You underestimate halo waaaay too much... The forerunner empire us bigger than sw alone... I can't be assed to sum up the forerunners, but this guy does it pretty well. I took this from a forum a while back: " I don't have the Halo Encyclopedia, but both the Halopeida page and Halo Wiki page give the MAC cannon on a frigate as firing 600 ton (544311kg) slugs at 30000m/s.     As the MAC shells have no bursting charge, their entire destructive energy is in their kinetic energy: 1/2mv^2. 1/2 * 544311kg * 30000m/s * 30000m/s =2.4*10^14 J.   The problem with using your numbers is that I have another source that is just as equally valid with regards to M.A.C yields. In fact, multiple editions of theHalo: Encyclopedia describes a 600 ton M.A.C round accelerating to velocities of point four-tenths c*. Finding a consistent yield that most people can agree on is ... difficult to say the least.   Using Einstein's formula for relating energy and mass at relativistic velocities and using a conversion factor of long tons to kilograms, approximately (1::1000). You used short tons by the way. One has yields of: 1.17 Teratons of TNT (v = .4c)10.34 Gigatons of TNT (v = .04c)64.53 Kilotons of TNT (v = .0001c) Spoiler (*) Whether or not you choose to believe that 'point four-tenths' the speed of c is either implies 40% or 4% light speed is entirely up to you, and I kid you not when I tell you that entire threads and quasi-thesis length posts have been created by nerds 'anally' analyzing the semantics of what the encyclopedia 'meant when it says 'point four-tenths' and why the above velocities are more 'canonically accurate' than 30000 m/s. Simply put Spoiler  The M.A.C yield debates are quite figuratively deader and beaten more than the 'horses' that are already beat here on the WOT forums. Really, at this point it’s just a ****storm many sci-fi vs. debaters refuse to open, so most, including me, opt to pick the more 'reasonable yields' of 64.53 kilotons for shipboard M.A.Cs and 51.63 gigatons for shipboard M.A.Cs, with yields like 1.17 teratons (which fits rather nicely to both John-117's Spartan identification number and 343i/Bungie's continued references to the number 7 does it not?) for frigates and 9 teraton for S.M.A.Cs being relegated for 'max-wank' or 'composite universe' threads.   Covenant naval ordnance, thankfully, does not share as much of the contradictions their human counterparts possess. Most people calculated that Covenant plasma torpedoes rank in the mid-megatons to mid-gigaton range in terms of yields. [Plasma torpedoes and other showings of Covenant naval ordnance are actually quite consistent compared to their human counterparts, considering plasma torpedoes that miss by several meters from U.N.S.C ships are consistently capable of boiling through meters of titanium armor almost instantly through radiation emission.]   Do you see the problem?   All these sources, the Halo: Encyclopedia, The Fall of Reach, Halo Reach, and Halo 3 are all equally canon in the eyes of 343 Industries.   Meaning that finding a yield is a matter of personal bias and a M.A.C debates becomes a **-fest of 'nuh-uh' and 'uh-huh' until a mod comes and nukes the thread.  To put it succinctly, Halo's expanded universe currently suffers the same problem that formerly plagued Star Wars now none-existent EU, massive contradictions and internal inconsistencies, which is why discerning a consistent yield for M.A.C rounds is a colossal hurdle without the company’s declarations of what is and what isn't canon. Also, not to nitpick, but at that sort of velocity, you enter the realm of special relativity; consequently, it’s more accurate to apply Einstein's formula of Kinetic energy at relativistic speeds. Though, being that the derived energy equivalence is so high, it honestly shouldn't matter using the general definition of kinetic energy.  LordCommanderMilitant, on Jun 02 2014 - 19:04, said: The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a yield around 7.5*10^13J.   The most commonly accepted yield is 15 kilotons of TNT.   LordCommanderMilitant, on Jun 02 2014 - 19:04, said: The MAC is the standard weapon of UNSC starships, so we will compare this to the standard weapon of Galactic Empire starships, the Turbolaser. Obviously, a Turbolaser is not a laser, as it fires bolts and the guns have visible openings, not lenses. The mechanics of the operations of turbolasers are semantics, though the theory sourced from Stardestroyer.net seems to be that they are discrete pulses of mass-less particles moving in a helical pattern at the speed of light.   However we can note that Light Turbolasers, used for point defense and attacking fighters, have a yield between 2.5*10^15 and 3.1*10^16J, already greater than or equal to the main weapon on UNSC ships.   Heavy turbolaser batteries used as the primary weapon for ship-ship combat have a listed yield of 8.4*10^20 J, almost 3500000 times more powerful than the primary cannon on a UNSC warship.   If blasters operate at the speed of light, we wouldn't be able to see them and people that dodge them in the movies or TV shows no?    Otherwise, Star Wars would be a helluva a lot more boring if soldiers and rebels pew-pew'd each other and the guy he/she aimed at dropped dead near-instantaneously. Also, I can't seem to find the numbers you posted, for light turbolasers, as the first two hyperlinks in your post were invalid URLs for me.   Can you confirm that those values were derived from solely the movies and the Star Wars the Clone Wars TV series? 200 gigaton heavy turbolasers and, for that matter, everything inside Curtis Saxton's Incredible Cross Sections, are no longer canon, as per Disney's new canon policy.   As of now, the I.C.S can only show up if and only if the OP specifies Legends canon, i.e. the old Star Wars Expanded Universe. LordCommanderMilitant, on Jun 02 2014 - 19:04, said: Now, we can note that warships of both universes can withstand salvoes from their own main guns, so their armor and shielding must scale accordingly. Thus, armoring and shielding on a Imperial Star Destroyer is far more effective than on UNSC or Covenant warships.[/quote]