More on the vulnerability of cap-ships...somethings to keep in mind

[Guest MonkeyLight]

Does anyone remember Admiral Piett. Do you remember the line "Intensify forward fire, we don't want anything getting through...."

 

and the bridge officer said earlier"we've lost bridge deflectors"

 

the awing crashed into the bridge and they had no bridge deflectors that's why it got nuked... Piett's last line is "INTENSIFY FORWARD FIRE POWER" and then someone says "TOO LATE"

[Guest Malcor Brashin]

i gotta agree with MS. Talon protecting the capital ship is paramount from enemy fighters i mean hell look at the bismarck it was crippled by 2 torpedoes dropped from swordfish same thing with the ssd in rotj

then you have to look at world war 2 just over 200 aircraft sunk or crippled 7 of 8 battle ships and gave the japs dominace int eh pacific for almost 2 years

200 pilots against several thousand american naval personnel and the japs achieved a clear victory, then you look at the battle of midway 4 jap carriers sunk with in 5 minutes due to lack of fighter cover and in a background shot in rotj you can see a star destroyer exploding and several fighters breaking away so ya i think MS. Talon makes a very valid point

[Gold leader]

By Kinnison:

XWA has the globes being shield generators, but on SW that are SENSOR globes.

 

I'll send you some material which proves you're wrong. Please don't hit me for that.

[Guest oldmansteve]

Here are some things to keep in mind about capital ships' relative strengths and weaknesses, especially as it relates to starfighter attacks.

 

First, one must remember that George Lucas did model the starship combat of his far away galaxy on historical precedent: the battleship combat of the second World War. Here is what history teaches us about naval combat in this conflict:

 

1. It could be argued that before World War Two, no capital class ship (let alone a battleship) which has been fully alerted and under steam at sea had EVER been sunk by any number of aircraft. The British admirality realized their error when they lost all of their naval presence in the Far East to two coordinated Japanese air strikes. The British, who had ruled the seas for centuries leading up to this conflict, could be put on the ropes so easily by attack aircraft simply because they did not consider planes a threat to their ships. It is conceivable the Imperials (for whom arrogance is a definite trait) would also consider fighter attacks a secondary concern. It stands to reason that any Imperial admiral would believe his TIE squadrons are more than adequate for point defense. At least until the Rebellion began blowing up Star Destroyers, Imperial Navy ships were probably unchallenged in space by any sizable force. Hence, a potentially fatal design flaw (much like the lack of AAA on British ships) was allowed. As for the "what about Lancer frigates?" argument, you must remember Lancers were developed after Rebel starfighters had already won several significant victories. This parallels the British reaction to the U-boat - the development of an entirely new ship, the destroyer. Don't let this confuse you: the Star Destroyer, as with many starships in the Star Wars catalogue, is misnamed. It is at least a heavy cruiser.

2. It makes perfect sense to install shield globes on the superstructure of an Imperial Class Star Destroyer. I don't care if redundant systems are in place, any combat ship needs to have a tightly integrated bridge and combat information center to operate efficiently. If these two are located in the superstructure, it makes sense to provide that particular section of the ship with extra shielding. The towers serve this purpose. Before I get flamed with the "only the towers were destroyed when the Executor lost bridge shields, so how could they just be a redundant system?" argument, remember the Executor was the focus of an entire fleet's firepower, and the other shields were undoubtably taking a severe beating. It's not hard to imagine damage control crews having a busy day aboard that particular ship.

3. Recall the "bridge shields are too exposed" argument. I agree the shield towers are woefully exposed to accurate starfighter attacks. However, I don't think this is a "stupid" decision on the part of the Imperial admiralty. If I am correct in assuming TIE squadrons were considered completely up to the task of repelling starfighter attacks (invitation to criticism here :-)), no starfighter should ever get close enough to the towers for pinpoint targeting. That leaves only the heavy guns of other capital ships in the equation. If you remember the first scene of ANH, these haevy guns are pitifully inaccurate. Even at a range of only several kilometers, the Star Destryer did not land all of its shots on a fleeing corvette. How realistic is it to assume, then, that at a standoff range of hundreds of kilometers (I make this assumption because Star Destroyers are capable of blasting the surface of a planet from orbit) a stray turbolaser blast will connect with a bridge shield?

4. Finally, remember the Imperial Star Destroyers are a heavy cruiser at least. Therefore, their purpose in life is to mount as many heavy guns as possible, neglecting secondary and tertiary armament. Again, there is historical precedent for this in the Dreadnought class battleships. The Star Destroyers' mission description was to make life hell for enemy capital ships and conduct planetary bombardments. Think of it; the Bismarck (one of the most powerful battleship types ever built) was doomed to its fate by a flight of VERY obsolete Swordfish torpedo bombers mere hours after destroying the Hood with a single salvo. Purpose-built ships have extreme strengths and weaknesses. Its vulnerability to starfighter attack and its dominance over any enemy capital ship ("We can't withstand firepower of that magnitude") are hallmarks of the Imperial class Star Destroyer.

Just as in the real-life wars Lucas' combat is modeled on, design weaknesses are the result of assumptions. In this case, it is the assumption that fighters are not as significant a threat as other capital ships.

 

Now, on to the "why are frigates harder to take down than a Star Destroyer?" question. One need only look at the purpose of these ships to answer that riddle. Frigates are designed to escort convoys of cargo ships. A cargo ship is generally not armed, slow and has inferior shield and armor protection. Therefore, starfighters are a realistic threat to them. The capital ship built to counter them would have fast-tracking turrets and more complete coverage. If you can't read between the lines and see why a Star Destroyer, according to its mission profile, would not require heavy turbolaser protection from the rear, I'll let someone else explain it. In addition, the cap-ship feature at hand, the shield tower, would be absent on these convoy excort ships as they would make a prime target for starfighter attacks. Again, it becomes a question of mission profiles.

 

This could also explain why these shield towers are conspicuously absent on Rebel starships. The Rebellion primarily used guerilla tactics and leaned heavily toward disruption of supply lines via starfighter attacks. With this approach to combat in mind, the Rebellion would surely protect their ships from starfighter attack. After all, you can tell a lot about the tactics any military favors by looking at their weapons design. Go find a history book or a Jane's reference and see for yourself.

 

At last, some food for thought on the subject of capital ship vulnerability:

 

1. The shields of a combat starship would necessarily be extremely powerful. If we are to believe the statement made in many Star Wars publications that a Star Destroyer can wipe any trace of life off of a planet, we must assume the strength of a turbolaser is measured in the millions of tons of TNT. A capital class starship in a battle would then necessarily withstand the equivalent of several nuclear explosions every minute. The earlier comment about the Exocet missile becomes a sort of moot point against this level of strength. At the very least, successful Star Destroyer raids involve many squadrons of starfighters packing extremely powerful weaponry (again, much like the massed fighter raids of WW II).

2. However (evil grin), in ROTJ we see a shield tower destroyed by a mere two A-Wings. Of course, it was probably weakened by earlier attacks, but this is still a stretch considering shielding on a scale we are talking about. Think about this, though: those shield towers are designed to protect the superstructure. The shields would be projected downward. The A-Wings in question came from a high angle and fired down onto the shield generators. Perhaps a lucky shot managed to find a gap in the shield coverage? I don't know, but it's something to think about.

3. Last, but not least, comes the question of starfighter superiority. If starfighters are the arbiter of fleet actions (as fighters in World War II became), then why don't we see purpose-built fleet carriers? Also, the tendency of Imperial starfighter design is toward short-range interceptors and bombers not equipped with hyperdrives. With these things in mind, we can see that the emphasis of space combat is NOT the starfighter. Otherwise, we would see much more capable starfighters employed in greater numbers than we see here. By using fighters which operate independently of capital class ships, the Rebels threw the Imperials a curve ball. The threat the Imperials were expecting - a massive fleet of capital ships - did not surface. Instead of a stand-up brawl, they found themselves stung in many places at once by vastly superior starfighter design and tactics. Until the Rebels began their guerilla war, Imperial strategists never considered a starfighter attack a serious threat. Neither the Lancer frigate nor the Nebulon B frigate were in service before the Rebellion began. Think of it - if all the enemy had were Y-Wings (like the Rebellion in its infancy) and you had TIE fighters up the wazoo, would you be in a rush to build Lancer frigates and cover up your shield towers?

 

By the way...considering the many parallels with World War II built into Star Wars, it is interesting to note the complete lack of a "stealth" corvette or frigate to mimick the submarine. How cool would that be? A special sensor would be needed to find out where the bastard killing all your cargo ships is hiding, then BOOM!

 

 

 

 

------------------

why don't you just throw rocks next time?

[K_Kinnison]

Huh? you sent me a BMP that proved that the ISD had Sensor globes on the top. ANd i say again. XWA and all the X-wing series games have those round things on the top being Shield generators..BUT in the SW universe they are SENSOR GLOBES, like RADAR

[Primarch]

Originally posted by oldmansteve:

If you remember the first scene of ANH, these haevy guns are pitifully inaccurate. Even at a range of only several kilometers, the Star Destryer did not land all of its shots on a fleeing corvette.

Just a little point you may not have noticed...the ISD was not attempting to destroy the Tantive IV, simply disable it before it reached Tatooine. The shots that missed actually exploded (flack) at the side of the Corvette, indicating that they had the range correct, and even those misses shook the corvette. Also, every shot that hit the ship, hit at nearly the exact same spot every time (the generator/reactor) dead centre.

Another thing to note is that in most cases, when you see Imperial Gunners firing on another ship, they tend to be carrying main charactors...do not underestimate the power of a character shield, they are more powerful than you can possibly imagine

 

Finally, remember the Imperial Star Destroyers are a heavy cruiser at least. Therefore, their purpose in life is to mount as many heavy guns as possible, neglecting secondary and tertiary armament.

Personally I don't really think you can give a specific designation to the ISD, it's part carrier, part transport, part assault craft, part Battleship...It has also been proven (after many arguments at Spacebattles.com) that the ISD has Light, Meduim & Heavy Turbo Lasers. All were seen firing at the Battle of Endor if you look closely enough.

 

Oh and K_K...I'm so glad I'm not the only one who knows that they are not Shield Generators...it makes me sooo happy

 

 

------------------

'Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it...'

 

Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions

The Fanfiction Archives

New British Empire

[Guest oldmansteve]

Primarch -

 

You had some really good points there, and spotted the biggest hole in my argument (the presence of smaller turbolasers on an ISD). But, just for the sake of overanalysis, let me add some dimension to your claims.

 

1. *The guns are not as inaccurate as I tried to lead others to believe*

 

Yes, there was flak exploding all around the corvette, indicating the ISD had her bracketed. As part of your accuracy claim, however, you mention that all of the shots landed about dead-center of the corvette's hull. If you think of the angle of fire for the ISD (slightly above and behind), and the extremely short range (based on the maximum range for a turbolaser of hundreds of kilometers), the center of the target might be the easiest spot to aim for. Anyone with a velocity vector and a heading could fire for the "center of mass" and score significant hits. This is analogous to aiming for the largest point on a target when firing with a pistol. If I hit my targest's left ventricle, does it mean I meant to? Just some food for thought.

 

2. As for my claim about the ISD being a heavy cruiser, I think this must be true. Even if a Star Destroyer packed weapons smaller than a full-on turbolaser battery, it was certainly not up to the task of repelling mass starfighter attacks. Remember, the Lancer frigate (in every publication I've read) mows through starfighters like they didn't exist, on a chassis which paks significantly less weaponry than a Star Destroyer. I spoke of a neglect of secondary and tertiary armament, not a complete lack of them. Early battleships did pack AAA, just not enough to protect them from harm. This massive concentration of firepower coupled with respectable speed (remember, the ISD had no trouble keeping up with a fleeing corvette) is a trait shared by all battle cruisers. If you can find a publication from our history which refutes this definition, show it to me and I'll bow out gracefully. Yes, the ISD does haul cargo and troops, but it is primarily a platform for heavy guns.

 

Anyway, remember the primary point I am trying to make, and never mind the shield towers, is that starfighters were not considered the crucial factor in fleet engagements, like Ms. Talon said they must be. Capital ships are simply too powerful to be taken out by anything less than a carefully coordinated and massive starfighter attack. Just for future reference, and if anybody spotted my reference to "purpose-built fleet carriers" and decided that an escort carrier is a fleet carrier, no dice. A fleet carrier is larger and would ferry around hundreds of starfighters, not just fifty or sixty.

 

Anyway Primarch, I'm just trying to show you what I was thinking. Unfortunately, not much control has been asserted over the information contained in various Star Wars publications. This forces us to choose one publication as "true" and the others as "mistakes." I happen to think those ugly little things are shield towers, but you're entitled to your own opinion, and both of our claims have legitimacy. Let's instead concentrate on the original message in this post. It will make for much better discussion, anyway.

 

 

[Gold leader]

Again, by K_K:

Huh? you sent me a BMP that proved that the ISD had Sensor globes on the top.

 

But the text with the pic clearly states:

"ISD-72X deflector shield generator dome"

 

But enough about this subject. Tis an endless debate.

[K_Kinnison]

And who says that is a valid source?

[Guest Wedgey]

Does it really matter?? Can't we all just be friends?!?!

[Guest RAF_Corran]

What he said heheheheeheheheh

 

------------------

General Corran Horn