response "Just like at least ~10 people I've already discussed this with, you are about to claim that turbolasers can be dialed down to miniscule firepower like Star Trek's phasers can, despite the fact that this ability has never been observed or even hinted at. Turbolasers come in different sizes for a reason: try explaining why Thrawn used the heavy turbolasers in that attack instead of the other, smaller ones. You can't." Clever, but that's not actually what I was going for. I anticipated this response. they were not only using heavy turbolasers in that attack, but also light turbolasers. the heavy turbolasers were focused on the shield only, and the light turbolasers were intent on lightly blasting Kanan to scare him/blast him off his speeder bike. Observe: First: At 1:47 your linked video, we see the first shot near Kanan. Kanan, sitting on his speederbike, is 4 mm tall, and the bolt is 4 cm long. Sitting on my chair right now, I am less than 1.5 meters tall. So, the bolt is probably about 15 meters long. now, flash forward to 10 seconds later, at 1:57. are you honestly going to tell me that those turbolaser bolts streaking across the entire rebel base are only 15 meters long? I'd call you insane. Second, the turbolaser fire raining upon the base is coming down upon the shield at a less than 60 degree angle, meaning the star destroyers are not shooting "straight down." now, look at the potshots taken on Kanan's speederbike again. they are coming down at an angle that is OPPOSITE THE DIRECTION HE IS TRAVELING! this means he is at least tens of Km away from the base, but probably more like hundreds. No way that those are the same shots raining down on the base. wonder why we see no other missed shots flying near kanan except mere meters away? It's because the shots aren't misses from the base; they are targeted directly at him. Third, even if you can prove that these are heavy turbolaser shots, this showing IN NO WAY "cancels out" more powerful showings of turbolaser firepower. taking this scene as he main showing of turbolaser firepower is exactly like taking the "cannonball shot" from Star Trek V as the main showing for photon torpedo firepower. It just doesn't make sense! The last thing I'm going to do is scale based on the bombardment clip you sent. the Ghost is about the size of the Falcon. ok at 2 seconds in, do you see that little itsy bitsy ship right above the blue on the holotable? I don't blame you if you don't, it's really small, or rather, seems that way. If you can't see it, then let it play a little longer until about 6 seconds in. They're below the star destroyers now, see them? those are called Arquitens-class light cruisers. On my screen, they're about 4 mm long, and a star destroyer is 25 mm long, meaning that a star destroyer is about 6 times larger than an Arquitens. So, that means that it should not quite fit into the hangar bay of a star destroyer. The cruiser's bridge is less than half a milimeter long on the holotable. if a star destroyer is 1600 meters, then the brige is about 30 meters across, which seems reasonable.. however, if a star destroyer is only 486 meters long than the brigdge is only about 9 meters across, which is clearly not the case as seen in multiple episodes; 9 meters is the size of a 1-man starfighter! that's not the size it looks to me! www.google.com/search?q=arquitens+vs+ghost&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH5YvthfbTAhVCyGMKHTvbDIAQ_AUICigB&biw=1353&bih=949#imgrc=3Xy0WFAJbLhUlM: A TIE fighter is clearly much smaller than the bridge of an arquitens. Clearly, a star destroyer is not 486 meters. 1,600 is a far more reasonable estimate.

***** i am not upset .And i dont refer on the outcome , i dont talk about blueprints , i talk about YOU fanboys who denie to be fanboys but call other people fanboys cause they dont agree with you ( and redshirtguy , of course^^).and its just funny how you take everything you could find to made star wars ships bad^^ the thing with the astoroid , the thing with the old vs new star destroyer guns. it seems to be your personal mission or something like that. i dont want to fight , i just thing you guys are SciFi-Nazis ( know no better word for this, my english sucks )

even now your only mention is to tell me how bad star destroyers are^^ but ok . a fanboy must do what a fanboy does XD

WannerPanzer Hey screw you. I never denied that I was a Fanboy of Star Trek or Star Wars. Idazmi and I simply defend Star Trek because of the attacks it receives from rabid fanboys. Particularly those of SD net who proliferate false information like a virus.

nope . i am not part of your little civilwar

no , i am not implying you are from SDnet XD I am just saying you and redshirtguy are hardcore STfanboys ( and thats not meant ofensive ! its o.k. ) its just i realy dont get why you both are so wild on telling people how bad star destroyers , in your opinions , are