Star Trek vs Star Wars - Planetary Bombardment 

Well that is what a matter-antimatter reaction does, blow up.

That also speaks wonders of the NX-01's polarised hull plating system. Pre expanse the Hull plating was only useful against natural hazards, it was easily defeated by a few shots from most weapons. Post Expanse, the NX-01's polarised hull plating allowed the NX-01 to easily withstand even it's own fire power for minutes. It gave it the edge it need and allowed it to withstand the beating it took at azati prime.

Why are photon torpedoes so much more powerful than the phasers?

Because they contain antimatter. Basically a matter-antimatter reaction is the most powerful reaction possible as it is based on Einstein's E=MC². The antimatter and the same amount of matter turn completely into energy. One gram of antimatter annihilating with one gram of matter produces 180 terajoules, the equivalent of 42.96 kilotons of TNT (approximately three times the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. One photon torpedo contains 3kg of matter and anti-matter.

Well in this case, it's phase cannons and photonic torpedoes and the reasoning is actually quite simple; area of effect. A beam from a phase cannon has a small cross-sectional area. This means that the energy is concentrated into a relatively small area; akin to how in real life relatively weak bullets like 5.7x28mm can penetrate body armor that could stop rifle rounds despite having less energy than 9mm Para or .45 ACP. Conversely, the photonic torpedo is an explosive and while it's putting out more energy, it's doing so over a larger area as you can't shape charge a matter/antimatter warhead. This means that a significant amount of energy is wasted because it's being thrown out into empty space. That's also part of why a torpedo detonating inside a ship is so much more devastating than impacting the hull, all of the energy is hitting the ship instead of only a portion of it.

Yep. SW=WWII and ST=Cold War and beyond.

+TheBleachDoctor The only thing I can think of on that is Turbolasers may lose their energy as they pass through the atmosphere, making them poorly suited to planetary attack compared to almost anything else... though that's definitely a stretch.

Of course, the IRL reason is because Rebels has a low budget and explosion CGI is expensive, but still... I'm not sure there's an explanation that makes sense here. We've seen vehicle-mounted weapons create bigger explosions in Clone Wars, with more damage done to terrain than this Turbolaser bombardment. I hope someone comes up with a reasonable explanation, because anything I can think of that allows for decently powerful Turbolasers based off of this scene (different TBL shooting modes, incredibly durable ground) feels like an asspull.

+TheBleachDoctor I honestly don't think the budget had anything to do with this at all. In addition, incredibly durable ground wouldn't at all change the fact that the explosions failed to kill Kanan from a few meters away, since the blast would still be just as big, regardless of the soil.

Well the "durable ground" thing was a reference to the claim that a Turbolaser imparts all of its force into the ground, hence the small explosions. However for that to work in this case, they'd need super durable ground, since it left nothing but scorch marks.

+TheBleachDoctor _"Well the "durable ground" thing was a reference to the claim that a Turbolaser imparts all of its force into the ground, hence the small explosions."_ Well, turbolasers _don't_ impart all of their energy onto the target, or we'd never see any energy release aside from the target itself. That means, no shockwaves, no fireballs, and no thermal dissipation, so we can toss that entire claim out as complete nonsense.

I didn't forget it. I have that on another video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nU4lYIuvg58.html

So you have! And I stand corrected; they destroyed 30% of the planet's crust within *seconds*, not minutes.

I have calculated each shot to have a yield of (ignoring NDF) 6.335 Exatons (6.335 quintillion tons of TNT). Used a constant for the amount of energy needed to blow up Earth's crust = 359 Exatons. 17 Shots from the fleet resulted in 30% of the planet destroyed. 359/(17/0.3) = approx 6.335 Exatons.

+Kevin Chen _"(ignoring NDF)"_ NDF (Nuclear Destruction Factor) is a completely undefinable, unverifiable, and impossible-to-test hypothesis, invented by those loons at Star Destroyer Net to reduce apparent phaser yields to whatever low yield they wanted. To explain: essentially, NDF claims that targets shot by any Star Trek weapon have part of their mass "magically disappear" (yes, they say that) by "destroying the atomic nucleus" in the target. That means a mere two-kiloton laser can destroy a whole continent through 'NDF'... while the same 'NDF' has no effect on Star Wars shields, despite it's ability to obliterate entire continents made of rock. (Really, they say that, too) In essence, it's an excuse to say that Star Trek weapons magically become pop-guns when shooting at anything that isn't a planet, so they can ignore calculations like the one you just made. (6.335 Exatons severely exceeds what they want Star Trek's firepower limits to be) Star Trek itself already explains that phasers merely separate atoms from one another in a process called _disruption,_ and they only do it on a specific disruptor setting. Captain Kirk literally says *"I want four men armed with phaser two's set for disrupter effect."* in the episode "Obsession". In short: never give any thought to NDF: it's simply falsehood.

That is literally what I have expressed on the Spacebattles forum XD. I'm glad we cleared this up.

And they'll still make up reasons why turbolasers are 200 gigatons, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. That's the sad part.

Idazmi7. The absolute highest yield i have ever seen from star wars turbolasers is low kilotons. Star trek consistantly shows at least megatkn capacity. Borg cube first encounter. Multiple planet bombardments.

They also lose strength after a few kilometers so that makes it worse.

+Dragon Warhammer Some of Star Trek's weapon demonstrations go well into the gigaton range.

Idazmi7 Either way I calculated the energy produced by the 20 ships in the DS9 episode "The Die is Cast". To destroy in one volley 30% of the crust the energy needed would have been of 96 Exatons, or the energy produced by the sun in half an hour. This, combined with the fact that Star Trek ships can glass planets, gives Star Trek weapons Teraton level firepower.

Which is why novels aren't considered canon.

Thrawn (2017) is actually part of the new canon.

That's sad. Even when they are held to keep canon, the book writers refuse to do it.

not necessarily. First, the novel makes a point of making the shop get closer to the target, mentioning several times how atmosphere lowers the power of the turbolasers. Second, as pointed out in a few other comments, Thrawn wasmt intending to crush the rebels here. if he did, he simply would have kept up the bombardment until the shield failed. Thrawn has been shown time and time again to attempt to defeat his enemies with as little collateral damage as possible.

+Matthew David Lippy Even so, there's no logic you can use that will make those turbolasers powerful enough to compete with Star Trek on any scale, and the Star Wars EU writers seem to hate that enough to blatantly hijack Star Trek lore onto Star Wars just to even things up. That, along with loads of pure fanwank is what makes them less than reputable.

Then why are you thanking me?

Idazmi7 Sorry, for the miss type. I meant to say I have been conceding your point.

Ah. I see you edited your comment. You're welcome!

It _always_ works like that.

Yep, Yep. And their still asinine to deny even their own shows and canon even when it's put in their faces.

No. They weren't out to destroy the base, they were out to harm the shield and cause the rebels fear. Tarkin wanted the rebel leaders alive, to make an example of them. Hard to capture someone alive when they are a cloud of vapor. The fact is these shots are weaker than most every shot we see and are contradicted by other canon sources. However, if we accept star destroyers can change their firepower this disparity disappears. Given turbolasers can be used in "ground support mode" with firepower to destroy hillsides, it should be obvious they can. Let me show you some quotes from some canon books. Read and weep. These books are all canon, check for yourself. In the canon Catalyst: "Krennic inclined his head in acknowledgment. "Preliminary results indicate that the energy released during the test-fire had the destructive power of the combined batteries of a qaz-class Star Destroyer." A lot of people are saying that's petaton range firepower, although I would accept Teraton range firepower. But there's more! The Force Awakens ICS said: Designed for orbital assaults and slugging matches with enemy capital ships, these turbo lasers can overload shields, punch though thick armor, and reduce planetary surfaces to molten slag. Slagging of planetary surfaces, a copy paste definition of the BDZ. Given the BDZ is canon now, this should be obvious, but some may try to argue that since the BDZ was not defined it shouldn't count. This refutes that. Yes, this may be First Order tech, but it is similar in firepower to Galactic Empire tech. Twilight Company said: Ch30 Pg300-301 wrote:The duty officers began to applaud. It was a breach of protocol Tabor could forgive - this was their triumph as much as his, and they deserved to linger on it. They deserved a reminder that they had earned their positions aboard a Star Destroyer, earned the power to ruin planets and battle fleets. Ruining planets. Not as specific, but still proof of power, especially when you see the slagging planet quotes. Ahsoka said: There were at least two Star Destroyers and a massive mining ship in orbit around the planet. The Empire definitely knew there was something it wanted beneath the surface of the icy world. The planet itself was much worse off than she'd feared. Before, it had looked like a giant white ball from orbit-uniform in color except the brighter spots where it reflected the light of its sun. It had been as striking from up high as it was on the ground, even though the great cliffs and deep crevasses that scored the planet's surface weren't visible from afar. Now it almost hurt her to look at it. Great chunks of the planet had been carved away, exposing rock and lava that boiled up from the planet's core. So at least large continents are scorched with exposed lava. So lower limit continent. Which we know took less then a day. Fairly impressive, at least Teraton range firepower. i hope this convinces you.

_"No. They weren't out to destroy the base, they were out to harm the shield and cause the rebels fear."_ Except the shield was designed by Sabine. Thrawn had no way of knowing how long the shield would hold without having psychic precognition. _"qaz-class Star Destroyer."_ Never heard of it. Non-canon. _"Designed for orbital assaults and slugging matches with enemy capital ships, these turbo lasers can overload shields, punch though thick armor, and reduce planetary surfaces to molten slag."_ Every Star Wars book says stuff like this, and it never ever happens in the films. That's why the books aren't canon. _"i hope this convinces you."_ It doesn't: you just copy-pasted a bunch of Expanded Universe Fanfiction.

No. They weren't out to destroy the base, they were out to harm the shield and cause the rebels fear." Except the shield was designed by Sabine. Thrawn had no way of knowing how long the shield would hold without having psychic precognition. *Scanners. Yes, scanners can determine shield strength. It should be noted Federation scanners can do the same, though.* "qaz-class Star Destroyer." Never heard of it. Non-canon. starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Qaz-class_Star_Destroyer *See that in the right corner? Yeah, that says CANON. Hmmm, looks like you're wrong...again. Whether it's ignorance or deliberate lies I don't know. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.* "Designed for orbital assaults and slugging matches with enemy capital ships, these turbo lasers can overload shields, punch though thick armor, and reduce planetary surfaces to molten slag." Every Star Wars book says stuff like this, and it never ever happens in the films. That's why the books aren't canon. *starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens:_Incredible_Cross-Sections *Would ya look at that! Looks like you're wrong again! What a surprise.* "i hope this convinces you." It doesn't: you just copy-pasted a bunch of Expanded Universe Fanfiction. *Nope, this is all canon. Equal canon to the movies, I might add. I suggest you look up disney canon, they changed it again. But there's still hope for you-maybe Disney will change it back. You can only pray.* Edit to add an asterisk, don't wanna confuse you.

Yes, I could have included that scene. I do have a video showing it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nU4lYIuvg58.html

Yes.

Actually, the Borg probe was remodulating its shields at the time, creating a window during which the torpedo could be transported. Of course, waiting for such "flickers" in the enemy shields in order to do something is a fairly common tactic in Star Trek, so I find it unlikely Star Wars ships would not also experience similar such "flickers". Not that clever tactics are even necessary when your weapons have at least 40 times the firing range and the enemy ships have no way of catching you at sublight.

Sir Broadsword Well, in TFA Han uses something similar to sneak into the Starkiller base: aproaching at the same speed of the shield refrecting rate.

Thrawn's fleet was using their heavy turbolasers: they don't have heavier weapons. He likely could have destroyed them by shooting incessantly, but not through using heavier guns. Also, the rebel shield had been upgraded by Sabine, who was not present. Neither Thrawn nor the Rebels could have known it's full output.

In the clone wars, venator class star destroyers had several tiers of destruction in their turbolasers, from low to high settings, all on the same turret. I'm sure that if this feature wasn't put on the stock variant of the ISD, Thrawn put it in himself (and I know you will rant on about not getting this from canon or something of the sort, but I am not a scientist, only trying to point out common sense, so...) Thrawn almost overheating the shield was just a fluke designed to make some 8-year-olds overreact to nothing. I doubt that Thrawn actually meant to overheat the shield, but he most likely set the power to low anyway so that he wouldn't wreck everything if the shield collapsed in the first second or two (again, I'm speaking from common sense, here. Talk all you want about canon, I will most likely interfere anyway.) And at least give me credit on this one: A single photon torpedo from Enterprise-D would not only obliterate the shield, but glass everything in the vicinity, as well as put a large crater where the Rebel Base was. Edit: And FYI, the venator thing is actually canon.

+Ryan K _"In the clone wars, venator class star destroyers had several tiers of destruction in their turbolasers, from low to high settings, all on the same turret. (...) And FYI, the venator thing is actually canon."_ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8iRCucHqwso.html - That is a Venator class Star Destroyer. Just like the cannons used on battleships in WWII, these guns have a set ammunition size. _"Thrawn almost overheating the shield was just a fluke designed to make some 8-year-olds overreact to nothing. I doubt that Thrawn actually meant to overheat the shield"_ That shield was upgraded by Sabine: Thrawn has no way of knowing that, nor how powerful it is. If it hadn't been upgraded, Thrawn would have certainly killed all the rebels by accident. _"And at least give me credit on this one: A single photon torpedo from Enterprise-D would not only obliterate the shield, but glass everything in the vicinity, as well as put a large crater where the Rebel Base was."_ That's true. _"I know you will rant on about not getting this from canon or something of the sort, but I am not a scientist, only trying to point out common sense"_ The reason I only go by the canon sources, is that fans (Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans alike) are well known to add their own elements to "correct" what they don't like when it comes to technology and lore. I recently saw a video by Spacedock about Star Trek's _Battle of Maxia_ that blatantly exaggerated the ranges involved, from "point-blank" (as stated in the episode by Picard), to an absurd _thirty light-seconds._ The farthest weapon range ever seen against a moving target in Star Trek is just over *one* light-second, so there's no way that claim has any basis in fact. The facts should be truthfully reported, regardless of personal opinions.

+Ryan K _"Now, those "turbolaser shots" as you have called it many, many times were actually proton bombs being thrown across a few hundred meters by high-tech slugthrowers (...)"_ Which is why they shoot exactly the same glowing energy projectiles that turbolasers do, right? Because they are actually bullets. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, because there's literally no reason for me to believe what you just said here. _"You may have noticed that they are not the main weapons on the venator. In fact, they aren't even included in the stock variant, quoting the legends stuff we all hate."_ Which is why they are flying all about during every capital ship exchange in Star Wars, because they are uncommon weapons that are not the primary weapon on most ships... _"the actual main weapons in the scene you just showed me lit up an area of anywhere from (...) further supporting the idea that Thrawn wasn't shooting at full power."_ The light generated by turbolaser rounds has never been shown to indicate variation in their firepower in any case. _"Of course Thrawn didn't know the capability of the shield, that is probably why he didn't go balls to the walls in case the thing collapsed."_ An orbital heavy turbolaser bombardment *is* "balls to the walls", as you so crudely put it. _"At least there is a reason for Star Trek to be inconsistent. For example, this hypothetical conversation when Q chucked the Enterprise-D at a borg cube"_ The Borg were shown to drain away the Enterprise-D's shields _before_ the laser was used. That same laser is never shown again in any context, as it was a surgical device used to extract bits of tech intact from their targets: not a tactical system. There's no inconsistency there.

In the last point, that is kind of what I said. No shields, to put it crudely. And if you won't believe that proton bombs are not turbolasers, i'll just leave you to it. For now...

That's a little too far in the future for the purposes of this video.

And now there's this scene from the Bad Batch: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-y7ZZMZzLwNw.html Second verse, same as the first.

_"This isn't really a good depiction of star wars planetary bombardment. I would suggest the scene in Knights of the old republic where Malak glasses Taris."_ You suggest taking a non-canon video game above the actual canon. The answer is no. _"Even in the star wars comics and novels, even if they are not really canon anymore"_ If it's not canon, I'm not interested. _"Weapons like a low powered death star blast in rouge one were common place."_ Death Stars are not "commonplace". _"This isn't a debate over one star destroy vs the Enterprise. It's dozens if not hundreds of star destroyers vs the enterprise."_ Looking at this video, _Enterprise_ takes the win with ease.

expect Star wars has been taking from the old republic over and over. They have been working on bridging the gap for awhile. Lucas and Disney have already included places from the old republic and even had plans to introduce Darth Revan in the clone wars. You are not listening to what i'm saying you insufferable dolt. I'm saying weapons that can destroy whole countries were common in star wars, not death stars. And like most things in fiction the writers just make up shit to suit the situation. Star wars bombardments are much more realistic. Someone even made a video on youtube about how stupid and unrealistically powerful the star trek ships are. To completely destroy the surface of a planet would take more power than those ships could possibly contain. To completely destroy the crust of a planet would take something on the level of the moon impacting its surface. And in one episode the enterprise had to try and stop a moon from falling on to a planet. Not only were they not able to do that but they nearly wrecked the ship in the process. Where in star wars they have fucking huge space stations that move solar systems and black holes around called centerpoint and sinkhole station. And before you say its not canon the daughter and son were the ones that made them. and since they were made canon chances are their past deeds are canon as well.

_"expect Star wars has been taking from the old republic over and over."_ You're clearly desperate. The fact is, Disney owns Star Wars: including the Old Republic. That doesn't make it canon, especially since they said it's not canon. Disney cherry-picks whatever details *_they like_* and add it to the canon. Unfortunately for you, that didn't include any planet slagging. Boo hoo. _"And like most things in fiction the writers just make up shit to suit the situation. Star wars bombardments are much more realistic. Someone even made a video on youtube about how stupid and unrealistically powerful the star trek ships are."_ Do you know what antimatter is? Because Star Trek ships are powered by it, and antimatter weapons would _definitely_ be that powerful, regardless of what any angry Star Wars fan on youtube says.

was Taris that first planet we were on that is a well developed city? If i remember the cut scene correctly it takes several turbo laser hits to destroy a skyscraper. turbo lasers do about as much visual damage as a modern day cruise missile? where the star trek phaser destroyed a small mountain in a single shot.

How many phase cannons did enterprise have? I'm pretty sure you could count them on one hand, maybe two. Where the star destroyers had dozens if not hundreds of cannons. Also that scene where they blew up the mountain was an overload event. That knocked out their weapons for an hour if not more. But what i'm getting at is. A star destroyers destructive power is spread out over many cannons, not just two or more powerful ones. And keep in mind those skyscrapers are as tall as mountains and made of super reinforced metals.

*Repeating this for the umpteenth time:* That was the standard setting. The problem was the guns being more powerful than they thought. In the same, exact episode as the overload, the crew fixed it by taking some of the gravity plating from deck three and rebuilding the plating into a primitive inertia dampener to absorb the extra recoil. That means the "overload" is now the standard maximum setting, and that setting _barely scratches Vulcan ships._

_"Actually if you watch the season 3 finale from the beginning we have Tarkin telling Thrawn to take prisoners."_ That doesn't change that they used the Heavy Turbolasers in the bombardment. _"(...) gives us a fire power figure of 2.8 million TW"_ Holy... what drugs are you on? First off: you should be measuring in _joules_ or _tons of TNT,_ because watts are a measurement of *_energy over time_* which is not important to explosive or impact weapons like turbolasers. Secondly, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YW0kuf2Lx-Q.html

plus, you got those figures from stardestroyer.net. all that page proves is that asteroids were destroyed. the size of said asteroids is unprovable, but they couldn't have been more than about 10-15m in size. not only that, but brian young, who wrote the page on turbolaser power, stated that they were medium or bigger turbolasers, not the light PDLs. and turbolasers do not scale from one size to the next. so that whole spiel is nothing but pure bullshit

another thing, that page you got those numbers from is also inaccurate and was never updated or corrected. there were no additional asteroids destroyed other than the 3 that we see the avenger semi-vaporize. brian young claimed that there were 60-100m asteroids destroyed AFTER they left the asteroid field. i wouldnt use that as a source unless you drink their koolaid too much.

Finally, we have a canonical example of a planetary bombardment from Star Wars. Not a game, or a novel: a televised show.

In DS9 S3E21 "The Die is Cast", the joint Romulan and Cardassian fleet perform a planetary bombardement. 20% of the planets crust was destroyed in the opening volley.

30% was the quote. Also, it should be noted that these ships have comparable firepower to Picards Galaxy Class Enterprise. Which has been proven to blast through planetary crust without much of a problem and even heavily damage a more advanced Borg cube in their first encounter. Which had capabilities superior to their own at the time.

_"30% was the quote. Also, it should be noted that these ships have comparable firepower to Picards Galaxy Class Enterprise."_ The Cardassian ships actually have substantially less.

Idamzi7 I thought it was due to the fact most of Starfleets newer ships had them outranged and outgunned(by better weapons coverage) including the Enterprise. My comparison is from DS9s The Way of the Warrior based on how well Dukats ship held up vs the Enterprise-D's alternate timeline encounter from Yesterdays Enterprise(TNG). Both ships were outnumbered by three Klingon Bird of Preys. I remember that Dukats' ship didn't fair as well as Picards' ship in those similar encounters.

Impressive by Star Wars standards, not very impressive by Star Trek standards. One ship could do that damage in seconds.

Turbolasers don't have adjustable power output: they use tibanna gas canisters as ammo the same way traditional guns use shells. We can see that in action in Star Wars Episode 3 during the attack against the Invisible Hand.

@@Idazmi7 They are bound to have some level of adjustable power output. The laser that heats up that said gas (hence, Turbolaser) would logically be able to have an increase or decrease its power. The reason why theirs are different calibers probably has to do with the volume of gas.

I don't know what to make of Luke.

Do you know what to make of Luke now? ^^;

+Sir Broadsword Star Wars Episode 8: The Legend of Korra

Thanks.

+CMDR ritzelGdA Spock replies: "Your questionable technobabble is exceeded only by your atrocious grammar and spelling."

i'm not writing a text or an essay and insulting me won't work you're still wrong.

A little bit of star trek canon for you from the tng episode, The outrageous Okona. Captain, they are now locking lasers on us." "Lasers!?" "Yes, sir." "Lasers can't even penetrate our navigation shields. Don't they know that?" The captain is Picard, the officer is Riker and it IS in the script and portrayed in the episode if you take the time to research it.

the borg also uses lasers and the federation losses all battle to the borg :)

CMDR ritzelGdA4 dias atrás Star Wars: Slave-1 Main guns: 64000 GW (2 kilotons per shot, 480 rpm firing rate onscreen in AOTC for time-averaged power output rather than peak output) Star Trek: Enterprise-D Main phasers: 3.6 GW Star Wars: Slave-1 Missiles: 190 megatons (tail-launched missiles; seismic charge mines are roughly 12000 megatons) Star Trek: Enterprise-D Photon torpedoes: 64 megatons max theoretical Star Wars: Slave-1 Sublight acceleration: 2500G Star Trek: Enterprise-D Sublight acceleration: 1000G Star Wars: Slave-1 Operational range: not stated (however, Obi-Wan's starfighter has an operational range of 150,000 light-years, and is probably similar). Star Trek: Enterprise-D Operational range: 2750 light-years Star Wars: Slave-1 Shield heat dissipation: not stated (however, Amidala's personal yacht has shield dissipation of 2 billion GW peak, and is probably similar) Star Trek: Enterprise-D Shield heat dissipation: 3311 GW peak Star Wars: Slave-1 Reactor power: not stated (however, Amidala's personal yacht has power output of 7 billion GW max, and is probably similar) Star Trek: Enterprise-D Reactor power: ~4 billion GW at max warp 9.6 Star Wars: Slave-1 Max hyperspace speed: not stated (however, same-day flight from core to galactic outer-rim systems requires speeds in excess of 10 million c) Star Trek: Enterprise-D Max warp speed: ~2000c (warp 9.6)

Yes indeed.

Did you not watch the video to the end?

yep. my Point was in regards to star wars use of Turbo lasers and calling it bombardment. its nowhere near what bombardment should be. that what their doing is just shooting things from orbit. Our own real life Star Wars program is much more devastating.

Thanks. :)

1) That was the standard setting. The problem was the guns being more powerful than they thought. In the same, exact episode as the overload, the crew fixed it by taking some of the gravity plating from deck three and rebuilding the plating into a primitive inertia dampener to absorb the extra recoil. That means the "overload" is now the standard maximum setting, and that setting *_barely scratches Vulcan ships._* 2) That's an actual Andorian ship. The Romulan drones were far less durable than that.

Idazmi7 The romulan drones could wipe up the floor with the Enterprise easily, and andorians wouldn't fire on a ship with Shraan. That was a drone alright(not that it makes a difference really...) And the weapon still burnt out some conduits later, and the overload occurred first because of the alien device, not because the cannons were better than expected

+Don Ficko _"The romulan drones could wipe up the floor with the Enterprise easily"_ No: those drones only advantage was extreme maneuverability. In fact, one of those drones was destroyed by a couple of torpedoes from Enterprise: an andorian ship would just power through the torpedoes and not give a care. _"And the weapon still burnt out some conduits later, and the overload occurred first because of the alien device, not because the cannons were better than expected"_ Watch the episode again: In the same episode, the crew fixed the problem by taking some of the gravity plating from deck three and rebuilding the plating into a primitive inertia dampener to absorb the extra recoil. NOT by removing an alien device. That means the "overload" is now the standard maximum setting, and even that maximum power hardly dents Vulcan shields in all later episodes.

_"Except Thrawn WASN'T attempting to kill the rebels there. Notice how he stopped the bombardment before the shield gave out."_ Thrawn's fleet was using their heavy turbolasers: they don't have heavier weapons. He likely could have destroyed them by shooting incessantly, but not through using heavier guns. Also, the rebel shield had been upgraded by Sabine, who was not present. Neither Thrawn nor the Rebels could have known it's full output. If Sabine hadn't upgraded that shield, they'd be dead. _"Also in that clip the weapons system was mistakenly OVER LOADED. That test fire fried the power relays and they ALL had to be replaced. It doesn't count as "regular" operations when you have to replace the power lines."_ Been over this with several people already: in the very same episode, they adapted some of the ship's gravity plating into a primitive inertia dampener to handle the excess recoil, effectively making that "overload" the new standard maximum setting. That was a plot point.

Wow. Some people just can accept that their beloved show isn't all that. Thrawn was a MASTER of psychological warfare. He knew exactly what effects the bombardment was having on his enemies. You are correct that the crew of the Enterprise managed to reroute the overload into the hull plating, but it was ALSO show to be a fly by the seat of your pants chance that BARELY worked. It wasn't the "new standard" for the weapon.

_"Thrawn was a MASTER of psychological warfare. He knew exactly what effects the bombardment was having on his enemies."_ I repeat: the rebel shield had been upgraded by Sabine, who was not present. Neither Thrawn nor the Rebels could have known it's full output. If Sabine hadn't upgraded that shield, the Rebels would be dead. _"You are correct that the crew of the Enterprise managed to reroute the overload into the hull plating, but it was ALSO show to be a fly by the seat of your pants chance that BARELY worked. It wasn't the "new standard" for the weapon."_ No: they actually took the gravity plating (not hull plating, which is NOT the same thing) and _rebuilt it into a primitive inertia dampener_ to handle the excess recoil. Put simply, they made a giant shock absorber out of excess parts and stuck it to the phase cannons. They can now fire safely without any recoil problems.

You've never been sitting in what should be a safe location while listening to danger knock in the roof, have you. The shield having been upgraded has nothing to do with the psychological effect of turbolaser bolts crashing down on it. On top of that they were unable to truly test the shields prior to the bombardment. They weren't even sure it would turn on let alone hold.

+Andrew F. Nelsen _"The shield having been upgraded has nothing to do with the psychological effect of turbolaser bolts crashing down on it."_ Nor does psychology have anything to do with the science of firepower.

Oh come now. There wasn't any lack of clarity here.

Yes because it seguayed into spaceship combat. & using an unshielded asteroid for target practice is not a great comparis on. I agree that ST beats SW tech any day but you are using a clearly ST biased approach.

_"I agree that ST beats SW tech any day but you are using a clearly ST biased approach."_ Yeah, no. There's no other canonical Star Wars bombardment in existence, and it's nothing compared to a single outdated exploration ship test firing it's cannons. What other approach was I supposed to use: _not_ comparing them in the first place? I mean, I could have used these references instead: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nU4lYIuvg58.html - That planet is toast... making it just as one-sided in Star Trek's favor. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e6LlLARRJfo.html - That entire freaking solar system is toast, making it far more in Star Trek's favor. There's nothing in canon Star Wars that can even fractionally approach this kind of firepower except the Death Star: nothing I can do will change that unless you want me to lie.

Those _are_ the capital ship guns. There are no larger guns on those ships.

Idazmi7 aight there a few other turbolasers on the side near the other ones and 3 very tiny ones and a few upfront but something to also be considered is Thrawn had orders to keep the rebels alive

None of that changes the fact that they were using heavy turbolasers in that bombardment.

Idazmi7 yeah but why would someone who has orders to keep someone alivw use their most powerful weapon

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uCjkRV8R99w.html - Maybe because they get their asses kicked by Rebels so bloody often.

And Genesis is mass-producible...

Those Sith Star Destroyers are the definition of Glass Cannons: they got mauled by regular firepower from civilian ships. Starfleet wouldn't be so easy to kill.

I don't see what the point would be: the fact that Klingons are a threat to Starfleet makes it very clear that the Mandalorians would be massively outgunned.

Idazmi7 Mandalorians rely on small commando operations. They're the Spartans of SW. Which makes them the kind of people that would try capturing the Klingon ships and using them. And the kind of people that can do enormous damage if they manage to capture a single bird of prey.

+Podemos URSS _"Mandalorians rely on small commando operations. They're the Spartans of SW. Which makes them the kind of people that would try capturing the Klingon ships and using them. And the kind of people that can do enormous damage if they manage to capture a single bird of prey."_ They won't capture one. In addition, even if they somehow, miraculously, managed to capture one, Star Trek's technology doesn't have the plethora of easily navigable security gaps that Star Wars ships do (like say, blind spots in the external sensors or a complete lack of automated security systems). And we saw what happened when three Klingon Birds of Prey attacked a planetary installation: they straight up lost.

Idazmi7 I agree. However a hand-to-hand fight between the klingons and the mandalorians would be quite epic. Also I never said they would get it, they would try capturing it using tricks, but I don't think they would be able to.

In the fanalie of the same episode, they retrofitted some of the gravity plating to absorb the extra recoil from the phase cannons, so the "overload" became the standard setting.

ahh ok, i haven't seen enterprise yet so i got the info from clips

Luc Fauvarque still canon. And there's no evidence that star wars can change yields of their weapons like in star trek. In fact, turbolasers weapons get weaker over time, as we see in the last jedi. Speaking of which, that was the only time we see an orbital bombardment which took 2 enormous canons to fire and still recharged slowly. This further proves that all other weapons in star wars are below subkilotons and trade the amount of firepower equal to artillery shells

_"In sheer firepower, i agree that star trek is superior. However theres a couple of things to account for. One and ill Quotr dorkly, "Magic Space Wizards." The force is actually quite strong and can prove to be an advantage as strong force users can interact with other beings on seperate ships."_ Star Trek has those, too. An awful lot of them, in fact, some of which are Federation member species. _"Not too mention a key factor that i rarely see in star trek, fighters. I rarely ever see fighters in star trek. Its one thing to have a 1v1 of capital ships, its another when theres a metric fuckton of fighters with it."_ Star Trek had fighters too, but the point-defense in Star Trek is so strong that they just don't last in large battles.

Idazmi7 you do make some valid points, however in such a large battle, there's a number of things to consider, don't get me wrong, I'm not fanboying over star wars, I just enjoy theoretical discussions like this, you can add me on discord if you want to talk more

Thanks.

I was only referring to Federation hardware.

im pretty sure a star destroyer is 700 meters to 1 mile long starships scale from 100 meters to 3 miles (look up nx 01 and enterprise J and other ship classses)

Thank you. I agree.

Disney is the death star of franchises

Of course it could.

Just wondering do you think that the nx-01 could destroy the entire imperial fleet or not since it has no shields?

That depends on how big the imperial fleet is, and whether or not you mean all at once (which is very highly unlikely to happen at any rate). It could certainly take out the Death Star easily, since it can shoot an in-flight torpedo with a torpedo: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1E1gqxVO8bY.html

I meant at the most efficient way possible plus the death star is over 100 time the size of the nx-01 but is a lot less useful.

Indeed it is.

memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Columbia_class - You mean this? It's not canonical in any sense. It was proposed, but it violates several typical design elements known in Star Trek and doesn't work as a pre-Kirk era design for many reasons. Just FYI, the original _Enterprise_ was _Starship Class:_ it was never called "Constitution Class" in the original show.

Yes that's the one.

To be honest, the retcon was completely justified, because "Starship class" was just stupid. I for one am happy to accept that "Constitution class" is the correct designation as per Picard in "Relics".

+Sir Broadsword You should actually be thanking the _Star Fleet Technical Manual_ from 1973. That's where _Constitution-Class_ originated. It was signed into canon by Gene in 1974 - before TNG existed - but it's still worth noting that the term was never used in the show proper: even the dedication plaque of the 1701 says _Starship-Class._ The SFTM is also the source of the _Federation-Class_ dreadnoughts and the _Saladin-Class_ destroyers of the TOS era.

_"live action 1900s t.v. series and a kids (...) cartoon made in 2008 (...) although there arent many live action 1900s t.v. shows based on starwars for you to compair were there?"_ Star Trek Enterprise is from 2001.

well ill be damned thanks for the information but the fact that it is still a live action show vs a kids cartoon (7 years apart) still stands

+Zack Brownell _"thanks for the information but the fact that it is still a live action show vs a kids cartoon (7 years apart) still stands"_ That doesn't change anything.

@BillyBob The two big problems with your point are firstly that Rebels is very much considered canon, and secondly that there is a disturbing lack of examples of impressive starship firepower in the Star Wars canon. What we see in that Rebels clip is _typical_ (just look at how lacklustre the firepower of the ships enforcing the Naboo blockade was, for example. Only direct hits could destroy the droids repairing the shield generator. If their firepower was decent the blast of a turbolaser impact anywhere nearby would have incinerated the unprotected droids, but nope). Also, how does when they were made change anything?

_"That episode of Rebels still makes no sense..... that many star destroyers in an orbital bombardment has been seen to be able to destroy planets surfaces give maybe a few hours...."_ Star Destroyers have never been shown to have that much firepower.

+Monique Lyon In Star Wars, there is usually mention shields in dialogue (we hear about the shields on Admiral Raddus' ship in Rogue One and on Darth Vader's ship in Return of the Jedi, for example) but there's never any indication of weapons being even slightly hindered by them. _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_ had very similar problems in later seasons due to all of the digital effects budget being wasted on _Voyager_ during production. That said, unlike DS9, Star Wars has no history of _ever_ showing shields, and always has a fantastic budget. In fact, do we even have proof that those were shields on that Star Destroyer at all? It doesn't look like it in the slightest: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sbfr6k7R9zQ.html

true it is probably only the ion effect.

If there were shields on the Star derstroyers shouldn't they have stopped the disabled one from ramming the other one

+HundertDampf No. A shield wouldn't have made any difference to a collision of that magnitude. Not even the shield surrounding Scarif stopped the Star Destroyers.

HundertDampf I think that those shields were meant to deal with laser fire, not a capital ship colliding with it.

Then Darth Vader would just melt Tatooine when Leia hid the Death Star plans down there.

That would be just as unfair.

Ties are completely unshielded, they're basically flying plywood boxes.

Considering we've seen Star Trek shuttles and Runabouts survive sustained fire from capital ships, I think it's safe to say the SW fighters are boned in every orifice. And that's putting it nicely.

star trek ships have computer locking systems which can easily target 50 fighter and destroy them in a split second.

www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/destar-phased-array-laser-systems-for.html Some actual science regarding how a Phased Array really works. Also, you're wrong about ships taking no damage from warping into planets: that would instantly destroy them.

Star Wars itself is a children's franchise, so that doesn't matter. If the writers wanted to show greater firepower, they would have had the turbolasers destroy the entire surrounding area and still had the shield hold up. Instead, that shield (which was upgraded by Sabine) _barely_ held against the equivalent of a bunch of hand grenades. The only other bombardment you could reference is in the Bad Batch, which has Venator Star Destroyers bombarding Kamino from well within the atmosphere. Neither scene shows anything matching Star Trek's average feats - nowhere close.

Actually, it was Han Solo who said that about the Imperial Fleet.

Your right, I stand corrected.

the quote is *"the whole starfleet couldnt destroy the planet. it would take 1000 ships with more firepower than has ever existed"* thats from the novel. the movie states *"the entire starfleet couldnt destroy the planet. it would take 1000 ships with more firepower than ive...."*

"Another thing to point out is a single Starfleet vessel can destroy an entire planet simply by destabilizing the planets core." Then why did Nero need the red matter in the 2009 film?

Corey Micallef the reboot movies are a seperate canon altogether. You cant even compare the 2 timelines.

+Richard Ched _"However to be fair the Phasers and Photon Torpedoes also appear to be Sub-Kiloton to Low Megaton (Definitely not the exaggerated yields that Idazmi7 suggests)"_ The problem with that argument is this 4:05 - That weapon is clearly shown leveling a mountain in one shot. Yet when fired against shielded warships at 4:29, they do almost nothing on impact. That is *NOT* because they are firing less powerful shots (they are literally fighting for their lives) it's because the targets are protected by energy fields. The fact that Photon Torpedoes can easily *_tear a ship protected in this way into pieces_* makes them far more powerful. I was hoping that you would be able to understand that without my intervention. If you want to go into raw science, explosions are often _less_ visually impressive in space, due to the lack of an atmosphere. All those air molecules enhance the appearance of the explosion by reflecting the released light and generating huge fireballs; there's no air in a vacuum, so the explosion seems far smaller than it actually is.

+Idazmi7 How much Energy is required to demolish a mountain? Dialogue says that the Phase Cannons are rated at 80 to 500 Gigajoules (Sub-Kiloton) And Reed says that the blast is 10 times more powerful than just "A Little off the top" Assuming this means the power was 10 times the Theoretical Max of the Phase Cannon the Anti-Mountain Blast was 5 Terajoules (Or 1.2 Kilotons) What we see on screen would suggest otherwise. How can we even calculate Yields if the Blasts have no Splash Damage? Now yes I can see the Photon Torpedoes being a few dozen Megatons and vastly more powerful than the NX-01's Photonic Torpedoes. Should we take Dialogue over visuals?

The Inconsistency of Star Trek Weapons is the problem. They appear to be Low to Sub-Kiloton in some episodes and are presented as Teraton Scale Weapons in others. Same with Star Wars (The ISD Destroys Asteroids in ESB but does a few Kilograms of Damage in the Rebels Episode)

+Richard Ched _"How much Energy is required to demolish a mountain? Dialogue says that the Phase Cannons are rated at 80 to 500 Gigajoules (Sub-Kiloton) And Reed says that the blast is 10 times more powerful than just "A Little off the top" Assuming this means the power was 10 times the Theoretical Max of the Phase Cannon the Anti-Mountain Blast was 5 Terajoules (Or 1.2 Kilotons) What we see on screen would suggest otherwise."_ You clearly never saw the episode. (thus, you cannot tell me what they said in dialogue, either) In the finale of that same episode, they modify some of their gravity-plating to absorb the recoil, so that they can _always_ fire the more powerful bursts. It's their standard firepower. That, and you _should not_ argue against what we are clearly seeing: that blast leveled that mountain, regardless of what anyone says. _"The Inconsistency of Star Trek Weapons is the problem. They appear to be Low to Sub-Kiloton in some episodes and are presented as Teraton Scale Weapons in others."_ Since you *_clearly_* didn't read what I said the first time: if you want to go into raw science, explosions are often *less* visually impressive in space, due to the lack of an atmosphere. All those air molecules enhance the appearance of the explosion by reflecting the released light and generating huge fireballs; there's no air in a vacuum, so the explosion seems far smaller than it actually is. _"Same with Star Wars (The ISD Destroys Asteroids in ESB but does a few Kilograms of Damage in the Rebels Episode)"_ And it is NOT the same in Star Wars. There has never been any orbital attack - using _normal_ turbolasers - that ever did enough damage to compare to what Star Trek does literally all the time with it's weapons: even the asteroids in TESB.

How come the explosions were less than hanf grenade if it had the firepower of a 5000 pound bomb?

To be honest, it wasn't ever fair to begin with. Star Trek confirmed that the _Enterprise_ could kill a planet in the first episode ever made in 1965, and Star Wars' first movie confirmed that more than a thousand Star Destroyers wouldn't be able to do the same. The argument was basically DOA.

On the good side however, if the writers and owners of the star wars genre can get past the everything MUST be old school canon only ideals, star wars has literally unlimited potential for advancement in all areas. Me personally, I would LOVE to see star wars tech reach a level that could compete with Starfleet and the other major races in the star trek universe, then things would get really fun ^^ .

+Lisa winn It would make the Star Wars fanboys even crazier, though.

Yep, likely. As an example of just how nutzy some of them can be, I have a friend that went to collage up in the Eureka/Arcata area of California, while there he built a program specific to comparing star wars and star trek to put an end fanboys raving over data, he built the program to work independently from human interference and create it's own comparative matrix. Guess what, even TOS star trek proved to be superior in every way, he was threatened repeatedly, several attempts were made to steal the computer, naturally claims of bias, he even received a death threat. Star wars fanboys went absolutely foaming at the mouth bonkers over undeniable data and some did everything they could think of trying to silence the data. And this was years ago when computers were much less powerful.

Precisely.

Don't forget Red Matter and Trilithium devices.

Nicholas Dobos Well from your description they both seem to be very different weapon systems designed to do very different things but basically with the same end goal in mind. Well the Death Star obviously completely destroys planets, but is also capable of smaller tactical strikes designed to destroy areas or smash planetary shields in a single shot. The Genesis Torpedo is designed to completely sterilise a planets surface of life similar to cyclonic torpedos from the W40K universe. So two very different weapon systems and primary functions but the same end goal. Nothing left to oppose you.

It wouldn't make a difference if I used _Revenge of the Sith._ Star Wars, as a franchise, was meant for 12 year olds from the start. Star Trek was made for adults. That doesn't change the fact that standard turbolasers are basically pop-guns by Star Trek standards across the entire franchise - age group doesn't determine firepower.

Star Wars Rebels is canon.

your other existing example is the avenger popping ~2m asteroids in ESB and still not completely vaporizing them.

You know what else is canon? Base Delta zero. A command issued where a stardestroyer proceeds to wipe out all life on a planet with constant bombardment in a couple of hours You are either a troll or a butthurt fanboy. Believe me I know because I love trek and starwars This video from rebels is showing small turret fire.

I take it you have a more impressive example of Star Destroyer firepower? Note that, as hard as it seems to be for Warsies to remember this, the EU is non-canon.

+USSCrazybat Now that you've given your two cents, actually watch the video in it's fullness: you obviously didn't even get beyond the Star Wars clips before you typed this. If you had, you would know that blasting a Star Destroyer to slag would actually be the easiest thing for them to do.

I did watch all of the video before I posted - and don't get me wrong, I am heavily in favour of Trek, always have been - but I've always wondered where the balance is between the two IPs. And what do we take as gospel? Early TNG, where a single photon torpedo could obliterate an entire ship and the Enterprise if it wasn't far away? The TOS movies, where unshielded ships could take quite a few shots and return fire? Or Nemesis, where the ships take an impossible amount of punishment? Based on your video, yes, any battle between equivalent ship classes would be a swift Trek victory, and that gratifies me as someone who's seen the same argument over and over again in favour of Star Wars (massive reactor/turbolaser/shield output). But I would be also concerned with making any hypothetical engagement entertaining and at least reasonably balanced.

_"I did watch all of the video before I posted - and don't get me wrong, I am heavily in favour of Trek, always have been - but I've always wondered where the balance is between the two IPs."_ If you need to ask that question, you clearly didn't watch anything: 4:05 _"And what do we take as gospel? Early TNG, where a single photon torpedo could obliterate an entire ship and the Enterprise if it wasn't far away? The TOS movies, where unshielded ships could take quite a few shots and return fire? Or Nemesis, where the ships take an impossible amount of punishment?"_ What do we take as gospel? The Civil War, in which two iron ships could fight for hours and barely get damaged, or the modern day, where a single missile cripples a titanium ship in one hit? TNG and TOS are literally a century apart, so that little attempt you made at claiming inconsistency between series is no more than a joke. You either knew that before you even typed it, or you should have. If Archer's primitive NX class explorer can outgun an entire Star Destroyer fleet that easily, nearly everything else from the later series can do the same. _"Based on your video, yes, any battle between equivalent ship classes would be a swift Trek victory, and that gratifies me as someone who's seen the same argument over and over again in favour of Star Wars (massive reactor/turbolaser/shield output)"_ Yeah: massive reactor output that barely burned some space trees. Star Wars was always giving low *showings* when compared to Star Trek, so I never too those claims seriously. Canon events always outweigh the fandom's claims. _"But I would be also concerned with making any hypothetical engagement entertaining and at least reasonably balanced."_ What balance? Star Trek's very first episode claimed the _Enterprise_ could destroy a planet's entire surface, and there's been no conflicting statement from anyone but Star Wars fanboys. Not one episode suggests that they are less powerful than that. Star Wars' first movie said it would take over a thousand Star Destroyers to do the same, so there never was any possibility of a "balanced" engagement.

Alright, alright, you've clearly put a lot of thought into your argument. Can we just both agree that Star Trek's the best and move on?

+USSCrazybat Sure. I'm sorry if I came across as hostile: I've been debating with the fanboys so long that I sometimes get easily annoyed.

_"The comparison also needs more explenation. The Imperial star destroyers were trying to shoot through a shield."_ Some of the turbolasers missed the shield entirely and hit the soil: are you going to say the soil is made of super energy-absorbent material?

It was an overload due to the fact that the phaser was only a prototype, later models on that time are far more powerful

_"(...) logic dictates that the ISDs was not using their full power trying to destroy the base."_ They were using heavy turbolasers: the biggest guns they have. _"You really need to read Star Wars Aftermath: Life Debt"_ I'm not going to read a little-known book that no one really cares about in order to support an argument you made: it's films, shows, or nothing. _"You also need to read"_ No one cares about the secondhand books of a film trilogy.

Heavy Turbo lasers can change their power output. Also, you should care about those books that I listed due to them being cannon. You cannot do a VS video without all the facts.

_"Heavy Turbo lasers can change their power output."_ That has never been shown. _"Also, you should care about those books that I listed due to them being cannon. You cannot do a VS video without all the facts."_ I _can't_ do a VS video without video, and books are never, ever going to be as important as the films.

***** Actually yes, the books are actually extremely important if you want to make sense of the movies. And no, if you read the books, then you know that turbo lasers can be lowered. Here is a good example of how important the books are. What was the battle of Jakku for?

_"Actually yes, the books are actually extremely important if you want to make sense of the movies."_ No. In order to make sense of the movies, it's best to ignore the books, which needlessly complicate things and also exaggerate to the point of open contradiction of the lore. _"And no, if you read the books, then you know that turbo lasers can be lowered."_ They cannot be lowered: that's why they come in different sizes to engage different targets, just like modern weaponry. _"Here is a good example of how important the books are. What was the battle of Jakku for?"_ I don't care.

This channel doesn't include non-canon.

"Non-canon" fanfiction, more like.

+Colin Jackson Exactly. Games like KOTR, and The Force Unleashed are nothing but playable fanfiction.

A Galactic-class star destoryer from the post-clone-war era is at least 6 times bigger than a Galaxy class, yet displying much less impressive firepower, which illustrates the tech difference across the universes.

_"The NX, while using a weapon overpowered for its OWN purposes, was using the equivalent of a flashlight compared to other races. There's almost no rating system for Trek-based weapons, because they suit whatever the writers need them to, rather than having a standard of power. There's ship-based phasers that can carve a signature a centimeter wide on a planet's surface without even setting the grass ablaze, and then there's 'well, we burned the northern hemisphere off because I forgot to regulate the power distribution' that they say they can do."_ Which means you are ignorant. Star Trek weapons, unlike Star Wars, have always been extremely adjustable. That's not plot armor, it's not a contradiction: it's a built-in function.

Call me when you're done whining.

(Looks at video) Sure, kid.

I took the officials numbers, what can I say more. And in the video Thrawn did not want to kill them, he wanted to attack them on the ground to capture them becvause that is what Tarkin wants. But don't bother answering because I know you're just a little kid trying to get attention.

+TheMaster FR _"I took the officials numbers"_ Star Wars never printed official yields, and Star Trek's official yields look nothing like what you just posted there. You didn't even specify the type of phaser you are referring to. _"And in the video Thrawn did not want to kill them, he wanted to attack them on the ground to capture them becvause that is what Tarkin wants."_ That doesn't change the pitiful demonstration those "167.36 zettajoule" turbolasers gave. 0.5 zettajoules would be literally *trillions* of times more powerful than the whole bombardment in that scene.

what bullshit source gave you those numbers?

im still waiting on your sources for your "official numbers".

There were only two examples of Star Trek bombardment in this video: the rest was to aid viewers in understanding Star Trek's powerscale. If you feel cheated, know that at the time this was uploaded, there was only this scene, the bombardment of Tipoca City (which was conducted from _inside_ the atmosphere), and the bombardment from _The Last Jedi_ (which used a unique starship).There were, and really still _are_ no better references for *orbital* bombardment in Star Wars. On another note, I was being kind: I relegated myself to Star Trek's early era (2160s to 2260s). Even if I remade the video now, even the _'Night of 1000 Tears'_ from The Book of Boba Fett episode 5 can't remotely approach the power of that one antimatter bomb, let alone casual bombardments from series that take place a century later in the timeline, like what happened in _The Die is Cast._

+Mr. Zupre The original Star Wars never had that problem, being rated PG and all.

The base's shield was included in this video.

whats really sad is the accuracy of the turbolasers. half or more of those shots missed.

_"and why there is only one clip from star wars and dozen star trek ?"_ To illustrate how firepower scales in Star Trek.

Mr. Zupre Because Star Wars doesn't tend to demonstrate fire power so often.

+Sergente A No, Star Wars demonstrates it's firepower constantly. It's just pathetic compared to Star Trek.

Idazmi7 I meant a good demonstration of firepower of which we can feel the scale. This is one of the few times where they cannot say "but shields there, force fields here, 200 meters asteroid etcetera". In the Rebel clip they are bombarding the Rebel base and its surroundings, and we can clearly see the scale and the power of the turbolasers.

Actually the lasers as portrayed in star wars do not behave like real lasers would, they are portrayed as being far slower than even our modern lasers of today are which are primitive compared to them, the reality of it is the star wars versions of lasers are in fact very NOT realistic, they are so far off of being realistic as portrayed that a star fleet vessel could literally outrun and out maneuver them in a combat situation as portrayed in the movies and television shows.

gianni bude no they arent. if they really had a few thousand years of technological advancement, then they would have more advanced tech, but they don't. also, most of our modern tech is based of real star trek technology, so yeah, sorry to disappoint

16-inch shells from an Iowa-class battleship would literally have done a better job of killing Kanan than those turbolasers did.