why would you build a death star in the first place?

[Enforcer Talen]

the deathstar takes down the sheild and turns the planet to shard in ten seconds, the death fleet does it under an hour. if your going for style, take the first, if your going for effecinecy, take the second, you could have ten fleets running about blowing up ten planets, and when there's a pause in random destruction, they can scare the hell out of rebels.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Agreed. If only the Empire could engage in such wholesale destruction without screwing itself over in teh process, my that would be cool.

"This is Flim of Holonet News, the Emperor's ISDs have been BDZing every planet they can get their hands..erm guns on! The DS is runnign amuck vapign planets left and right! The Suncrusher is making stars go supernova ll over the galaxy! The Galaxy Gun is misslign the crap outta us! Is that a World Devastator! NO WAIT AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

It is soooooooo unfortunate the Empire cannot take part in the great Slaughter that will Never be....

[Tychu]

Talen, the DS was a terror weapon, meant to subdue entire star systems without firing a shot. See the "Tarkin Doctrine" (I believe thats what its called) which is to "Rule through fear of force rather than force itself."
After all no one in there right mind would challenge the Empire after they could hop on over fire giant ray gun and laugh as you are blown into atoms. As an aside it is somewhat uselful. Pulling too many Star Destroyers away from duty could leave holes for people like the Rebbelion to exploit, and with a planetary shiled it could take even numerous ISDs unsaid amounts of tiem to vercome it. The DS could totaly drain a planetary shiled and bust the planet in one fell swoop.

If i saw a Death Star coming to Earth id be more afraid of that than a StarDestroyer. Compared to a Death Star a starDestroyer is small

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Tychu, DS or ISD I'd be soiling myself. They could both destroy/kill Earth with ease. And there wouldn't be a damn thing we could do bout it!

[Enforcer Talen]

what's to say that didn't happen during the creation of the second empire? the deconstruction of the new republic was *not* peaceful, and all these toys were begging to be used. . .

so the empire was reborn, in a galaxy somewhat worse for the wear.

[Patrick Ogaard]

There is actually a good reason why one might want a Death Star instead of a fleet of a hundred ISDs in order to conduct planetary siege operations.

A fleet of ISDs would likely take hours in order to batter down even the cheapest of planetary shields, and a quality shield like Alderaan's would probably take days or weeks of constant bombardment, and even that might not be enough to actually take the shield down. A rebellious planet hiding behind its planetary shield can bind dozens, even hundreds of ISDs. In that time, a Rebel fleet could be scratched together from around the galaxy to jump into the system and carry out harassing strikes against the siege fleet. If the siege fleet engages the harassers, the planetary shield has time to regenerate and the whole siege starts again. If the siege fleet ignores the harassers, the smaller capital ships and fighters accompanying the ISDs will suffer losses, and ISDs may themselves be lost, reducing the effectiveness of the fleet.

Repeat that scenario in a dozen systems of the galaxy, or a hundred, or a thousand, and you've got a situation beyond the capabilities of even tens of thousands of major capital ships. In the meantime, the ISD assets are not available to defend Imperial infrastructure, giving small Rebel forces opportunities to attack with impunity.

Now introduce the Death Star into the equation. The need to besiege a shielded planet disappears. The Death Star simply jumps into the system, floats menacingly for a few moments to demonstrate the impotence of the rebellious forces, and then the rebellious world disappears. Before the nearest Rebel commander even has time to give the command to jump to the adjoining system, the Death Star is gone. Even if a Rebel fleet manages to engage the Death Star before the battle station can fire, the Death Star, at least the Mark 2, can simply sit behind its own shields and leisurely blast the planet to bits while the Rebel fleet demonstrates its impotence.

The introduction of the Death Star as a tool of warfare would have ultimately undercut the very concept of the Rebellion's military action. With no way to protect Rebel worlds, how could one expect any worlds to support the Rebellion?

[Mr Bean]

In secret first and second yes Shields are very strong but POINTS of them can be knocked down through repeated actions, Witness Thrawn and Akbhar both mentioning *Battering down the shields as a probable course of Action, They took Courscant with Five ISDs, Four Star Cruisers and around thirty smaller ships and the orgional plan called for them to take out one of the Golans, poor fire into the shield breach it long enough for shutles to desend down and take the world, Of course Akbahr mentions they could not have then HELD the world but still.

Also Witness the Lushakyas escapte from Courscant by breifly pooring enough power into the shields to make it past them long enough

Shields are not invurable they can be overcome but the instant you stop porring fire into them they adjust and heal rather quickly

[Patrick Ogaard]

In secret first and second yes Shields are very strong but POINTS of them can be knocked down through repeated actions, Witness Thrawn and Akbhar both mentioning *Battering down the shields as a probable course of Action, They took Courscant with Five ISDs, Four Star Cruisers and around thirty smaller ships and the orgional plan called for them to take out one of the Golans, poor fire into the shield breach it long enough for shutles to desend down and take the world, Of course Akbahr mentions they could not have then HELD the world but still.

Also Witness the Lushakyas escapte from Courscant by breifly pooring enough power into the shields to make it past them long enough

Shields are not invurable they can be overcome but the instant you stop porring fire into them they adjust and heal rather quickly

Exactly the problem with a Rebel-held world. Putting down enough firepower to actually bring down the shield in its entirety and allow a BDZ operation would be a drawn-out and prohibitively difficult exercise. Overcoming only part of a shield may allow a commando operation or the destruction of an invididual city, but that is likely to infuriate the planet's forces rather than cow them, and will drive other worlds to join the Rebellion.

Another problem is that if the shield is supported by planet-based fighters and planetary defense turbolasers and ion cannon the world could do unpleasant things to a siege fleet. Add theater shields protecting vulnerable cities and military complexes, and you've got a world that will eat up and spit out star destroyers by the dozen.

[Patrick Ogaard]

In secret first and second yes Shields are very strong but POINTS of them can be knocked down through repeated actions, Witness Thrawn and Akbhar both mentioning *Battering down the shields as a probable course of Action, They took Courscant with Five ISDs, Four Star Cruisers and around thirty smaller ships and the orgional plan called for them to take out one of the Golans, poor fire into the shield breach it long enough for shutles to desend down and take the world, Of course Akbahr mentions they could not have then HELD the world but still.

Also Witness the Lushakyas escapte from Courscant by breifly pooring enough power into the shields to make it past them long enough

Shields are not invurable they can be overcome but the instant you stop porring fire into them they adjust and heal rather quickly

Exactly the problem with a Rebel-held world. Putting down enough firepower to actually bring down the shield in its entirety and allow a BDZ operation would be a drawn-out and prohibitively difficult exercise. Overcoming only part of a shield may allow a commando operation or the destruction of an invididual city, but that is likely to infuriate the planet's forces rather than cow them, and will drive other worlds to join the Rebellion.

Another problem is that if the shield is supported by planet-based fighters and planetary defense turbolasers and ion cannon the world could do unpleasant things to a siege fleet. Add theater shields protecting vulnerable cities and military complexes, and you've got a world that will eat up and spit out star destroyers by the dozen.

[Talon Karrde]

I would have to agree with Talen. A Death Star was in my mind a waste of Imperial resources. The time they spent building the Death Star and trying to find the Rebel base to blow it to smitharines could easily have been done earlier had they simply amassed a large fleet in the place of the Death Star. Obvisouly it didnt strike as much fear into the Rebellion as they may have wanted. They obviously attacked the first one without fear, what would make them stop attacking any other one??

[Master of Ossus]

I think that the primary advantage the Death Star offered over a fleet of ISDs in a purely objective standpoint was its ability to engage fleets of capital starships without fear. That ability would have allowed it to single handedly defeat powerful planets and even sectors of space, wiping out their defenses and obliterating their planetary shield in a single stroke, without incurring Imperial casualties.

The real reasons, of course, were fear of force being greater than force itself, and that Palpatine and Tarkin wanted to compensate for something.

[Talon Karrde]

Thinking off base here a little: Say the then Rebellion ammassed a huge fleet that rivaled the Empire's. Don't you think it would have been possible to take down the Death Star with this fleet by just bombarding it with constant fire. They say the Death Star is basically invincible, but what would make it invincible. Remember in A New Hope you actually see the inside of a gun turrent being blown apart basically. Of course that very small scale but I would think it would be possible to take down the Death Star with an impressive show of firepower. Thoughts?

[Talon Karrde]

Also, remember when the Executor plunged into DSII? This punctured a large hole in the Death Star. Of course it wasn't completed, but how would that armor have differed from Death Star I?

Also, in my humble opinion, Emperor Palpatine should have left military decisions up to the officers. His decision to leave the Star Destroyers out of the Battle of Endor was a huge mistake. Also in the Battle of Yavin, why weren't the Imperials intelligent enough to bring on a couple of capital ships to wipe out whatever small resistance they would find? Pure arrogance I suppose.

[Typhonis 1]

From the literature the Ds and DS2 were supposed to be able to handle large scale fleet attacks.They not only could hide behind there shileds bu8t blast away with a few hundred thousand turbolasers and a few thousand fighters ,7200 for mk1 , Ds2 was worse it could target and hit capships as was seen in the movie so a large fleet attack wouldnt work also it can enter hyperspace.

[Cpt_Frank]

His decision to leave the Star Destroyers out of the Battle of Endor was a huge mistake.

It was a mistake, true, but not a one that big. The rebels won with sheer luck. Palps main mistake was, not to wait until the death star is fucking completed. DS II would have been virtually invincible.

[Talon Karrde]

The Death Star is overkill however. The battlestation itself doesn't seem necessary. When the cloned Palpatine revealed the Eclipse SD, this was a more lethal and inexpensive weapon (compared to the Death Star) A turbolaser built on a smaller scale, so that it could still destroy capital ships with one quick blast would have done any ship well. To put a turbolaser on a ship the size of a small moon, 90KM and 120KM in radius (I believe) is overkill. Although it's supposed invulnaribility is nice for the Death Star, think of how many hands, maintanance and crew must be aboard it at all times.

I'm still not convinced the Death Star was undestructible to capital ships. What protects it? We know that Death Star II was protected by a shield above Endor, but once it's leaves this shield, what protects it?

[Master of Ossus]

But their shield over Endor was not to be their primary defense. Once the station is completed, it would be able to defeat large groups of ships. It would not have been vulnerable to starfighter attack, and it would have been able to withstand an immense attack for a very long time by rebel ships. Also, the DSII could have been destroying multiple capital ships with its many turbolasers while firing its superlaser, also, and it could be used to destroy orbital shipyards and other areas which would be impossible to attack with starships. I think it is primarily designed to destroy worlds like Corellia, Fondor, Kuat, and Duros. A single shot with its primary weapon would have eliminated immense industrial complexes and destroyed vast numbers of lives. These areas are attackable with fleets of starships, but such an expenditure is difficult, and requires a fleet to be organized (which takes time). Also, the DS could accomplish the said task without allowing for enough time for an effective evacuation, and a DS could destroy such a complex without being in the area long enough to be hammered by the planet's defenses. Thus, the DS could wipe out planets quickly and without significant damage, where before a fleet would have been required for a significant amount of time, and casualties would be incurred. That is the primary advantage that the DS offers.

[CNS Sarajevo]

The best reason to build one is if the enemy is already doing the same thing. A fleet of battleships would be a poor excuse for a fleet, but I wouldn't want to pi** it off, either. (Anyone know who said this?)

[Doomriser]

if they don't have a few hundred lying about, why are they spending the equivalent of thousands to make a death star? you could pay a tenth of the price of the same effect.

1. All of the reasons described above

2. The DS had much smaller crew requirements than its mass in ISDs - the DS1 ran on only 1 million crew when it blew up Alderaan and had a max of 37 million. Thousands or millions of ISDs would have taken vastly greater amounts of trained crews in order to deploy

3. Building one giant platform is often cheaper than thousands of smaller ones. (E.g. a frigate is probably cheaper than its mass in aircraft.)

[Talon Karrde]

Ossus, you've sold me on your argument as to why the Death Star is more effective than an immense amount of Star Destroyers, you make very good points. My question however still remains in that I don't understand what their protection is once they are out of the protective shield provided by a generator on a planet surface. Then what protects it? Obviously the armor could be penetrated as it was shown when the SSD Executor was thrown into it. I'm still trying to find information as to how it protects itself and is invulnerable once outside it's place of origin.

[Master of Ossus]

Simple answer, Karde, is that I don't really know. I find it probable that, once completed, the DSII would have had considerable shields generated by the ship itself and not the planetary shield generator. It is also possible that it would have had other defenses against capital ships, but that is speculative.

It is possible that the DS's best defense is a good offense, but from the movies it is clear that the DS is designed to withstand a barrage from a fleet of lesser vessels. I don't know what would have protected a completed DSII, but I have always assumed that it would be markedly more powerful than what was seen in the movie.

[Talon Karrde]

if they don't have a few hundred lying about, why are they spending the equivalent of thousands to make a death star? you could pay a tenth of the price of the same effect.

1. All of the reasons described above

2. The DS had much smaller crew requirements than its mass in ISDs - the DS1 ran on only 1 million crew when it blew up Alderaan and had a max of 37 million. Thousands or millions of ISDs would have taken vastly greater amounts of trained crews in order to deploy

3. Building one giant platform is often cheaper than thousands of smaller ones. (E.g. a frigate is probably cheaper than its mass in aircraft.)

Here is the most accurate information on can find of the specifics of the first Death Star crew. The crew of the first Death Star design was 27,048 officers; 774,576 troops, pilots, and crewers; 378,576 support and maintenance crewers; 400,000 support droids; and 25,000 stormtroopers.

[Talon Karrde]

According to the Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia (I use this because of more statistical information) the outer hull of Death Star II was made of quadanium steel which is apparantly powerful enough to withhold turbolaser fire, or at least long enough that it won't make a difference for the opposition. Some more stats from the Unofficial Encyclopedia are astounishing as well, here are a few:

Capabilities to hold 4 Capital Ships
Docked 7,200 TIE Fighters
5,000 turbolaser batteries
5,000 heavy turbolaser batteries
2,500 laser cannons
2,500 ion cannons
768 tractor beam generators
27,048 officers
774,576 troops, pilots, and crewers
378,576 support and maintenance crewers
400,000 support droids
25,000 stormtroopers
Could house up to 600 Squadrons of Fighters
And of course the superlaser

This information comes from the TIE Fighter Hangar Bay, he quotes his information from the Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Well Karrde, even with the sheilds down, yes the armor is very weak (Exexcutor crash in ROTJ, X-Wings pulverising aromor in ANH) but the hypermatter reacotor is still buried under kilometers of armor, bulkheads, and whatever else. Without a handy dandly thermal exhaust port or open superstructure, the only way to get through whould be to blast its way through, that could take time. The fleet attacking the DS will be paying in blood for each meter of the hull they blow through, as the DS is described as having 25,000 TLs. If we assume that only 1/3 of the guns can come to bear on the enemy fleet thats still 8,000 guns, more than enough to cause serious damage. Then it would become a race to see who could outlast who. If the attcking ships could blow through the hull and hit the reactor they could walk away victories. On the flip side, if the stations TLs blast every enemy ship into atoms, it lives to kill planets another day.

As you can see, even without sheild, the DS has a formidible defence system.

[Talon Karrde]

Yes, this was point in the first place. As I said a long time ago, by the Executor crashing into the Death Star it shows it's vulnerability. As for what you said about bombarding until you hit the reactor, it sounds feasable. You constantly hit one spot and have some fighters draw the fire of the laser cannons. Of course you still have turbolasers down your back, so that only helps a little. I'm only trying to say that the battlestation is not invincible, and so far I've not been convinced. As for quadanium steel, well I'm not sure what kind of material that is. If it was an almost invincible kind of material, why wouldn't all Imperial ships have adopted this? Also if it's a rare material that cost trillions of credits, how can even the Empire afford to fund 160 KM worth of that material radius wise. If they could, they would obviously have used it on their other ships. Therefore, quadanium steel cannot be an absolute or very effective armor defense.

I agree with your assesment that the weapons are the Death Star's best defense. However, the fact does remain that the Death Star seems vulnerable.