# Star Wars vs Star Trek

Show 1000 post(s) from this thread on one page
• 04-24-09, 11:24 AM
fedr808
[QUOTE=Oli;2235307]Better tell the USAF then, otherwise they could end up doing something wrong.
They think they have HE/I rounds.
[url]http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001gun/Tasson2.pdf[/url]
And it's KE that's a measure of destructive power, not momentum.

No it isn't.
KE is a better measure.[/QUOTE]

Kinetic energy is the energy an object has in motion, momentum is the amount of kinetic energy that can be transferred from one object to another. KE is really only useful for telling how much potential energy is making it to kinetic energy and some other higher level physics.

Momentum can tell us a lot, lot more about destructive power than KE can, ie, i could tell you exactly how far back a human being would fly back after being hit by either the cannon ball or the gau-8 round. You cant do that with KE without linking it through momentum.
• 04-24-09, 12:31 PM
tuberculatious
I think that the ultimate kinetic weapon is the photon torpedo.
• 04-24-09, 12:32 PM
Kittamaru
[QUOTE=fedr808;2235273]Well for starters the Gau-8 avenger doesnt fire explosive shells nor are they incendiary, they just have a depleted uranium core that adds enough mass to create a significantly larger amount of momentum which translates to more destructive power.

[COLOR="Red"]Actually, they do have both - they aren't common loadout, but they are available for special missions :)[/COLOR]

So a 340 gram (12 ounce) gau-8 round moving at 1,066 meters per second, has 363 units of momentum.

A 14.55 kilogram cannon ball moving at around 228.6 meters per second equals around 3,326 units of momentum nearly ten times that of the Gau-8 round.

So in the blunt force category the cannon ball wins by a significant amount. And yes as far as kinetic weaponry goes momentum is the deciding factor of destructive power[/QUOTE]

So you would agree the GAU-8 Round is more destructive? I mean, when have we seen a cannonball take out a tank :D
• 04-24-09, 04:13 PM
Oli
[QUOTE=fedr808;2235370]Kinetic energy is the energy an object has in motion, momentum is the amount of kinetic energy that can be transferred from one object to another. KE is really only useful for telling how much potential energy is making it to kinetic energy and some other higher level physics.[/quote]
KE is an indicator of penetration into the target and energy transfer - the damage caused.

[quote]Momentum can tell us a lot, lot more about destructive power than KE can, ie, i could tell you exactly how far back a human being would fly back after being hit by either the cannon ball or the gau-8 round. You cant do that with KE without linking it through momentum.[/QUOTE]
Except you don't want the target to fly back [I]at all[/I] - you want to put holes in it where it stands (or cause surface damage).
• 04-24-09, 07:11 PM
Kittamaru
[QUOTE=Oli;2235595]KE is an indicator of penetration into the target and energy transfer - the damage caused.

Except you don't want the target to fly back [I]at all[/I] - you want to put holes in it where it stands (or cause surface damage).[/QUOTE]

I don't want it to fly back OR put holes in it...

I want to detonate it...

:m:
• 04-25-09, 07:30 PM
TW Scott
[QUOTE=Oli;2235192]From an HE/I round?
That puts a 1 metre diameter hole in 15mm thick steel and you think that's survivable?[/quote]

Oh ye of little knowledge on the subject, as a matter of fact ballistic gelatin will not triigger the HE fuse, thus flesh won't.
• 04-25-09, 07:36 PM
Oli
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2236404]Oh ye of little knowledge on the subject, as a matter of fact ballistic gelatin will not triigger the HE fuse, thus flesh won't.[/QUOTE]

And the human body is composed entirely of flesh?
Silly me, I thought it had bones and stuff in it...
Or even a near miss.
• 04-25-09, 09:38 PM
Saven
Both are awesome! Star trek is a TV show though. Not very meaningful comparisons between the two universes.
• 04-25-09, 09:39 PM
Kittamaru
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2236404]Oh ye of little knowledge on the subject, as a matter of fact ballistic gelatin will not triigger the HE fuse, thus flesh won't.[/QUOTE]

Oh ye of little brainwave activity... when was the last time a soldier went into battle with bare flesh? Last I checked, they wear this thing called "Body Armour" which is hard and non-squishy...
• 04-25-09, 10:27 PM
TW Scott
[QUOTE=Oli;2236409]And the human body is composed entirely of flesh?
Silly me, I thought it had bones and stuff in it...
Or even a near miss.[/QUOTE]

And thus you will notice I didn't say EVERYWHERE in the human body. I worded my example very well as to avoid such problems. Those people with a 12 th grade reading level or higher should have gotten it. Though I suppose with the fervopr some of you Trekkies are showing it could be possible you rushed to the offensive without reading fully. In which case you probably would have understood it.

Now for the task at hand while Larger does not always mean more advanced and smaller does not eithe, there are some generalizations.

*Ship and Building size: Bigger is better. If you can build a stable starship that is 1.6km long and is stable you are using superior materials and methods to a culture whose largest vessek is ~600 meters long yet sags under it;s own weight. If you can build a 1500km diameter space station, that is mobile at STL and FTL speed you are superior to a culture who uses 20km tall space statikons that must use stabilizers to keep stable
• 04-25-09, 10:32 PM
Oli
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2236489]And thus you will notice I didn't say EVERYWHERE in the human body.[/quote]
Except that bones [I]are[/I] pretty much everywhere in the human body.

[quote]I worded my example very well as to avoid such problems. Those people with a 12 th grade reading level or higher should have gotten it.[/quote]
No, you made a facile statement - the round would penetrate flesh until it hit bone (especially at 30 mm in calibre).
Or even, like I said, do it with a near miss.

[quote]Though I suppose with the fervopr some of you Trekkies are showing it could be possible you rushed to the offensive without reading fully. In which case you probably would have understood it.[/quote]
Oh, the irony: you talk about 12th grade reading levels and then accuse me of being a Trekkie...
Any evidence for that?
None, since I'm not.
• 04-25-09, 11:46 PM
Kittamaru
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2236489]And thus you will notice I didn't say EVERYWHERE in the human body. I worded my example very well as to avoid such problems. Those people with a 12 th grade reading level or higher should have gotten it. Though I suppose with the fervopr some of you Trekkies are showing it could be possible you rushed to the offensive without reading fully. In which case you probably would have understood it.

Now for the task at hand while Larger does not always mean more advanced and smaller does not eithe, there are some generalizations.

*Ship and Building size: Bigger is better. If you can build a stable starship that is 1.6km long and is stable you are using superior materials and methods to a culture whose largest vessek is ~600 meters long yet sags under it;s own weight. If you can build a 1500km diameter space station, that is mobile at STL and FTL speed you are superior to a culture who uses 20km tall space statikons that must use stabilizers to keep stable[/QUOTE]

Yet that 1500km diameter space station was taken down by a 15 ft long snub fighter...

Yep, dat de're be sum fine engimehneering skills thar! Woo'hie that larger station shur were better!

NOT.
• 04-25-09, 11:47 PM
Kittamaru
[QUOTE=Oli;2236491]Oh, the irony: you talk about 12th grade reading levels and then accuse me of being a Trekkie...
Any evidence for that?
None, since I'm not.[/QUOTE]

See, this is why I pretty much laugh at him... heh. His only tactics are ad-hoc attacks, insults, and great leaps of illogic.
• 04-26-09, 12:50 AM
TW Scott
[QUOTE=Oli;2236491]Except that bones [I]are[/I] pretty much everywhere in the human body. [/quote

Nope not even close. Bone supports the body but there are so many places to hit a person that you would never hit bone and still have it be a direct hit.

How abou the meat of the arms and leg? How about theugh both ass cheeks? The abdomen where the spine isn't? Through both cheeks while the person is yelling?

[QUOTE]No, you made a facile statement - the round would penetrate flesh until it hit bone (especially at 30 mm in calibre).
Or even, like I said, do it with a near miss.[/QUOTE]

No, read above and apply intelligence. As for a near miss it MIGHT kill some one. Then again a near miss with a 35 pounder could concievably do the same, so it is a moot argument.

[quote]Oh, the irony: you talk about 12th grade reading levels and then accuse me of being a Trekkie...
Any evidence for that?
None, since I'm not.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, my mistake. I was analyzing your basis and type of argument and assigning a type of fandom based on how they make their arguments on the board.
• 04-26-09, 01:50 AM
Algernon
[QUOTE=Oli;2236491]Except that bones [I]are[/I] pretty much everywhere in the human body.

No, you made a facile statement - the round would penetrate flesh until it hit bone (especially at 30 mm in calibre).
Or even, like I said, do it with a near miss.

Oh, the irony: you talk about 12th grade reading levels and then accuse me of being a Trekkie...
Any evidence for that?
None, since I'm not.[/QUOTE]

Projectile ballistics and weapon logistics... the caliber of a projectile doesn't apply here. (eg a .45 caliber round has less penetration power than a 9mm because of its larger size, thus the .45 would not go as far into the flesh as a 9mm, of which the latter is a smaller sized round). Surface area has much to attribute to this, however as we all know from physics this also means that there is more surface area to do force, and the mass and force of the bullet is greater in the .45 giving the .45 more stopping power than the 9mm.
However, that is often slightly amended by using a JHP shell over a FMJ.

Depending on the situation, bullets are designed to either penetrate or stop... typically an increase in one is inversely proportional to the other. Most bullets, such as those from automatic rifles, are designed to "tumble" when it hits flesh, that is upon impact it does not go straight through but rather flips and turns and even curves within the tissues, causing hundreds of capillary and arterial/veinular tears and bleeds within, as well as sonic waves/shock impact damage to surrounding tissue.

Dying rarely occurs directly due to the bullet itself (unless they get shot directly in the brain stem/brain) but rather to internal bleeding/hemorrhaging/DIC/spleen or kidney stress/loss of blood/infections/ etc...
• 04-26-09, 01:59 AM
TW Scott
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2236532]Yet that 1500km diameter space station was taken down by a 15 ft long snub fighter...

Yep, dat de're be sum fine engimehneering skills thar! Woo'hie that larger station shur were better!

NOT.[/QUOTE]

Hey, could ST even build one in the first place? No. Point still goes to SW for superioor engineering an

So The first one had a flaw, the first of anything tends to have a flaw.

And the X-wing is 12 meters long not 15 ft.
• 04-26-09, 02:10 AM
TW Scott
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2236534]See, this is why I pretty much laugh at him... heh. His only tactics are ad-hoc attacks, insults, and great leaps of illogic.[/QUOTE]

LOL, No. My tactics are actuall examination of the film and script, answering the question, and using standard logic.

I admit i do add insults, but that is after I answer the argument and then insult the writer if it was a particularly stupid and inane argument. That's just venting and at least I have not made the comments you have made.
• 04-26-09, 07:59 AM
Oli
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2236554]Nope not even close. Bone supports the body but there are so many places to hit a person that you would never hit bone and still have it be a direct hit.[/quote]
That would be why I said [i]pretty much[/i] then, you think?

[quote]How abou the meat of the arms and leg? How about theugh both ass cheeks? The abdomen where the spine isn't? Through both cheeks while the person is yelling?[/quote]
Now you're just grasping at straws.
In general a 30 mm HE/I round is more lethal than a solid cannon ball.

[quote]No, read above and apply intelligence. As for a near miss it MIGHT kill some one. Then again a near miss with a 35 pounder could concievably do the same, so it is a moot argument.[/quote]
A 35 pdr solid cannon ball could kill someone with a near miss?

[quote]Sorry, my mistake. I was analyzing your basis and type of argument and assigning a type of fandom based on how they make their arguments on the board.[/QUOTE]
No your mistake is assuming you can analyse.

[QUOTE=Algernon;2236577]Projectile ballistics and weapon logistics... the caliber of a projectile doesn't apply here. (eg a .45 caliber round has less penetration power than a 9mm because of its larger size[/quote]
No, a .45 has less penetration because its energy per unit area is lower.
Penetration of human flesh is found by E/A where E=KE and A= cross-sectional area of the bullet (although Ian Hogg suggests that shape factor should also be included)
Hogg, Ian: Small Arms of the World (IIRC).

[quote]Depending on the situation, bullets are designed to either penetrate or stop... typically an increase in one is inversely proportional to the other. Most bullets, such as those from automatic rifles, are designed to "tumble" when it hits flesh[/quote]
No they aren't [I]designed[/I] to tumble, it's something that [i]can[/i] happen but not always - to ALL bullets.
(Google Martin Fackler and look at some his photos and diagrams).
I've even seen footage of .50 cal round tumbling and keyholing.
• 04-26-09, 10:46 AM
Algernon
[QUOTE=Oli;2236670]

No, a .45 has less penetration because its energy per unit area is lower.
Penetration of human flesh is found by E/A where E=KE and A= cross-sectional area of the bullet (although Ian Hogg suggests that shape factor should also be included)
Hogg, Ian: Small Arms of the World (IIRC).
[/QUOTE]

IOW... isn't that what I just said? I think I misworded it... surface of the crosssection of the bullet. And .45s look more clubbed than 9mms, which look sharper at the tip. Thus the force against the bullet would be worked across the entire crosssectional area, which is larger than the 9mm. Also, depending on the weapon you are using and its barrel length... it could have faster or slower velocity, as 9mm's are not only used in berettas but also in mp5s.

Although sniper bullets are usually of large caliber AND velocity, and tend to rip off entire limbs with its massive force... so I guess that falls into the stopping power AND penetration category.
• 04-26-09, 10:57 AM
Oli
[QUOTE=Algernon;2236746]it could have faster or slower velocity, as 9mm's are not only used in berettas but also in mp5s.[/quote]
A huge number of pistols and SMGs in fact.
(Including M16 variants).

[quote]Although sniper bullets are usually of large caliber AND velocity, and tend to rip off entire limbs with its massive force... so I guess that falls into the stopping power AND penetration category.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're talking about AMRs (Anti-Materiel Rifles now finding a role as heavy/ long range sniper weapons) most sniper rifles are around 7.62 mm - considerably less than the .45's 11.43mm.
Show 1000 post(s) from this thread on one page