PDA

View Full Version : SSD designer - should be shot.



Alun
10 April 2002, 04:01 PM
You design a 5 mile (or 10 mile, depending on what to believe) big battle ship. It has weapons and shields up the wazoo. It can carry several TIE Wings. Tens of thousands of troops, hundreds and hundreds of vehicle. Its a city onto its own.
In some spur of penny pinching or drunken design, you design it so that a stray Awing (the smallest of fighters) can penetrate the bridge completely blow it up, and for some strange reason make the damn ship sink like the Titanic.
Where is the seconday bridge that all the ships have (or atleast seem to have after this incident). What random freak of nature made the ship go straight down (or forward) into the DS. Nobody else aboard the entire ship could make a small course change.

Find who designed that and sue them. Thats a bigger ooops than the Titanic. (sort of an in character rave).

Anyone can explain this ?

Nova Spice
10 April 2002, 04:52 PM
Yeah, George Lucas though it'd look cool crashing into the Death Star. :D

dgswensen
10 April 2002, 05:31 PM
Yeah, you're right... I think the movie would have been much better if the A-wing had just bounced off the SSD as the Imperials laughed... then, as the Death Star exploded, the SSD just cruised out, killed Lando, shot down Luke, and orbitally bombarded Endor until Han, Leia, 3PO, and the Ewoks all lay wearing their guts as fashion statements. That's just the kind of ending kids of all ages would love! Admiral Piett, Hero of the Empire! :D

Anyway, sarcasm aside... kamikaze bombing can be very effective, as I'm sure anyone who fought in the naval battles of WWII can tell you. Flying a fuel-loaded craft into another, larger craft is some serious business. Even the biggest of ships isn't going to be able to just shrug that off.

As for the shield generators going down, I always took that scene as the last of a concentrated bombardment against those shield generators ("concentrate all your fire on that super star destroyer"). Even the most powerful shield should get a hole in it if you beat on it long enough -- I imagine the window between the shield being down and the backups coming online was pretty short... just enough for that guy to ram the A-Wing through the bridge at several thousand kph...

In other words, the Rebels got a very lucky break IMHO. One of several. Lucky breaks have made more than one real-world battle.

Frobi-Wan Kenobi
10 April 2002, 07:00 PM
As for why the SSD was pulled into the DS - simple gravity. The SSD along w/ all of the other SDs were in orbit around the DS. Once the control systems are fryed on the bridge the engines automatically shutdown causing the ship to "go straight down" as you put it in to the body of mass with the greatest hold on it.

Alun
10 April 2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by dgswensen
Yeah, you're right... I think the movie would have been much better if the A-wing had just bounced off the SSD as the Imperials laughed... then, as the Death Star exploded, the SSD just cruised out, killed Lando, shot down Luke, and orbitally bombarded Endor until Han, Leia, 3PO, and the Ewoks all lay wearing their guts as fashion statements. That's just the kind of ending kids of all ages would love! Admiral Piett, Hero of the Empire! :D

Anyway, sarcasm aside... kamikaze bombing can be very effective, as I'm sure anyone who fought in the naval battles of WWII can tell you. Flying a fuel-loaded craft into another, larger craft is some serious business. Even the biggest of ships isn't going to be able to just shrug that off.

As for the shield generators going down, I always took that scene as the last of a concentrated bombardment against those shield generators ("concentrate all your fire on that super star destroyer"). Even the most powerful shield should get a hole in it if you beat on it long enough -- I imagine the window between the shield being down and the backups coming online was pretty short... just enough for that guy to ram the A-Wing through the bridge at several thousand kph...

In other words, the Rebels got a very lucky break IMHO. One of several. Lucky breaks have made more than one real-world battle.


Except Mitsubishi Zero vs WWII hangar is nothing compared to an A wing vs SSD.

Its kinda like comparing a seagul to a dragon. And still doesn't explain why the SSD crashed. Destrying the bridge does nothing to its "floating" capability.

I realise that it had to be done for the sake of the movie, I am not arguing that (although there is nothing saying it couldn't just have retreated like the remainder of the ISD, sure as hell the rebels weren't going to try an pursue it.

dgswensen
10 April 2002, 07:15 PM
Destroying the bridge could very well make the control systems go haywire -- I don't find that so hard to believe.

After all, history does bear out rather significantly that the Empire has a bad habit of overlooking fatal design flaws in their hardware... ;)

Grimace
10 April 2002, 08:22 PM
I've always viewed it as a "will of the Force" sort of thing. The Force was swinging back towards the Light Side, and little things that normally wouldn't make a big difference DID. The A-wing kamikaze is the perfect example. How often do the bridge deflectors go down and an A-wing go runaway, with the myriad of gunners on the ship not being able to shoot it down?

So I attribute it to a mystic power rather than a design flaw.

IVIarco
11 April 2002, 03:08 AM
With the philosophy of the Empire being what it was, the fact that all the control for that entire ship was centralized to one place, and to one group of people, doesn't surprise me.

But this discussion once again makes me think (hypothetically of course) about the Empire's reasoning abilities: WERE THOSE GUYS NUTS?!? Could you even *imagine* the number of ISDs they could have built using the materials and men from that =One= SSD? And don't -even- get me started on the logic of the Death Stars. Sheesh.

But I digress.

In all, I think the symbolism of one teeny A-Wing taking down an entire SSD stays within the same theme as Luke nuking the Death Star with one shot, and the primitive Ewoks taking out an Imperial Legion.

David vs. Goliath, as always.

-Marco

PapaSith1
15 April 2002, 07:22 PM
two things i want to say:

1.after the death star blew up did the ewoks experiance a nuclear winter and die out? they are not in ANY of the furture books i read, even though it would be great to see and ewok woop up on some vong :D

2. it is a movie. that is my explanation. they had a budget to go by and a ship they made REALLY powerful so they had to find a way to get rid of it while maintaining the budget.

Terras Jadeonar & Raven
15 April 2002, 08:39 PM
Always.

Anything that big, destructive, and expensive should have redundant systems, at least a 2nd set of helm controls ... I'll agree about whoever the moron designer was shoulda been shot... such mistakes are rather costly enough to totally turn the tide and lose the war...

Funny, in a way the ssd Executor was like the Titanic all over again... over-confidence and modesty tempts murphy's law and loses on both counts...

But to halfway eat my words... yeah, it did look cool seeing the ship plunge into the deathstar...

FlipDog 2000
16 April 2002, 07:09 AM
There was a secondary bridge, but no one was manning it. The Emperor was so sure of the Empire's victory, that he had all the forces spread out amongst the other ships. All Imperial Star Destroyers have a secondary bridge. However none were manned at the time of Endor.

P.S. - All the best commanders, strategists, etc. were on the DS, another one of the Emperor's screwups...

Tony J Case, Super Genius
16 April 2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
There was a secondary bridge, but no one was manning it. The Emperor was so sure of the Empire's victory, that he had all the forces spread out amongst the other ships. All Imperial Star Destroyers have a secondary bridge. However none were manned at the time of Endor.

Even if the secondary (and tertiary - on a ship that size, of course you'll have a third bridge) bridges were manned, it's going to take time to switch over from a catastrophic failure like that. That was time the Executor simply didn't have.

darkvet
17 April 2002, 12:40 PM
Another reason for the quick destruction of the SSD was explained in the first Novel Trilogy. Admiral Thrawn points out the rapid decay of the Empire's fighting abilities and attributes it to the death of the Emperor. In his theory the Emperor held the Imperial forces together through the force. Once he was dead things fell apart.(literally)
Of course IMHO it just shows what happens when vast military powers get their weapons developed by the lowest bidding contractor :D

Terras Jadeonar & Raven
18 April 2002, 11:28 AM
just becuase that's the idealism from the character Admiral Thrawn, dosn't make it corect :p

I think generallly over time: ... A once superior force becomes weak just due to sloppiness and laziness... and lack of hard opposition to keep them elite fighting edge... mix it in with over-confidence and the "superiority" attitude... the empire had over-confidence and superiority attitude amognst other bad traits like severe intolerance to small mistakes in surplus comodity (look how fast SD officers became SD captains & admirals)

So, I think its never just one small reason, but a cumulation of many reasons and flaws that attribute to such a catastrophe (err, victory if yer a rebel :D )

Perhaps we're all debating this since not all of us think while it looked cool onscreen, it just dosn't seem believable :?

Rogue Janson
23 April 2002, 11:14 AM
Knowing the Empire, the person who designed the Super Star Destroyer probably was shot

Shaggy
6 May 2002, 09:06 PM
Actually the question you should be asking is how the heck did the SSD hit the Death Star at all!!!!!????

() ...........XXX.... #####
^ ................^ ........... ^
Death......Rebel...Imperial Fleet
Star........ Fleet........ Here
Here....... Here

If you look at the battle the SSD was never anywhere near the Death Star...they were holding the rebel fleet from escaping not defending the Death Star....
You never see the SSD in the same shot as the Death Star during that whole battle except after its hit then boom its like right on top of it.

Thats the far fetched part.

Anyway, Jedi was a terrible movie. .....(runs away as fast as his legs can carry him hee hee!)

Why do spaces go away onces its posted had to put in a bunch of '.''s to make that work...everything is so damn complex these days:D

Emperor Xanderich II
7 May 2002, 02:53 PM
The gravity of the Death Star would not have been enough to effect Executor.

I agree, it was 'dumb' but then I always cheered for the Imps - I used to ask for an SSD for Christmas.:)

Anyway, I like RotJ!! Best get running Shaggy, I'm pretty quick!;):)

Grand Admiral Jason
8 May 2002, 04:39 AM
The Empire rules on fear, that's why the Death Star was biult. When the Emperor realized he needed a new ship that would be cheap, compared to the Death Star, bigger than the normal ISD, and thus, the SSD. After Endor, the Empier probally shot the SSD designer. :)

Amgine
17 May 2002, 09:02 AM
The designer of said ship would hope he was merely shot.

Albeit, the Emperor is dead at this point(SSD + DS = BOOM), but the things he put Bevel Lemelisk through for allowing a moisture farmer to put two proton torpedos down a two meter wide core reactor exhaust port, they send chills down my spine.

Yavin 4 has some nasty little creatures.

FlipDog 2000
17 May 2002, 09:21 AM
Why???:? It wasn't his fault that the secondary bridge was empty due to the fact that the rest of the officers were spread out amongst the fleet, and finishing DS2. The Empire Remnants jumped to hyperspace the moment DS2 was blown to bits. The design had nothing to do with the downfall. the problem was, the secondary bridge was abandoned due to lack of manpower.
The designer was probably NOT shot, mainly because he was still a useful asset to the remians of the Empire, and it wasn't his fault the Executor crashed.

Rip Jedi
19 May 2002, 10:00 PM
i really dont think the designer was shot because it was probably more than one and what are they going to do destroy the kuat drive yards

khalen penn
20 May 2002, 07:21 AM
was KUAT DRIVE YARDS not responsable for building the SSD

my main gripe about the scene were the SSD hits the DEATH STAR was the spec effects when it blew up
i didnt think they were verry good
and GL never changed it for the sp ed either wich was disapionting

Aaron B'Aviv
23 May 2002, 03:03 PM
I agree with Admiral Thrawn's hypothesis. It makes the most sense to me, and works in accordance with the idea that as a moviemaker Lucas wanted all the momentum to swing to the Light Side after the death of Palpatine.

But the idea that Lucas wanted to swing the momentum doesn't work with the "Suspension of Disbelief" concept that brings us all here, to I consider Thrawn's explanation the best explanation that employs Suspension of Disbelief.

FlipDog 2000
24 May 2002, 09:31 AM
Kuat Drive Yards was not responsible for building the SSD. The Executor was constructed at the shipyards orbiting Fondor, and was originally designed by members of Rendili Stardrive Corp.

Plus, why would the remnant destroy Kuat drive Yards, the primary supplier and builder of AT-AT's and AT-ST's. The Empire took the loss as just that, a loss...however, movie making goesthat way as does fitional writing, it showed a chain reaction that soon becam the downfall of the Galactic Empire.

ilyssa
25 May 2002, 02:26 PM
In one of the books written by Michael Stackpole from the X wing series Corran Horn ends up in the Imperial Museum on Coruscant. One of the displays there tells of the end of the Battle of Endor. The info for the display says that the Ewoks were destroyed by fall out material and that the moon of Endor was made uninhabitable. The Imperials blame the Alliance for this (rightly so). However the propaganda says that the death star was a mining tool that terrorists blew up to hurt the Empire and blame them for destroying the Ewoks. :p

FlipDog 2000
5 June 2002, 07:19 AM
Ummmm...I guess...like you know....whatever...

Armadious
5 June 2002, 11:39 AM
ilyssa:
I sugest reading the X-wing books again, If I am reading this correctly the pages you are think of are 136-137 of Wedges gamble, it does not say anythign about the eradication of the Ewoks, it does however call the Death star an Imperial planatary ore extractor built by the rebels and that palpy had sacrificed himself to destroy it :D

Flipdog and others, KDY owned the shipyards at Fondor, the SSD was originaly designed by Lira Wessex, designer of the ISD. Any yes she was an idiot who could only copy concepts concieved by her father, the designer of the VSD.

FlipDog 2000
7 June 2002, 03:38 PM
However, Kuat Drive Yards did not own the Fondor Shipyards...it belonged to Sinear Fleet Systems, the builders and designers of the Imperial TIE fighter. I wasn't specific enough with my last comment...Rendili Stardrive was the primary supplier of SubLight engines...to anyone.
KDY was primarily ground forces, whereas SFS was only starfleet.

Armadious
7 June 2002, 09:46 PM
Why is it then a <b>Kuat Drive Yards</b> Super Star Destroyer not a SFS SSD?

Simply beacuse the shipyards at Fondor are opperated and owned by KDY. The producers of the SSD, Imperial class SD, of the Neb-B frigate, the Imperial Star Galleon, Imperial Fleet carrier, Lancer Frigate, Eclipse class SSD, as well as numerous other craft. KDY has the Largest set of shipyards in the entire Empire including those at Fondor!

The largest thing that I know of that SFS produced is the Interdictor Cruiser, they mostly are Star Fighter producers (TIE fighters).

FlipDog 2000
8 June 2002, 09:30 AM
My bad!!! I was wrong. After reviewing my sources, it would appear that you sir, are correct. I don't know why I had it in my head that SFS produced the SSD, I guess I just got things mixed up.

Anywayz, back to the subject: "The designer executed?"

I think not again, mainly because the Executor survived Three ISDs coming out of hyperspace on top of it. Therefore, it was a good design.

gmjabreson
16 June 2006, 10:12 AM
I can go along with the Lowest bidder idea. Cheap Slave Labor that would do anything to sabotage things, Impossible deadlines atop of delays by contract disputes. You name it, they probably suffered it in the construction of many of its ships and vehicles.
We know from the Imperial Sourcebook that their military equipment was made through senatorial oversight and by the lowest bidder, giving the troops the sole comfort that the enemy got their equipment from them.

And yes, they should all be shot, not just the SSD designer.

Ubiqtorate
17 June 2006, 02:00 PM
Isn't Lira Wessex credited as the principal designer of the SSD (in addition to the credit she receives as designer of the ISD)? Wouldn't do well to be executing the wives of powerful Imperial moffs - especially not during the power struggle that followed the Emperor's death. If it was in fact Lira, then Denn Wessex probably would have had as much say in whether or not she would be executed as anyone else would have, and I'm sure he wouldn't have stood for it.

Ackbar does tell the Rebel fleet to "concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer." Who knows how much damage the ship sustained even before the A-wing took out the bridge? Maybe the auxiliary systems were still down. As for it crashing into the Death Star, well, as Han said, "I call it luck."

gmjabreson
17 June 2006, 06:11 PM
I thought she was the daughter, not wife, of a Moff.

Ubiqtorate
17 June 2006, 11:45 PM
She was the daughter of noted Republic engineer Walex Blissex (designer of the Victory Star Destroyer), and the wife of Imperial Governer Denn Wessex of Relgim Sector.

gmjabreson
18 June 2006, 04:14 AM
ok, just never found that in writing before. I knew she was the daughter of him, but didn't know she married a Moff, go figure.

Ravnor
18 June 2006, 06:54 AM
I have a theory on how the SSD crashed into the deathstar, assuming that both control bridges were destroyed the rebels could have used several tractor beams to make the SSD crash into the DS2.

Uron Teff
18 June 2006, 07:14 AM
My theory why the SuperStarDestroyer crashed into the Second DeathStar is, that both the commando bridge was destroyed and that the huge SuperStarDestroyer drifted near to the DeathStar. The second cause could be the huge mass of the DeathStar. Huge masses affect surrounding objects due to their gravimetric energy. Therefore I'd say that the SuperStarDestroyer was drifting down on the DeathStar due to the DeathStar's gravitation (i.e. his huge mass).

Ravnor
18 June 2006, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Uron Teff
My theory why the SuperStarDestroyer crashed into the Second DeathStar is, that both the commando bridge was destroyed and that the huge SuperStarDestroyer drifted near to the DeathStar. The second cause could be the huge mass of the DeathStar. Huge masses affect surrounding objects due to their gravimetric energy. Therefore I'd say that the SuperStarDestroyer was drifting down on the DeathStar due to the DeathStar's gravitation (i.e. his huge mass).

Uron, you did read this earlier didn't you?


Originally posted by Emperor Xanderich II [/i]
The gravity of the Death Star would not have been enough to effect Executor. [/B]

Uron Teff
18 June 2006, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Ravnor
Uron, you did read this earlier didn't you?

Yes, and? This is my theory as well as you have yours, even though a Moderator say that it is not possible. Emperor Xanderich II says it is not possible. I believe that it is possible until he or someone else proofes the opposite. And he is not naming any evidance. :)

Or did I miss something?

Ravnor
18 June 2006, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Uron Teff


Yes, and? This is my theory as well as you have yours, even though a Moderator say that it is not possible. Emperor Xanderich II says it is not possible. I believe that it is possible until he or someone else proofes the opposite. And he is not naming any evidance. :)

Or did I miss something?

hey, i'm not saying anything against your theory, i'm simply stating that people have said that it's not possible.

Uron Teff
18 June 2006, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Ravnor
hey, i'm not saying anything against your theory, i'm simply stating that people have said that it's not possible.

I never meant to offend or sound pissed. I just wanted to make clear that people in the begining years of the 19th centuries never thought that Man could fly to the moon. Now if people say this is possible and this is impossible, I'd like to hear evidence for they theory. Evidences are what counts.

Ravnor
18 June 2006, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Uron Teff


I never meant to offend or sound pissed. I just wanted to make clear that people in the begining years of the 19th centuries never thought that Man could fly to the moon. Now if people say this is possible and this is impossible, I'd like to hear evidence for they theory. Evidences are what counts.

well, the SSD does nosedive when it crashes into the DS2. And the DS2 was giving off arfificial gravity, so i guss that it could be possible.

Ubiqtorate
18 June 2006, 10:11 AM
The Death Star's gravitational pull probably wouldn't have been sufficient to make the Executor "fall" into it, but it's possible that it could have given it a tug in the right direction. Executor's inertia could have taken care of the rest.

Uron Teff
18 June 2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Ubiqtorate
The Death Star's gravitational pull probably wouldn't have been sufficient to make the Executor "fall" into it, but it's possible that it could have given it a tug in the right direction. Executor's inertia could have taken care of the rest.

On a second thought does somebody know if the DeathStar was between the Executor and the Forest Moon Endor? Maybe it was not the DeathStar's gravitational pull but the Moon's.

Just a thought.

gmjabreson
18 June 2006, 02:46 PM
The DS2 might not have had the gravity, But Endor definately would have. Which, by the way, was right behind the Death Star 2.

Ubiqtorate
18 June 2006, 02:53 PM
That would be enough to do the trick.

Fingon
18 June 2006, 03:18 PM
I always thought that a Corvette should have rammed it or something, plotted a hyperspace course through the SSD. That would have definately taken care of the thing.

gmjabreson
18 June 2006, 03:20 PM
actually it wouldn't. It actually was rammed by a corvette, an Imperial Corellian Corvette, when it came out of hyperspace. Thus ending the career of Admiral Batch.

Fingon
18 June 2006, 03:23 PM
hmmm... was that the ending mission of the rebel campaign in "X-wing V Tie fighter"?

wolverine
18 June 2006, 10:15 PM
Yes it was, though that corvette was laden with lots of explosives...

Ravnor
19 June 2006, 12:22 AM
one other thing about the SSD, if you lay rouge squadron 3 rebel strike you find that there is a hell of a lot of blid spots in between buildings where the guns can't hit you. Do you think that's a design flaw or plain stupidity.

Uron Teff
19 June 2006, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Ravnor
one other thing about the SSD, if you lay rouge squadron 3 rebel strike you find that there is a hell of a lot of blid spots in between buildings where the guns can't hit you. Do you think that's a design flaw or plain stupidity.

Though this might be C-canon I think that this is simply a programming error of the game. But on the other hand, if the design has such flaws, where is the explanation in this? The answer might be the fact, that no ship has total surrounding area fire covering capabilities. And even if it would, who would shoot his own ship (i.e. the towers and builings) to get a starfighter blown off the sky?

Ravnor
19 June 2006, 01:14 AM
I know, but there was a major blind point right on top of one of the ships major shield generators, and another right below the command bridge, means that it is a major flaw in the design.

gmjabreson
19 June 2006, 03:24 AM
I just think it was the design of the game. In every star wars game I've played, they have never gotten the gun compliment of any ship right other than fighters.

Ravnor
19 June 2006, 03:36 AM
i see. I do have one question though, why do star destroyers of all types have comand briges and shield gererators as visible as physically possible?

gmjabreson
19 June 2006, 03:43 AM
Imperial Overconfidence. Look at the Death Star, they didn't think a small fighter could blow it up, but one did, twice. The Empire's mind set was that nothing could defeat it. The bridge was high to provide a better field of view for the ship captain/fleet admiral. The shields also had to be at a point where they would be able to cover the entire ship. However this flaw isn't limited to Star Destroyers. The Gallofree transport has its shield generator attached to the back of the small bridge. The Nebulon B shield Generator is the same. Above the actual Hull of the ship. Only the Carracks, Dreadnaughts, and Lancer's had their shield generators built into the hull of Capital ships.
Small transports and fighters also had them inside the hulls of their ships. But that's what I've seen after looking at the 1st Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.

Ravnor
19 June 2006, 04:04 AM
yet another advantage the Dreadnaught has over the star destroyer.

Ubiqtorate
19 June 2006, 07:37 AM
Having the bridge and shield generators on the command tower would be a great advantage... if it weren't such a weakness. Having the bridge on there allows for a clear, unobstructed view of everything going on around the ship - similar to the command tower on aircraft carriers and similar naval vessels. As for the shield generators, fewer obstructions means greater coverage, which means fewer generators, which means lower cost. As much as those shield generators got hit, though, you'd think the Empire would have come up with a better idea.

Fingon
19 June 2006, 07:58 AM
Yes it was, though that corvette was laden with lots of explosives...

If I remember correctly, that mission was to take out the primary bridge of the SSD, which means that what the A-wing crashed into WAS the secondary bridge. Also, having a capitol ship filled with high explosives ram another will probably cause some problems with the system operations.

gmjabreson
19 June 2006, 08:51 AM
Actually it was An Imperial Corellian Corvette that crashed into the Executor by ACCIDENT. It is what caused Vader to Kill Admiral Batch for the mistake. The Executor spent many months in drydock to repair that damage. It then sailed with Admiral Ozzel as it's commander to look for the rebels. Prior to the Battle of Hoth.

Ravnor
19 June 2006, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by gmjabreson
Actually it was An Imperial Corellian Corvette that crashed into the Executor by ACCIDENT. It is what caused Vader to Kill Admiral Batch for the mistake. The Executor spent many months in drydock to repair that damage. It then sailed with Admiral Ozzel as it's commander to look for the rebels. Prior to the Battle of Hoth.

How did it manedge to crash into somthing as big as a SSD? had the guidence system been hit by an ion cannon or somthing?

gmjabreson
19 June 2006, 01:07 PM
The Executor came out of Hyperspace only meters from it. Neither crew had a chance to react. Admiral Ozzel wasn't the only officer that Led the Executor that was Executed for it.

Ubiqtorate
19 June 2006, 03:23 PM
And yet Piett stayed in charge to the very end, despite multiple failures for which his predecessors would have been executed. Why is that?

gmjabreson
19 June 2006, 05:17 PM
It was theorized at the time by WEG, that there was no one of sufficient rank to replace him. When he was promoted to Admiral from Captain, there was no one promoted to Captain. It wasn't until after the Cloud City Incident that Lt. Venka was promoted to Captain.

Ubiqtorate
19 June 2006, 07:48 PM
Ah. Well. That would be what you get when you execute all of your experienced officers.

Fingon
19 June 2006, 09:42 PM
I would think that if I were in the Imperial Navy, I would at the rank of Lieutenant for as long as possible. It's safer.

Ravnor
20 June 2006, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Fingon
I would think that if I were in the Imperial Navy, I would at the rank of Lieutenant for as long as possible. It's safer.

it's that or you stay the hell away from Vader.

gmjabreson
20 June 2006, 04:53 AM
whatever you do, don't butter up Vader if you have bad news to tell him. I can just see an Officer go up to Vader, "Lord Vader, You're armors looking very nice today. By the way, we um lost the Millenium Falcon again.":P

Ravnor
20 June 2006, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by gmjabreson
whatever you do, don't butter up Vader if you have bad news to tell him. I can just see an Officer go up to Vader, "Lord Vader, You're armors looking very nice today. By the way, we um lost the Millenium Falcon again.":P

It's no wonder that he hates Politicians then.

gmjabreson
20 June 2006, 05:34 AM
Yeah, I bet he would gladly have disolved the Senate for the Emperor himself, on a permanent basis.
:emperor: "Lord Vader, disband the Senate for me"
:vader: "Yes, my Master. Should it be on a permanent basis?"
:emperor: "They are of no more use to us, kill them immediately."
:vader: "As you wish, my Master"

Ravnor
20 June 2006, 05:59 AM
You could turn that into a sucessful gambleing game, betting how long each senator lasts against Vader and in what order he will kill them.

gmjabreson
20 June 2006, 06:03 AM
"I bid 5 million credits the Senator from Alderaan is the next to go"

But anyways back on topic. It is logical to put the shield generators where they can better cover the ship. The dreadnaught cruisers had them in little bulbs against the hull of the ship, much like the turbolaser blisters there.
The Mon Cal Cruisers shields set up was much like the Dreadnaughts, with so many blisters it was hard to determine which one was actually the shield generators.

Ravnor
20 June 2006, 06:06 AM
one other thing about the SD's shield generators is that a small gun corvette could come up directly behing the generators and command bridge without being shot!

gmjabreson
20 June 2006, 06:11 AM
I often wondered why a ship that size wasn't more evenly covered. I mean it does have some rear facing weapons, but don't you think they were a little light in numbers?

Ravnor
20 June 2006, 06:16 AM
Im serious, the thing had amost no rear mounted guns and i was able to stay in the blind spot with almost everything up to a capital ship (i attempted this on X-wing allience a few minutes ago). the same thing happened with the SSD, i got shot at a bit because it had about nine light turbolasters mounted on its "tail" but even then i was able to blast it to hell, this time in a Mon Cal capital ship!

Grimace
20 June 2006, 07:23 AM
I just want to know a couple of things:

First, if you're in a fighter, how are you going to "camp" behind the shield generators or bridge when you've got somewhere on the level of a hundred fighters or more that can be deployed against you?

Second, if you're in a capital ship, how are you going to "camp" behind the above items without the hulking SSD either turning to clobber you with its hundreds of turbolasers?

Third, how are you going to get BEHIND the SSD in the first place, either in a fighter or a cap ship? Generally when you meet an SSD, they will have detected you long before you get to them and will simply turn to meet you and then either engage you or dispatch fighters to engage you.

Fourth, what happened to the assorted other cap ships that basically are always present around a SSD? Those things don't exist in a vacuum, devoid of any escorts and lacking all of their own disembarked craft. Heck, a SSD probably carried Skiprays, which would make a mess of things beyond what even a swarm of TIE fighters or TIE bombers would do. Even without those, there should be other star destroyers, destroyers, frigates, and so on that will be hanging around. Assuming you could make it past the gun emplacements on the SSD, you certainly couldn't "camp" in one spot and casually blast away at the ship.

If you do it in video games, it's pretty safe to say the game is flawed and not representative of what an SSD could and should do in combat.

gmjabreson
20 June 2006, 07:50 AM
I've always thought that the video games under gunned the capital ships to make fighting them more survivable. Most people in a fighter would consider taking on a Star Destroyer by one's self is suicidal. They would rather have a full wing to help them out. Not only to deal with the fighters, but to distract the guns and have more torpedoes to coordinate fire with.

Fingon
20 June 2006, 07:51 AM
Grimace, you hit this thing on the head. The Imperial army and Navy was designed with complementary ships, vehicles, etc, with very few designed to hold on their own. For example, take an AT-AT, this thing is huge, slow, can barely turn, but has four HUGE blaster cannons that can vaporize nearly anything that gets in its way. Unfortunately, if something gets behind it, there's not much it can do. Except, the AT-AT wouldn't have been depleyed with a full compliment of stormtroopers, speeder bikes, other AT-AT's, and a few dozen AT-ST's, all of which can effectively deal with anything that DOES manage to aviod crimson death.

The same thing goes with any fleet, with any Star Destroyer, it has at least several wings of TIE's and other ships with it. In any attack group, as Grimace said, there will be a few ISD's, escorted by carriers, destroyers, frigates, etc, and hundreds of fighters. If you stop moving, you will die.

Granted, it's a bit different in video games.


On the other hand, I do see the logic of designing a ship so that it was difficult to shoot its own bridge, so that in the case of boarding or some similar problem, the attackers couldn't just point a turbolaser at the bridge an blast away.

Ubiqtorate
20 June 2006, 08:12 AM
True, a Star Destroyer never travels without an escort. And Star Destroyers are designed to be assault ships, meaning you jump in with your enemy in front of you, blast your enemy to smithereens, and jump out. If there are any ships behind you at all, you're not doing your job right.

gmjabreson
20 June 2006, 08:13 AM
an SSD alone has 144 fighters, if not more. I don't think even the notorious Rogue Squadron would take on a SSD without some support from Rebel Capital Ships. The only times we've seen them do it, was at Endor, and Thyferra. Both times they had back up to support them.

Ravnor
20 June 2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Grimace
I just want to know a couple of things:

First, if you're in a fighter, how are you going to "camp" behind the shield generators or bridge when you've got somewhere on the level of a hundred fighters or more that can be deployed against you?

Second, if you're in a capital ship, how are you going to "camp" behind the above items without the hulking SSD either turning to clobber you with its hundreds of turbolasers?

Third, how are you going to get BEHIND the SSD in the first place, either in a fighter or a cap ship? Generally when you meet an SSD, they will have detected you long before you get to them and will simply turn to meet you and then either engage you or dispatch fighters to engage you.

Fourth, what happened to the assorted other cap ships that basically are always present around a SSD? Those things don't exist in a vacuum, devoid of any escorts and lacking all of their own disembarked craft. Heck, a SSD probably carried Skiprays, which would make a mess of things beyond what even a swarm of TIE fighters or TIE bombers would do. Even without those, there should be other star destroyers, destroyers, frigates, and so on that will be hanging around. Assuming you could make it past the gun emplacements on the SSD, you certainly couldn't "camp" in one spot and casually blast away at the ship.

If you do it in video games, it's pretty safe to say the game is flawed and not representative of what an SSD could and should do in combat.

I was fighting the ship 1 on 1. next time i will try it with fighters.

hisham
20 June 2006, 03:29 PM
For everyone's consumption:


C-canon is primarily comprised of elements from the Expanded Universe including books, comics, and games bearing the label of Star Wars. Games and RPG sourcebooks are a special case; the stories and general background information are themselves fully C-canon, but the other elements such as character/item statistics and gameplay are, with few exceptions, N-canon.

To expand upon the second sentence of the Wikipedia quote there, some video games are designed so a fighter has a chance to take out a Star Destroyer, which is totally unrealistic if you want to design one for real. I also disagree with the "no rear turbolasers" rule which is in video games since the old X-Wing sim. There should be point defense guns blazing outwards from every angle of a cap ship like an ISD.

Not to mention that the old WEG stats do not even mention the banks of heavy turbolasers clearly visible on either side of the spine by the conning tower.

Ravnor
23 June 2006, 01:22 PM
anyway, getting back to what this thread was origionaly about...

PsychoInfiltrator
23 June 2006, 03:14 PM
On that note, who do you think the Empire would hire to kill this particular underling, (and how,) presuming Vader not present and that the firing squads were busy?

gmjabreson
23 June 2006, 05:44 PM
my money would be on Mara Jade.

Ravnor
25 June 2006, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by PsychoInfiltrator
On that note, who do you think the Empire would hire to kill this particular underling, (and how,) presuming Vader not present and that the firing squads were busy?

Probbably Boba Fett. :boba:

How many SSD's were actually made? i know of four of them (Executor, Lusanka, Iron Fist, Guardian), were any others made?

gmjabreson
25 June 2006, 06:46 AM
there is another thread somewhere on here that has names of the others. But as to actual numbers, who's to really say? I may be wrong but wasn't it said in the Dark Empire comics ( I know about the source already, lol) that the Eclipse was either to be supported by nothing but Soveriegns or Supers, one of the two, its been years since I've actually looked at the comics or seen the D6 sourcebook on it.

Ubiqtorate
25 June 2006, 06:50 AM
There were at least six, but there could have been more. (I think the D6 Imperial Sourcebook says there were six at around the time of Empire Strikes Back.)

Ravnor
25 June 2006, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by gmjabreson
that the Eclipse was either to be supported by nothing but Soveriegns or Supers, one of the two, its been years since I've actually looked at the comics or seen the D6 sourcebook on it.

I think that those escorts would have been prototype star destroyers, not actual SSD's.

Ravnor
25 June 2006, 07:24 AM
I decided to find this out for myself, here is a list of names from wikipedia:

Allegiance, Aggressor, Executor, Guardian, intimidator, Iron fist/HMIS Brawl, Lusankya, Pride of Yevetha, Razorís kiss, Reaper, Terror, Vindictive, Vengeance (one of the black sword command ships, eventually used by Inquisitor Jerec), Whelm, two anonymous back sword SSDís, Unnamed patialy constructed SSD at Fondor (killed by Rouge squadron flying TIE hunters), Defiant?/Stalwart?, Eclipse (1 and 2), Sovereign-class SSDís (four).

Arugably 22 were created.

gmjabreson
25 June 2006, 08:07 AM
some of those names, however, are different names for the same ship. Razors' kiss was renamed from something else. Iron Fist the same.

Ravnor
25 June 2006, 09:32 AM
I know, i did not include those ones.

gmjabreson
25 June 2006, 05:15 PM
ok.. is that list also including the one destroyed in Rogue Squadron 3?
I can't remember its name off the top of my head

Vanger Chevane
29 June 2006, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Ravnor
I decided to find this out for myself, here is a list of names from wikipedia:

...Pride of Yevetha, ... two anonymous back sword SSDís, ....

Arugably 22 were created.
Try 21 maximum. One of the unnamed Black Sword SSDs was captured at the Yevethan Shipyards & renamed <i>Pride of Yevetha</i>.


If you make sure all the I's are crossed & the T's are dotted...it sure confuses people. :P

Ubiqtorate
29 June 2006, 07:14 AM
Could there have been still others that haven't been mentioned? Or is 21 (or 22) the absolute maximum?

boccelounge
29 June 2006, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Vanger Chevane
Try 21 maximum.

Originally posted by Ubiqtorate
Could there have been still others that haven't been mentioned? Or is 21 (or 22) the absolute maximum?

Yeah... don't forget General Solo's wisdom: "There are dozens of command ships."

Assuming he's right (I do), there were arguably 25 or more Super-class (or equivalent) ships out there...

Just playing Devil's Advocate... ;)

hisham
29 June 2006, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by boccelounge
Yeah... don't forget General Solo's wisdom: "There are dozens of command ships."

I think he said, "There are plenty of command ships."

Though I could be mistaken.

gmjabreson
29 June 2006, 05:02 PM
"there are alot of command ships" is what Han said. But there were various kinds. When one thinks of Command Ships, mostly coming to mind are the Supers. But there were Star Destroyers based off Imperials; longer, slightly wider, more troops. Those would have been cheaper to make and faster than constructing a Super in my opinion, and could be assigned to lower priority sectors.
I think what we are forgetting is the explanation given in the Rogue Squadron books about the functions of a Super Star Destroyer. They are a fear factor. A Ship designed to inspire fear in its enemies, crippling their psyche before even firing its first shots. The Empire wouldn't need hundreds of them (though I know they would have liked to), when they could do the job with a couple dozen.

boccelounge
29 June 2006, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by hisham

I think he said, "There are plenty of command ships."

Though I could be mistaken.
Hrhmm... yes, upon review, he says "Now don't get jittery, Luke. There are a lot of command ships. Keep your distance though, Chewie..."

It seems that i'm crazy, with a poor attention span (http://holonet.swrpgnetwork.com/showthread.php?postid=378797#post378797).






Originally posted by gmjabreson
[B]"there are alot of command ships" is what Han said. But there were various kinds. When one thinks of Command Ships, mostly coming to mind are the Supers. But there were Star Destroyers based off Imperials; longer, slightly wider, more troops. Those would have been cheaper to make and faster than constructing a Super in my opinion, and could be assigned to lower priority sectors...
In terms of this discussion (i.e. "how many Supers were there... ") I agree with this logistical/doctrinary argument... but I've never bought it in terms of the Han-Luke dialogue.

The subtext of the discussion, it seems clear to me, is that Han realizes Luke thinks Vader is on "that ship" because it's the same sort of ship that is chasing them circa Hoth. And Han is trying to reassure Luke that there are many ships of that same make in Imperial service.

So, while I agree that it's logical to presume that the Empire had many different sorts of "command ships" in service around the time of Ep6, I still hold that Han was referring specifically to the "Super-"class...

And, that said... I admit that this has nothing to do with "how many" SSDs were built. My bad on a misremembered quote...


:o

gmjabreson
30 June 2006, 04:23 AM
It's all good. It very well could be that Han was talking about the Super Class as "A lot of Command Ships", but then again, Lucas could have easily thrown that line out there to blow sunshine up our oriface.

Ubiqtorate
5 July 2006, 10:06 PM
Could "A lot of command ships" refer to ships other than those of the Executor-class? Even then, though, Han would have known that Vader's command ship was an Executor-class, and that's what had Luke nervous...

gmjabreson
6 July 2006, 04:31 AM
I agree with both Ubiqtorate and Bocce on this. It could be talking about just the Super/Executor class. But I also think that the key element of the Super was its Fear Factor. Here's a list of what I think would cause one to have a fear of these things.
Its Size
Its Escorts
Its Tie Complement
and quite possibly:
Its Numbers.

Ubiqtorate
6 July 2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by gmjabreson

and quite possibly:
Its Numbers.

Ooh, that's a chilliing thought.

It works both ways, though. If there are lots of them, then there's the fear that you could be pounded by one of these things at any time. If there are only a handful of them, though, you know when you see one that you've just managed to upset the wrong people - that you're really in the presence of greatness now.

gmjabreson
6 July 2006, 08:06 AM
Imagine the possibilities of Every Grand Admiral having one of these at his disposal? Then add in the "Special" people of the Empire, ie: Vader, Jade, etc having one too. You would definately tuck tail and run upon site, not bothering to find out who you are up against.

wolverine
6 July 2006, 11:03 PM
I know, when i ran one of my home games, i had the party come up against grand moff Tel'renkik, who had a SSD at his disposal. Admittedly, it was under gunned (by 80%), but he still had it (it was severly damaged, early on in his carrear, and the rest of the weaponry was scavenged to fix other ships. BUT still, the shere size of it, and its image, caused so much 'terror', several rebel groups surrendered on the spot, when they saw it, rather than risk anything.
The group, i played with kicked themselves, when they eventually learned of its undergunned status...

tauchiss
11 July 2006, 10:54 AM
Well on the subject of the A-wing destroying the bridge, they ARE packed with VERY explosive fuel. Also i read somewhere that the Auxilary bridge COULDN"T regain control. Probably they didn't have the correct overrides.

Fingon
11 July 2006, 07:02 PM
The point of having an auxiluary bridge is regaining control in case the main bridge is destoryed. If they weren't able to, then it would probably be because the computer network was too messed up to switch control. I don't think the Empire is quite pompus enough to not plan for bridge crew being killed in battle.

Maur
11 July 2006, 09:46 PM
Plus who says the A-wing hitting the bridge was the only damage the ship had suffered. Ackbar specifically orders the fleet to concentrate all firepower on the super star destroyer. Just before the A-wing gets through you see the bridge deflector destroyed by a pair of fighters, then an officer reporting to the OOD that they just lost the bridge deflectors to which he responds "Intensify the forward fire, I don't want anything getting through." This is when the out of control A-wing is noticed and the bridge crew panics just before it strikes the bridge...

wolverine
12 July 2006, 01:01 AM
One thing i would like to know. Why did the shield generators themselves not have the shield's protection??

tauchiss
12 July 2006, 03:48 AM
The shield gemerators do. Once your INSIDE the shields, you don't need to worry about them anymore.

It says you need a password in one of the Wraith squad books.

Ubiqtorate
12 July 2006, 07:44 AM
Plus, once you blast through the shields with everything your capital ships have, it can take those shield generators a while to regenerate, so you don't have to worry about those shields then, either.

gmjabreson
12 July 2006, 09:04 AM
Even though the Death Star 2 was taking out Rebel Capital ships, there were still plenty of them to damage the Executor. As we hear the famous line from Admiral Ackar an Imperial Star Destroyer is seen blowing up in the background. The way I see the Rebel Fleet in the Endor Battle, is much like the Fugitive fleet from another SCI FI show. A ragtag fleet of various warships taking on the might of the Imperial Navy and getting very lucky.

Fingon
13 July 2006, 08:27 AM
Also, if I remember correctly, the rebels used a lot of suicide tactics in their attack on the imperial fleet. They loaded transports full of explosives and rammed the Star Destroyers; if a capital ship was going down, they tried to take an imperial ship down with it. Basically they threw absolutely everything they had at the fleet in a desperate attemp to survive long enough to get the shields down and destroy the death star.

The Admiral
17 July 2006, 03:15 AM
OK, my take; destroying the Executor is basically an analogue to the destructions of the Bismarck, Tirpitz and Yamato, and it is worth remembering that both the Tirpitz and the Yamato were destroyed by air. Sinking the Executor rather neatly fits this genre.

On an earlier point, there are two distinct Imperial fleets at Endor; one is the resident fleet, including the Executor. The rebels are expecting to find and engage these. The other is the 'trap' fleet that comes in from behind. At the start of the Endor battle, Executor is behind the Death Star, it moves into gunnery range, but stops, close to the Death Star.

When confronted by awesome odds Ackbar orers a concentrated attack on the SSD because it is a command ship, ie, a command LEVEL ship, which would generally mean a ship that carries flag officers. In WW2 this would mean a Battleship. Virtually all Alliance forces engage the Executor, causing it to react by firing in many directions at once at a large number of targets. Two A-Wings slip inside its shield perimeter probably after the perimeter has been weakened by bombardment and shoot the bridge deflector shield. Note that these shields do not protect the entire ship, JUST the command tower.
Piete learns that the bridge deflectors are down, orders the guns to change from engaging any and all targets to concentrate on targets afore the ship, but it is too late, Arvel's A-Wing has taken damage and he manages to control it just long enough to destroy the bridge.
As soon as that happens pay close attention to the SOUND, we hear the Executor's engines ramp up dramatically, ergo, AFAIAC the starboard engine cluster receives bad commands from a destroyed bridge and go to full power, this turns the ship sharpley, and given its position, this turns it directly towards the Death Star. It is possible control was regained to some degree, but certainly not soon enough to avoid a collision.

The Death Star does not have enough mass to pull the ship in; this is basic physics, the Death Star is a mostly hollow metal ball 160 kms in diameter. You need a mass many thousands of times larger to generate a weak gravitational field. This is ignoring the issue of why gravity would suddenly start to affect a ship anyhoo.


Is the Executor a bad design? No. A ship doesn't have to be undefeatable to avoid the appelation.

With regards weapons placements, I have studied the studio model in exhausting detail. There are hundreds of weapons placements on the aft fantail. The complete weapons load out of the Executor is well into the thousands. Executor would be more than capable of defending itself against starfighters or capital ships in any direction, what it missed was three fighters amoungst hundreds.

gmjabreson
17 July 2006, 03:27 AM
one must remember that, despite the number of gun emplacements onboard a ship, its gunners are all humans. Even the best of us Screw up every once in a while. The Death Star two, when completed would have been bigger than the Original Death Star, so it probably would have generated a small gravity wake. But Admiral is correct, it was mostly a hollow shell at that time. They were still building the Death Star 2 at the time of battle.

darth_wyld
17 July 2006, 04:21 AM
OK, my take; destroying the Executor is basically an analogue to the destructions of the Bismarck, Tirpitz and Yamato, and it is worth remembering that both the Tirpitz and the Yamato were destroyed by air.

IIRC, wasn't even the crippling blow to the Bismarck, destroying it's rudder, delivered by a plane-launched torpedo? And thus making it possible to sink the Bismarck due to lost maneuverabillity?

The Admiral
17 July 2006, 04:52 AM
The Bismarck was struck by a squadron of Swordfish launched from HMS Ark Royal which did indeed bugger the Bimsarck's rudder. More importantly, they also destroyed two of its propellors which allowed the two British batteships Rodney and King George V to reach the Big Biz in time to sink her. By then the Bismarck had regained control of its rudder, however, and was able to manouever at will. It maneouvered right into a barrage of shells from KGV and R and maneouvered right into three torpedoes fired from the HMS Dorsetshire. After that it maneouvered right into the seabed.

As an aside I've just calculated that the Death Star even if it were made of SOLID steel, would generate a mere 0.0004 g. That's infinitessimal. You need something a hell of a lot bigger to start being able to apply gravity as a factor. A planet does the trick, for example, but then the fleet was in geosynchronous orbit, and that doesn't change unless you apply force to it. Like the engines.

Sarge
17 July 2006, 04:54 AM
Yes, Darth Wyld, the torpedo that jammed Bismarck's rudder was launched by a Swordfish torpedo plane of the Royal Navy. The Swordfish was a biplane and would have been cutting edge technology in WW1, but continued on well into WW2. It was nicknamed the Stringbag and survived by flying so slowly that German anti-aircraft targetting systems had trouble calculating the correct lead to hit it. If you can find a copy of the book "To War in a Stringbag", you can read all about it as told by a veteran pilot.

gmjabreson
17 July 2006, 05:59 AM
Yes Bismarck was damaged by an antiquated aircraft, but it was destroyers that dealt the final death blow to her. Battleships, cruisers and destroyers shelled and torpedoed the bismarck for 27 hours before she finally slid under the water.

Yamato was destroyed by aircraft, much like her sister ship Musashi. It would have been too much an historic reference if it would have been an aging Y-wing that crashed into the Bridge.

As for the tracking of the ancient craft, out of the squadron, 1/4 of them returned. IIRC, Bismarck was attacked 3-4 times in the air before the first successful hit occured against her, she had destroyed most of the aircraft alone, but some were also taken down by her escort, Prinz Eugen.

I'm a big history person myself, believing history will find a way to repeat itself. As it does in Star Wars, the Sith rise and Fall, the Jedi rise and fall, the Sith rise and fall, etc.

playing this scenario on the gamecube game is one of my favorites, just looking at all the star destroyers the fleet had to get past to even get to the Executor to damage it is the funnest part of it.

The Admiral
17 July 2006, 07:25 AM
To be complete, and accurate, Bismarck was attacked by two battleships, the freshly comissioned Prince of Wales and the Hood in the battle of the Denmark Strait. Hood was sunk, Bismarck was very heavily damaged. This attack caused Bismarck and Eugen to make a run for St. Nazaire naval base. The Eugen disengaged from Bismarck and left her to limp home alone, she survived the war without any other significant engagement.

Swordfish were able to attack the Bismarck twice, the first time ineffectually, the second time putting three torpedoes into her stern, jamming the rudder, and destroying two propellors.

The Battleships King George V and the Rodney and the Cruiser Dorsetshire were able to attack the Bismarck with cannon fire and torpedoes. The Bismarck finally was scuttled by her crew.

No destroyers took part at any stage of the engagement, and no Swordfish were lost to anti-aircraft fire from either the Prinz Eugen or the Bismarck herself. Allied casualties were mainly the crew of HMS Hood, all but three of whom perished.

However, the main case in point was that the Tiriotz and the Yamato were destroyed by aircraft alone, and the Bismarck was destroyed only after aircraft crippled her. Since Executor is an analogue for the WW2 era super-battleships, it is entirely appropriate for it to have been felled by a fighter.

gmjabreson
17 July 2006, 07:40 AM
there were destroyers there, according to wikipedia, when the Bismarck was attacked by King George V and Rodney. According to this linked thread there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_battleship#The_Sinking_of_the_Bismarck. 1 air attack failed, attacking the wrong target, the other was at night, thus the inneffective fire of anti air assets.

The Admiral
17 July 2006, 08:05 AM
Those few destroyers that were part of the KGV and the R's fleet were not able to keep up with the battleships as they performed a (very) high speed attack on the Bismarck, consequently they were well outside gun range for the entirety of the final battle. By any real definition they played no part; they neither scored hits, were fired on, or caused any action to be taken by the enemy. Your definition may vary, of course, but as far as I am concerned, they took no part in the battle.

Grimace
17 July 2006, 10:00 AM
Well, before this gets into a "no it's this way, no it's that way", let's drop the discussion about the sinking of the Bismarck. There are too many accounts of the sinking of the Bismarck that say one thing or another. Suffice to say, if people want to discuss it, please take it to private messages.

Darth_Xanthor
18 July 2006, 08:24 AM
I see alot of you taling about the lowest buidder, and it's true. All militraies do that. An interesting point: The American M-16 have several plastic parts that are made by none other then...<drumroll> Matel!!! The company that makes toys for kids.


Hope Y'all get a chuckle out of that.


As for SSd crashingg......I vote for kewl Effect

pilnick1944
18 July 2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Darth_Xanthor
An interesting point: The American M-16 have several plastic parts that are made by none other then...<drumroll> Matel!!! The company that makes toys for kids.


Well, I don't usually go for those urban legends, but I've once read something here (http://www.snopes.com/military/m16.htm) on the subject. Got time, read it.

gmjabreson
19 July 2006, 12:24 PM
As being a person that used the M16, I won't comment.

As for the Executor going down into the Death Star, It could have very well been that gravity from the forest moon was also a key factor in its destruction. A ship heading towards a gravity will generally sound like its increasing in power and in speed, but the speed is being increased by gravity alone. I don't think anyone increased the power to any of the Engines, gravity did.

Notice that in Movies about WW2, when a fighter was making a dive bombing run or straifing run, the engine would get louder and scream. It wasn't cause the pilot put more power into, actually there was the same ammount of power, just less resistance. It was "Going with the flow" so to say.

I would say that overconfidence was the order of the day at the Battle of Endor. I would think that most ships would keep at least a skeleton crew at the secondary bridge, but then again, I have never been in the Navy to answer that question properly.

The Admiral
20 July 2006, 01:42 AM
It was "Going with the flow" so to say.
Not familiar with the Doppler effect I see. Sources of sound moving towards you increase the pitch of the sound because the frequency is altered. The faster it moves towards you the higher the pitch. This is the sole cause of dive bomber's apparent change in engine sound, aside from the Stuka which featured a rather nifty supercharger to allow it to operate in a dive bomber capacity from low altitude. But then again the way a Stuka worked was to more or less stall the engine during a drop, then kick the supercharger in to get the power to come out of it.
Air doesn't move all that quickly there would be virtually no change in air resistance between going straight ahead and straight down.

Falling towards a gravity well doesn't increase your speed, it actually slows you down; were it to increase the speed you'd go up, not down; Newton's Third Law.

Gravity wells would not cause the ship to execute a sharp turn to port either; there's no force to act on an object that way. Newton's Third Law applies here too.

Even if gravity were the explanation for the crash, there's no reason for it to; the ship is in geosynchronous orbit; it's parked right next the Death Star which is shown in geo quite clearly. Gravity wouldn't be affecting anything there because they are in orbit. That's what orbit IS.

As for secondary bridges no warship in the history of earth has ever had one, so it would be difficult to say. My father in law was director of the MoD tasked with Naval R&D, his brother is the director of the Royal Navy Museum in Portsmouth, so whilst i have never served on a warship, I am pretty well versed in their operations. Under combat situations the general rule of thumb is that everyone has an urgent and important job. The only staff who generally wouldn't be doing all that much are the surgeon and his staff. Ergo, if a secondary bridge were to exist, most likely it would not be manned, if circumstances warranted it (the bridge being destroyed) then the remaining senior officers would go there and activate it. That said, any hit which wiped out the bridge would most likely have waxed enough of the ship that its fighting power was reduced to nil. This would most likely be true even of the Executor under normal circumstances; a turbolaser blast powerful enough to cut through both the ship's shields and the bridge shields would be awesomely powerful indeed. It probbaly wouldn't help that the conning tower is located immediately over the main SI reactor.

Just for Grim - BISMARCK

gmjabreson
20 July 2006, 04:11 AM
I guess you wouldn't consider the Combat Information Center to be a secondary bridge? After all the bridge is where the ship is steared from, but during combat operations, the ship is controlled from there.

If a plane don't gain speed in a dive, then why were american planes doing it? Most of the time those planes in a dive exceeded normal operating speeds, having to slow down to come out of the dive or risk wings coming off.

Gravity indeed would have some affect on the SSD, But one thing people keep forgetting. Since physics are being brought into this, what about Solar Winds pushing it down towards the planet as well. There are various factors that are ignored, after all, its Science Fiction.

The Admiral
20 July 2006, 04:57 AM
On CICs: - A CIC is present on Aircraftcarriers, Ticonderoga class escort frigates and one or two of the newer destroyer designs. The role of a CIC is to coordinate the weapons systems and defensive systems of the vessel whilst under combat conditions. In the case of a carrier it is primarily there to assist the aircraft. In other ships it is generally to manage the multiple smart munitions these ships typically deply. It is not possible, nor advisable for the CIC to control the way that the ship itself operates. In short, CIC do not steer the ship, or control speed, status or any number of vital control elements, these tasks are performed by the bridge.

On Aircraft: - I never said anything about speed during a dive. Neither did you. Planes usually increase speed when diving, generally because they're under power pointed into the gravity well. Dive bombers usually make some effort to allay that effect because the longer it takes to perform the dive the more time they have to aim.

On Gravity: - I don't believe I can put it any more clearly than i have done, on the question of whether or not gravity is reposnsible for the Executor's crashing into the Death Star the answer is no. The Death Star's gravity is practically non existant. The only body with sufficient mass to have any kind of gravitational field is Endor, and they'r in orbit of Endor, so it wouldn't apply. If you're still unsure of the physics of gravity and orbital mechanics as applied in this example all I can suggest is going to your local library and reading a book.

On Solar Winds: - LMAO

Maur
20 July 2006, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by The Admiral
Falling towards a gravity well doesn't increase your speed, it actually slows you down; were it to increase the speed you'd go up, not down; Newton's Third Law.

Uhh... You might want to recheck this. The pull of a planet is purely attractive and will accelerate you toward it. The only way to deccelerate is to apply another force in the opposite direction to counter the pull of gravity.


Gravity wells would not cause the ship to execute a sharp turn to port either; there's no force to act on an object that way. Newton's Third Law applies here too.

Even if gravity were the explanation for the crash, there's no reason for it to; the ship is in geosynchronous orbit; it's parked right next the Death Star which is shown in geo quite clearly. Gravity wouldn't be affecting anything there because they are in orbit. That's what orbit IS.

Ok, orbital mechanics again. Gravity always has an effect, else you wouldn't orbit a planet. To orbit a body one needs enough tangential velocity such that the pull of gravity ends up just bending the velocity vector so that it wraps around the body. In essence you are always falling towards the body, but because of your tangential speed always just keep missing the target. Geostationary orbit is simply a special case where you are at the right distance from a body travelling with the right speed so that you complete one revolution around the world at the same rate at which the world rotates. The death star, while much smaller than a planet would still generate gravity due to sheer mass.

Rough calculations: Take a modern Carrier to get approximate density for the DSII.

Density of the USS Ronald Reagan: 667.15 Kg/m^3
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_super.htm#cvn76

Using 900Km as the basis for the volume of the DSII (based on Wookiepedia) and the density of the USS RR I get a mass of 2.03*10^21 Kg of mass.

That is huge. Our own moon is only 1 order of magnitude larger in mass. So, a ship sitting around 100Km out from the DSII (which I doubt the fleet was given how close the SSD was in that death scene) you get a gravitational pull of around 0.135m/s^2. Not huge, but definitely not 0.

The Admiral
20 July 2006, 09:39 AM
No need to recheck this, it is basic physics. In order for an object in orbit to get closer to the body it is orbitting, it needs to slow down. If it goes faster it will increase in orbital height, precisely because of the reasons you go on to describe; you're in orbit because you're going so fast you 'fall' round the planet. if you go faster, you will orbit further out because your velocity is bending the vector even further. It is slightly counter-intuitive but true nonetheless; in order to go from an orbital status to a sub-orbital status you need to slow down, not accelerate. Gravity itself won't provide the braking force because your velocity is already over the orbital threshold, a vessel or object would need to be acted on by another force (braking thrusters for example) to slow. Once below the orbital threshold the object will start moving towards the planet as a process caused by the reduction in its orbital height. Once in the atmosphere again the object will decellerate until it reaches its terminal velocity. It will then stop dramatically when it hits the surface. In any case no matter what mechanism you're using, going from orbit to the ground involves SLOWING DOWN. Even if you orientated a space craft to point straight 'down' at a planet and went full burn on the engines, you're still slowing down because what you're doing is altering your orbital characteristics to produce a much tighter orbit; your overall speed will decrease.

As for your calculations of the mass of the Death Star, I can see no reason for citing 900 km as its diameter. I know Dr Saxton has a whole page dedicated to this, but it is once of the most speculative and, frankly, silly pages he has on offer (Not least because of the visual shot of Executor ramming the DS2, LFL's 160 is virtually accurate to the meter for that shot).

However, assuming your figures are correct, you realise that a full order of magnitude would put this Death Star as having a sixtieth of the gravitational pull of either Earth or Endor? That's barely enough to register and certainly couldn't account for the dramatic change in Executors movement. That's even discounting the bizarre notion that gravity would suddenly 'switch on' after the ship received damage.

Maur
20 July 2006, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by The Admiral
In any case no matter what mechanism you're using, going from orbit to the ground involves SLOWING DOWN. Even if you orientated a space craft to point straight 'down' at a planet and went full burn on the engines, you're still slowing down because what you're doing is altering your orbital characteristics to produce a much tighter orbit; your overall speed will decrease.

Not true. If I point my engines straight towards the earth while in orbit and engage them I will be altering my orbit from circular to more and more elliptical. If done with enough force one can enter the most elliptical orbit possible which puts you through the center of the mass of the world (in essence a straight line). you didn't slow down to make this change, yet you still hit the planet because of it.


As for your calculations of the mass of the Death Star, I can see no reason for citing 900 km as its diameter. I know Dr Saxton has a whole page dedicated to this, but it is once of the most speculative and, frankly, silly pages he has on offer (Not least because of the visual shot of Executor ramming the DS2, LFL's 160 is virtually accurate to the meter for that shot).

I used that size as it was the first I had encountered, but did alter them as a test and the mass and gravity drops off to much closer to negligible (when compared to 1G at Earth's surface).


However, assuming your figures are correct, you realise that a full order of magnitude would put this Death Star as having a sixtieth of the gravitational pull of either Earth or Endor? That's barely enough to register and certainly couldn't account for the dramatic change in Executors movement. That's even discounting the bizarre notion that gravity would suddenly 'switch on' after the ship received damage.

They would only be correct if the DSII was composed of materials of a similar density to a modern Aircraft Carrier with about the same amount of hollow space (or higher density with more hollow space).

Gravity doesn't switch on, however the loss of control from the bridge could result in the Executor no longer countering the pull from the DSII

Of course all of this is just speculation based on the effects of a Hollywood movie.

The Admiral
20 July 2006, 01:52 PM
<rolls eyes>

I am not going to repeat myself again. Your idea of the physics of gravity and velocity do not match up with the laws of physics as determined by every physicist since Copernicus.

I can only suggest you go and read some books. Some topics you ought to look up;

Conservation of Momentum
Orbital Mechanics
Ballistic Trajectories
Parabolic Arcs
Newton's Laws of Motion
Relative Motion
Gravity

Other than that I am only going to suggest that complaining about figures that you provided in the first place is an exceedingly poor way to argue.

jmanski
20 July 2006, 03:36 PM
Ok, I was going to do a lot of quotes and arguing- but why?

Lets stick to the facts:
1. The SSD's bridge was destroyed and control was lost.
2. It ran into the DSII.
3. GL obviously thought it would look cool if they collided.

Grimace
20 July 2006, 07:23 PM
Enough with the physics talks! People need to cool off a bit and move along. Remember to NOT post when you get hot under the collar.

If you want to continue talk of this nature, take it to PM.

Don't make me get ornery.

gmjabreson
24 July 2006, 07:29 AM
interesting question in itself, who's to say that the secondary bridge wasn't already destroyed before the first one was? All firepower of the Rebel fleet was being directed at the Executor, who's to say one of those bolts took out the secondary bridge before Crynyds fighter took out the main bridge?

Ravnor
28 July 2006, 12:16 PM
Did the SSD even have a secondary bridge? I don't remember seeing one in the guide to vehicals.

PsychoInfiltrator
29 July 2006, 06:34 AM
Did the SSD even have a secondary bridge? I don't remember seeing one in the guide to vehicals.

Pretty much evry ship larger than a Corvette or Carrack has a secondary, and really big ships tend to have tertiary bridges as well...

Yes, SSDs have secondary bridges.

gmjabreson
29 July 2006, 11:24 AM
they are mentioned as having one in one of the Rogue Squadron books. But then again, it could easily have been an addition included into the design after the Executor was destroyed at Endor.

I do remember reading something that the crew of the Executor was locked out of the Secondary bridge. I'm assuming that no one had a code cylinder with the proper code to override the Security on it in time.

Ravnor
29 July 2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by gmjabreson

I do remember reading something that the crew of the Executor was locked out of the Secondary bridge. I'm assuming that no one had a code cylinder with the proper code to override the Security on it in time.

Imperial naval expirience teaches you only one thing, you can always trust your supiriors to be the cause of ultimate failure :D

gmjabreson
29 July 2006, 02:24 PM
Imperial naval expirience teaches you only one thing, you can always trust your supiriors to be the cause of ultimate failure


I don't think that was limited to just the navy, lol. But a good observation none the less.

PsychoInfiltrator
29 July 2006, 04:23 PM
they are mentioned as having one in one of the Rogue Squadron books. But then again, it could easily have been an addition included into the design after the Executor was destroyed at Endor.

The Lusankya, the exact duplicate of the Executor, had a secondary bridge, so that is not very likely. Also, I've read stuff mentioning ISDs having a seocndary bridge, so it would be incredibly stupid not to put one on the Executor. The Empire isn't full of a bunch of idiots, and I get sick of posts and people possessing that particular delusion.

Ravnor
30 July 2006, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by PsychoInfiltrator


The Empire isn't full of a bunch of idiots, and I get sick of posts and people possessing that particular delusion.

I never said that the imperialís were idiots, but their commanders tend to get on the fast track to command because of their backgrounds (son of a wealthy senator etc), because of this a large number of the officers are ill suited to commanding people.

gmjabreson
30 July 2006, 06:58 AM
That isn't done in just the Imperial Services. But it is a generalization of being more Who you know, than What you know. And I don't think anyone is saying the Empire or all of its agents and officers are stupid.
It's just how some are portrayed in the Movies. Veers definately wasn't stupid, nor Piett.

I think the biggest problem that the Imperial Officers faced was sometimes the Situation was beyond control, and Others (Cough, Vader, Cough) expected them to control it. The Higher the Command, the greater the responsibility, in which some officers were promoted beyond capabilities to handle.

Ravnor
30 July 2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by gmjabreson
I think the biggest problem that the Imperial Officers faced was sometimes the Situation was beyond control, and Others (Cough, Vader, Cough) expected them to control it.

I think that Vader may have expected more of his officers because he was used to working with the clone forces up till then, so he might have been expecting some noob officer to be as efficient as a person who is grown for a spacific purpose and trained for that job as soon as they can walk.

Uron Teff
30 July 2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Ravnor
I think that Vader may have expected more of his officers because he was used to working with the clone forces up till then, so he might have been expecting some noob officer to be as efficient as a person who is grown for a spacific purpose and trained for that job as soon as they can walk.

Just as a note, not every personal in the Grand Army of the Republic was a clone. Most, if not every, officer was a "normal grown" human or non-human. Think, for example, of Tarkin who was an Comminssioned Officer in the Clone Wars.

gmjabreson
31 July 2006, 06:11 PM
agreed, but by the time Vader met Tarkin, his reputation had preceded him. The Tarkin Doctrine was made into a law, therefore Vader very well couldn't have killed him for incompetance.
Most of those Officers killed by Vader were ones that shouldn't have gotten as high as they did by Military knowledge. Or more than Likely were "Generationals" left over from the days of the Republic. They joined the Empire to not lose position or income. Some did what they could to gain favor in Court, which promoted them more than their service record would have.
If you notice something, All the officers "Offed" by Vader were in Fact Navy Officers. Adm Ozzel, Cpt Needa, etc etc.... Only the Navy had problems with Generationals. The Army had practically been reborn at the onset of the Clone Wars.

But anyways, back to the Executors. I think everything new had a secondary bridge. I don't think Carracks did, or Dreadnaughts cause of their Age. But they were probably contributory to the idea. How many of those aging ships would have been saved if they would have had one. And of course, if the door wasn't security locked.

Ravnor
31 July 2006, 10:33 PM
I know that Carracks did not have a secondary bridge, but i would have expected Dreadnaughts to have some sort of emergency backup system despite their age, does anyone know differently?

Admiral Zaarin
1 January 2007, 06:08 PM
After all, history does bear out rather significantly that the Empire has a bad habit of overlooking fatal design flaws in their hardware...
Many intentionally placed for the Emperor's paranoid security. :)

gmjabreson
7 January 2007, 11:48 AM
I guess one could consider the various design flaws as a way to keep crews inline. But I always figured it was just another way the Rebels sabotaged production of things.

Admiral Zaarin
8 January 2007, 02:34 PM
I know for a fact that conveniently placed ventilation shaft on the first Death Star was placed there for the Emperor's peace of mind. He knew Tarkin and Vader well enough to know both were prone to delusions of grandeur.

Darth Iurus
6 February 2007, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Admiral Zaarin
I know for a fact that conveniently placed ventilation shaft on the first Death Star was placed there for the Emperor's peace of mind. He knew Tarkin and Vader well enough to know both were prone to delusions of grandeur.
Vader was the one warning Tarkin not to place too much trust in his machinery, claiming that the Death Star was insignificant next to the power of the Force.