Bad design in Star Wars

[fractalsponge1]

No, my beef is not with the dual nomenclature. It is with the IMO overestimation of the abundancy of dreadnoughts, especially considering the ISD is the mainstay in not only local, but sector and special groups as well. Even Black Sword Command had mostly ISDs.My main beef is that this seems to relegate the ISDs to nothing important in the grand scale of things, when this is not the case and not even in Dark Empire do Star Dreadnoughts take the main role. Even the attack of Sedriss on Balmorra was led by Star Destroyers.

In the grand scheme of things thousands of Star Destroyers are hardly irrelevant. In that sense I absolutely agree. But it's very odd to lump Star Destroyers to Mandators in the same category "capital ship." And just as odd that in a galaxy where one sector can field Star Dreadnoughts and a 900km battlestation can be built in secret in the boondocks, that ships larger than ISDs are exceedingly rare.

No, because they are expressively mentioned in the novel and movie dialogue.

Fair point. But my point about relative power still stands. The entire fishing fleet of China armed with AK47s would be an unprecendentedly huge fleet in comparison to the USN by numbers, but you'd be being dishonest if you called it the biggest armada ever assembled on Earth.

Which other dozen worlds do have the industrial power of Kuat and are not under direct or indirect Imperial control already?

I really need to get that Essential Atlas book, but Corellia, Anaxes, Rendilli, and Tepasi come to mind. In terms of shipbuilding capacity, possibly Gyndine, Fondor, and Dac are also significant enough to build a Star Dreadnought. By size, wealth, or other industry Rothana, Foerost, Aargau, Vulpter, Denon, Empress Teta, Eriadu. I really must get that essential Atlas, have I said that already?.... But still, shipyard capacity in-system is not necessarily a good proxy for the economic power necessary to sustain a large military force. Kuat may have been exceptional for its organic ability to build ships, but it is not necessarily exceptional in military or economic resources (if you know somewhere that says it is, please tell me). There are over a million full member states; if even a hundreth of a percent had comparable resources to Kuat then that is still a hundred individual states that could have the economic power to maintain forces comparable to Kuat Sector.

Where is the evidence that it is even necessary for the empire to have so many forces considering many of the Core worlds are fortress worlds by the Empire and the primary doctrine by the empire was not concentrated on ships, but on fortress worlds as stated in the Essential Atlas?

How does the presence of a fortress world doctrine invalidate my points on the relative strength of Azure Hammer? The Empire has on the order of 25000 Imperators at least. Over two hundred Executor equivalents. If even a tenth of that is stationed in the Core as Sector forces, how is Azure Hammer going to keep them in line with 57 star destroyers and a single Super Star Destroyer? Even if you don't admit to any member state militaries apart from Kuat, then that's parity between a third of the Empire's Core forces and 1 planet. That doesn't jive for me.

Furthermore, what is your explanation of Star Dreadnoughts not being present at the Battle of Coruscant in ROTS? There is not a single Star Dreadnought present there. If ships that are less capable than ISDs considered to be the enough to defend Coruscant in the clone wars, why should this change during the empire?

Apart from laziness on the part of ILM? Apart from a galactic war where the best ships might not be spared for garrison duty in a supposedly safe system? Apart from them fighting off-screen? Do you want me to handwave? The point is still that the ICS says that there were Mandator-class ships in service at Kuat, and battleships escorted by Star Destroyers (Venators). Whether they were shown in one slice of the Battle of Coruscant is secondary to their existence as stated by the text. Show me a snippet of canon that explicitly states that these ships did not exist in the same way the ICS says explicitly that they do, and I will gladly concede the point.

So did the capabilities of the Spanish dreadnoughts and the Richelieu class, but both are still considered battleships. The difference is that there is an open end to Star Wars ships, whereas earth navies ran into industrial and practability problems.

An Espana could still do signficant damage and cause significant casualties to Richelieu if it was allowed to land a single broadside (the electronics, firing range, and speed differences between ISDs and larger vessels would not be signficant in SW, so it's ability to give and take damage that counts with this metaphor). An ISD has not a hope in hell of doing the same versus a Mandator, even if the latter could dissipate heat only as well as a transport. Fifty Espanas landing hits on Richelieu would turn it into a wreck. Fifty ISDs shooting at an Mandator under normal conditions might be in with a chance. I don't think the Espana/Richelieu example is valid here. If there is no upper end or any order past Star Destroyer in the Star Wars classification scheme, then the Death Star is a Super Star Destroyer (it's self mobile, hyperdrive capable, and bigger than an ISD).

[Thanas]

No, my beef is not with the dual nomenclature. It is with the IMO overestimation of the abundancy of dreadnoughts, especially considering the ISD is the mainstay in not only local, but sector and special groups as well. Even Black Sword Command had mostly ISDs.My main beef is that this seems to relegate the ISDs to nothing important in the grand scale of things, when this is not the case and not even in Dark Empire do Star Dreadnoughts take the main role. Even the attack of Sedriss on Balmorra was led by Star Destroyers.

In the grand scheme of things thousands of Star Destroyers are hardly irrelevant. In that sense I absolutely agree. But it's very odd to lump Star Destroyers to Mandators in the same category "capital ship." And just as odd that in a galaxy where one sector can field Star Dreadnoughts and a 900km battlestation can be built in secret in the boondocks, that ships larger than ISDs are exceedingly rare.

Which leads me to conclude that the empire has no real enemies that field large number of dreadnoughts. That is the only explanation I can think of.

And the category capital ship is really not that much of an indicator, given that depending on how you use it it can mean pretty much any flagship. And no, I would not lump them in the same category - I think Star Dreadnoughts/Star Cruiser is pretty much a good description. I was commenting more on the role and how much of the latter types are around.

No, because they are expressively mentioned in the novel and movie dialogue.

Fair point. But my point about relative power still stands. The entire fishing fleet of China armed with AK47s would be an unprecendentedly huge fleet in comparison to the USN by numbers, but you'd be being dishonest if you called it the biggest armada ever assembled on Earth.

Why? The normandy invasion fleet was oftentimes called the biggest armada on earth and still is, despite having less relative power than the combined US pacific fleet did - heck, it can be argued it had less relative power than a single US carrier TF.

Which other dozen worlds do have the industrial power of Kuat and are not under direct or indirect Imperial control already?

I really need to get that Essential Atlas book, but Corellia, Anaxes, Rendilli, and Tepasi come to mind.

The evidence for Corellia fielding Star Dreadnoughts is very flimsy. The quote from Han can practically mean any ships between 450m to 19km and I very much find it unlikely that he meant Star Dreadnoughts as he was clearly talking about ships on anti-smuggler duties.

Anaxes is a loyal Imperial world and never had an independent ship industry AFAIK. In fact, its sister planet Axum dwarfed it in industrial output (but Axum too was Imperial). So no threat there.

Rendili shipyards mostly manufactured smaller ships on the scale of VSDs. It did produce one type of Battleship, but there is next to nothing said about their scale. It seems unlikely they posed much of a threat. In any case, Rendili seems to have mostly focused their heavy industry on Golan stations.

Tepasi - I think you are talking about TaggeCo here, right? There is likewise no evidence that they ever produced a Star Dreadnought that could take on an Executor or even a large-sized Star Cruiser. I know Tagge did use a somewhat large cruiser (5km?), but this is hardly a threat that requires dreadnoughts to be countered, especially not as House Tagge were Imperial loyalists.

So there is no real political threat from those systems.

In terms of shipbuilding capacity, possibly Gyndine

..which is described as being a KDY research system, nothing more.

Fondor,

Under direct Imperial state ownership.

and Dac are also significant enough to build a Star Dreadnought.

Aside from the Home One, which seems to be a one-off, they only built Star Dreadnought sized ships well after the Dark Empire crisis.

By size, wealth, or other industry Rothana

Another KDY subsidiary.

, Foerost,

This is the first real possibility. However, the world was taken in the clone wars - I presume the empire keeps a sizable garrison there, especially considering its proximity and the route to Byss.

Aargau,

Another possibility, but there is no evidence of them ever fielding dreadnoughts. Plus, later on they became an Imperial fortress world and always maintained their neutrality before.

Vulpter

Under constant Imperial blockade and starving to the point that many cities were abandoned.

Denon

This one is a real possibility, but there is no record of them ever having large shipyards.

Empress Teta

An imperial world which sells most of its products to the Imperials. A possibility, but unlikely.

Eriadu.

...is only reported to have small shipyards.

I really must get that essential Atlas, have I said that already?.... But still, shipyard capacity in-system is not necessarily a good proxy for the economic power necessary to sustain a large military force. Kuat may have been exceptional for its organic ability to build ships, but it is not necessarily exceptional in military or economic resources (if you know somewhere that says it is, please tell me).

I would really say that KDY is exceptional in every way, considering it seems to own most major shipyards in the galaxy and has not one, but two important subsidiary shipyard worlds....

There are over a million full member states; if even a hundreth of a percent had comparable resources to Kuat then that is still a hundred individual states that could have the economic power to maintain forces comparable to Kuat Sector.

But there are very little planets that have that much industrial power. I can think of no other except possible Corellia and Fondor. And even if we assume there are (something that is not supported) that still does not mean they have the political will to do so.

This might also offer an explanation on why there are so very few Dreadnoughts - of course Kuat would have no incentive to supply many of them to the Empire, instead focusing on turning out ISDs which are a far lesser threat to Kuati interests.

How does the presence of a fortress world doctrine invalidate my points on the relative strength of Azure Hammer? The Empire has on the order of 25000 Imperators at least. Over two hundred Executor equivalents.

Whoah. Where does the two hundred SSD number come from?

If even a tenth of that is stationed in the Core as Sector forces, how is Azure Hammer going to keep them in line with 57 star destroyers and a single Super Star Destroyer? Even if you don't admit to any member state militaries apart from Kuat, then that's parity between a third of the Empire's Core forces and 1 planet. That doesn't jive for me.

Why not? The Empire went from basically non-existing central military to central military in the span of what, less than two decades?

Furthermore, what is your explanation of Star Dreadnoughts not being present at the Battle of Coruscant in ROTS? There is not a single Star Dreadnought present there. If ships that are less capable than ISDs considered to be the enough to defend Coruscant in the clone wars, why should this change during the empire?

Apart from laziness on the part of ILM? Apart from a galactic war where the best ships might not be spared for garrison duty in a supposedly safe system?

But the core is supposedly safe during the era of the Rebellion either and still you want heavier forces there?

Apart from them fighting off-screen? Do you want me to handwave? The point is still that the ICS says that there were Mandator-class ships in service at Kuat, and battleships escorted by Star Destroyers (Venators).

Just because the ICS says they were put in service at Kuat, an immensely important system, that does not mean they were in abundance anywhere else.

Whether they were shown in one slice of the Battle of Coruscant is secondary to their existence as stated by the text. Show me a snippet of canon that explicitly states that these ships did not exist in the same way the ICS says explicitly that they do, and I will gladly concede the point.

No, I cannot prove a negative. It is up to you to show that the battleships were existing at Coruscant. Their abscence from the central attack on the enemy flagship and enemy center seems to suggest that they do not exist.

If there is no upper end or any order past Star Destroyer in the Star Wars classification scheme, then the Death Star is a Super Star Destroyer (it's self mobile, hyperdrive capable, and bigger than an ISD).

There is an order past SD, it is called Star Dreadnought. You seem to have me mistaken as someone who argues that the ISD and Star Dreadnought should use the same classification. I say they should both be described as capital ships or battleships, but that they should be differentiated from each other by use of Star Destroyer and Star Dreadnought.

And the DS cannot be a ship as it is explicitly called a battlestation.

[fractalsponge1]

OK, so there's two separate points of difference then: 1) the classification of star destroyers and star dreadnoughts together as capital ships, and 2) the number of star dreadnoughts.

1)

There is an order past SD, it is called Star Dreadnought. You seem to have me mistaken as someone who argues that the ISD and Star Dreadnought should use the same classification. I say they should both be described as capital ships or battleships, but that they should be differentiated from each other by use of Star Destroyer and Star Dreadnought.

I still do not understand how to group ships spanning three orders of magnitude of size and power into the category "capital ship" is logical. I used the Death Star = super star destroyer point facetiously to highlight this.

Star Destroyers are canonically known to be subordinate, "screening" vessels for "battleships" according to the Ep3 ICS. This fits with the Star Battlecruiser/Star Dreadnought progression through larger vessels. It seems absurd that DDs, on the galactic "Star Xxxx" scale, are battleships in role or classification. I suppose it ends up being a small semantic difference. I say ISDs can be used in the role of local, small-scale "battleship," but at the level of the galactic starfleet they would not rate the designation capital ship (this probably boils down to which end scale of the naval service you would be viewing the situation from).


2)
Hm, I think I am not making my point clearly enough.

Just because the ICS says they were put in service at Kuat, an immensely important system, that does not mean they were in abundance anywhere else.

Did I say they were abundant? I don't think they were 1 per sector, but I don't think they form the vanishingly small population you are positing.

Potential roles for the Imperial central forces include not only overwhelming any rogue Imperial sector group, but at least a significant combination of potentially disloyal member state militaries. Otherwise, the Empire would hardly be the galactic hegemon, would it?

This might also offer an explanation on why there are so very few Dreadnoughts - of course Kuat would have no incentive to supply many of them to the Empire, instead focusing on turning out ISDs which are a far lesser threat to Kuati interests.

I would really say that KDY is exceptional in every way, considering it seems to own most major shipyards in the galaxy and has not one, but two important subsidiary shipyard worlds....

So is the interpretation to be that the Empire is simply primus inter pares among the powers Core Worlds, dependent on the whims of major powers like Kuat for its military core? Or is it actually the galactic hegemon by force of arms and depth of resources, able to procure and field the most powerful weapons in the galaxy from whatever source it chose? Keep in mind that DS2 was constructed in secret from central government resources, and embodied the material of millions of Star Destroyers.

Also, ownership of production does not equate a monopoly on use. If so, KDY and the standing military forces of Kuat Sector should be the core of galactic defense. So we should hear a lot about Kuati admirals and former KDY security ships in the Clone Wars - but we don't, instead we get new build warships for galactic buyers (i.e. the Republic and Empire). I don't doubt it's probably the largest supplier of warships to the galaxy, but it seems like a stretch to suggest that its business model is to simply supply itself alone with ships.

The point of listing the major worlds (that have been seen to date) is not to list all the big shipyards. As I said, it is a list of merely some of the states with access to resources that could enable them to operate large militaries. Whether they buy them from CEC or KDY or build them themselves doesn't matter; as you yourself said earlier, they have had thousands of years to build up. What was the point of maintaining such large warship building capacity at Kuat, Fondor, or any number of places, if not to supply the other major member states as well as the Republic (when it fielded significant forces) with equipment? Or are we to assume that these massive shipyards, which built the Empire's galaxy-spanning fleet within a generation, simply exist to maintain the local military alone? The House of Tagge, despite having no huge shipyards known on the scale of Kuat or Corellia, fielded ships that (though ambiguously sized), look to be at least bigger than 3km (anonymous star battlecruisers 1-2 from SWTC). They might have simply bought them from KDY, who might also have marketed bigger ships. Does it not stretch credulity that Kuat built a planet girding shipyard over generations to build a few Mandators and Procurators for itself and no one else?

Also, keep in mind the events of TPM; given the Star Dreadnought/Star Destroyer division you are proposing, the Trade Federation put into the field at one planet thousands of potential Star Dreadnoughts (certainly the war conversion variants of these hulls are in the double-digit ISD range for power generation, by reactor space if nothing else). These were however presumably no match for the collection of central and member state forces that could be brought to bear against the Federation, since they feared Senate intervention. If the naval forces of the Federation (or the rapidly upgraded force available to them) were actually stronger than the navies of central authority or the major member states, why worry so much?

The military of the Empire would have had to replicate this role; commands such as Azure Hammer would have taken the lead. Does it seem credible that 57 ISDs and 1 SSD would deter a few thousand Lucrehulks if it came to it? Again, a third of the mobile forces of the Core to match a single member state equivalent?

Why not? The Empire went from basically non-existing central military to central military in the span of what, less than two decades?

Yet it built at least 25000 ISDs, and embodied unknown numbers of Venator and Victory class ships, as well as numerous Executors at least in the combined EU (Executor, Iron Fist, Intimidator (+2?), Annihilator, Lusankya, Reaper, Terror, Vengeance (Balance of Power Vengeance), Guardian, Aggressor, Whelm (possible)). As well as other intermediate warships such as the ships in the Byss cordon (would you argue that they are one-offs?), and ships such as the two Eclipses and four Sovereigns. What were the giant naval shipyards at Kuat and elsewhere used for this doing for the millenia previous, if not equipping member state and central government militaries?

Whoah. Where does the two hundred SSD number come from?

I was referring to the theoretical power generation equivalent, not actual listed ships.

No, I cannot prove a negative. It is up to you to show that the battleships were existing at Coruscant. Their abscence from the central attack on the enemy flagship and enemy center seems to suggest that they do not exist.

You realize that's basically like saying "No other Executors were used in the most pivotal battle of the Rebellion, so there must not have been more." The existence of other ships of the class is indicated in other sources, just as the presence of Star Dreadnoughts and "battleships" [warranting an escort of Star Destroyers] is shown by the ICS, and intermediate sized vessels in comics and games. There are plausible reasons that no more than one dreadnought was used at Endor, in the same way there are plausible reasons no Star Dreadnoughts were shown in RotS.

[bz249]

Where is it said that ISD's were fast in hyperspace? Everything I have ever read is that they are not really fast, and actually are slower than Victory Star destroyers. Victorys are noted as the slower than ISD in sublight acceleration but superior in FTL, source The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. I would love to hear your source for ISDs being fast in hyperspace.[/quote]

Class two hyperdrive is not bad, and from Mark II they have Class I drives.

[bz249]

Isn't all this talk about firing arcs and formations missing the point a bit? Most battles would not be like Endor or Coruscant, where two sides sail along slowly in a restricted area and pound at each other point-blank like ranks of infantry. If I were an star destroyer captain in a fight with an equal opponent, I'd be trying to wring every one of my 3000+g out of my engine array and drawing weird and unpredictable shapes in the sky trying to avoid getting hit. Optimum firing arcs basically serve to constrain how violently you can maneuver and still maintain full weapons output. Actual optimum firing arcs probably aren't as important as how well you can move.

Why? Far from gravity wells starships can engage their hyperdrive thus the weaker fleet can flee (interdictor technology is not that common). Even if there are gravity well generating ships they can scatter and sooner or later most of them will be free of the gravity well and thus flee. Indeed the only situation when a weaker force have to accept a battle is when they are defending a valueable, immobile target. Most of the times this is a planet. So most battles should happen in the proximity of planets (what is the term: blue space?) instead in the middle of nowhere (black space?).

[PainRack]

Light cruisers, per definition, cannot stand in the line of battle.

ISDs do.

ISDs can barely stand up against retrofitted Merchant Cruisers....

VSDs, vessels which are comparable to the ISDs and can certainly stand up to one or two salvo fell in a single salvo against the Shockwave in Darksaber.

If we jump forward to the NJO era, the ISD is comparable to the enemy YV matalok cruiser, even ranked as a heavy warship by the Republic, but they were still outclassed by the other Republic heavy warships from that era, to the extent that Paelleon ISD can be overwhelmed by enemy Matalok without inflicting losses while a Mon Cal could.

[fractalsponge1]

Isn't all this talk about firing arcs and formations missing the point a bit? Most battles would not be like Endor or Coruscant, where two sides sail along slowly in a restricted area and pound at each other point-blank like ranks of infantry. If I were an star destroyer captain in a fight with an equal opponent, I'd be trying to wring every one of my 3000+g out of my engine array and drawing weird and unpredictable shapes in the sky trying to avoid getting hit. Optimum firing arcs basically serve to constrain how violently you can maneuver and still maintain full weapons output. Actual optimum firing arcs probably aren't as important as how well you can move.

Why? Far from gravity wells starships can engage their hyperdrive thus the weaker fleet can flee (interdictor technology is not that common). Even if there are gravity well generating ships they can scatter and sooner or later most of them will be free of the gravity well and thus flee. Indeed the only situation when a weaker force have to accept a battle is when they are defending a valueable, immobile target. Most of the times this is a planet. So most battles should happen in the proximity of planets (what is the term: blue space?) instead in the middle of nowhere (black space?).

Did I say anything about where the battle need be held? I'm saying that if you have to fight, whether you're the weaker or stronger ship or facing a peer, it's almost always going to be better try to avoid the fire being sent at you, at least up to the point that you can no longer fire back accurately. What does fighting in deep space or near a planet have anything to do with that?

[bz249]

Did I say anything about where the battle need be held? I'm saying that if you have to fight, whether you're the weaker or stronger ship or facing a peer, it's almost always going to be better try to avoid the fire being sent at you, at least up to the point that you can no longer fire back accurately. What does fighting in deep space or near a planet have anything to do with that?

Well if you are restricted to the proximity of a planet, then the room to maneuver is seriously reduced. Thus Endor or Coruscant battle is the likely scenario: high density of starships restricted to a small volume of space, battle distances the high ten-low thousand kilometers and unless one side is superbly trained to perform under such conditions formations would be used to minimize friedly fire and simple accidents while maximize the the output of energy emitted.

[Thanas]

Light cruisers, per definition, cannot stand in the line of battle.

ISDs do.

ISDs can barely stand up against retrofitted Merchant Cruisers....

You mean the MonCal cruisers? Sure, they originally started out as merchants, but after the liberation of Dac they were true warships.

VSDs, vessels which are comparable to the ISDs

How are they comparable? They are much, much smaller.

and can certainly stand up to one or two salvo fell in a single salvo against the Shockwave in Darksaber.

Those were VSDII and the shockwave itself was destroyed in a single salvo from the VSDs. And Darksaber itself just made no sense at all. I prefer we not use it as evidence for anything, because if then we also have to say that the Executor alone bankrupted the empire.

If we jump forward to the NJO era, the ISD is comparable to the enemy YV matalok cruiser, even ranked as a heavy warship by the Republic, but they were still outclassed by the other Republic heavy warships from that era, to the extent that Paelleon ISD can be overwhelmed by enemy Matalok without inflicting losses while a Mon Cal could.

Direct source and quote, please.

[Thanas]

OK, so there's two separate points of difference then: 1) the classification of star destroyers and star dreadnoughts together as capital ships, and 2) the number of star dreadnoughts.

1)

There is an order past SD, it is called Star Dreadnought. You seem to have me mistaken as someone who argues that the ISD and Star Dreadnought should use the same classification. I say they should both be described as capital ships or battleships, but that they should be differentiated from each other by use of Star Destroyer and Star Dreadnought.

I still do not understand how to group ships spanning three orders of magnitude of size and power into the category "capital ship" is logical. I used the Death Star = super star destroyer point facetiously to highlight this.

Star Destroyers are canonically known to be subordinate, "screening" vessels for "battleships" according to the Ep3 ICS. This fits with the Star Battlecruiser/Star Dreadnought progression through larger vessels. It seems absurd that DDs, on the galactic "Star Xxxx" scale, are battleships in role or classification. I suppose it ends up being a small semantic difference. I say ISDs can be used in the role of local, small-scale "battleship," but at the level of the galactic starfleet they would not rate the designation capital ship (this probably boils down to which end scale of the naval service you would be viewing the situation from).

In my opinion ships should be classed as to their actual role. Thus, as the vast, overwhelming majority of ISDs we see serve as capital ships (aside from the small sample of commands that have dreadnoughts and even then there is a vast multitude of real screening vessels like Carracks or Strike class cruisers) I think it would be quite unfair to not give them that designation. Heck, they have served as flagships of the Empire both under Thrawn and under subsequent leaders. To argue that the Chimaera was not a capital ship is IMO arguing against the vast majority of evidence.

2)
Hm, I think I am not making my point clearly enough.

Just because the ICS says they were put in service at Kuat, an immensely important system, that does not mean they were in abundance anywhere else.

Did I say they were abundant? I don't think they were 1 per sector, but I don't think they form the vanishingly small population you are positing.

So...how many Executor class ships were there in your opinion?

Potential roles for the Imperial central forces include not only overwhelming any rogue Imperial sector group, but at least a significant combination of potentially disloyal member state militaries. Otherwise, the Empire would hardly be the galactic hegemon, would it?

This might also offer an explanation on why there are so very few Dreadnoughts - of course Kuat would have no incentive to supply many of them to the Empire, instead focusing on turning out ISDs which are a far lesser threat to Kuati interests.

I would really say that KDY is exceptional in every way, considering it seems to own most major shipyards in the galaxy and has not one, but two important subsidiary shipyard worlds....

So is the interpretation to be that the Empire is simply primus inter pares among the powers Core Worlds, dependent on the whims of major powers like Kuat for its military core? Or is it actually the galactic hegemon by force of arms and depth of resources, able to procure and field the most powerful weapons in the galaxy from whatever source it chose? Keep in mind that DS2 was constructed in secret from central government resources, and embodied the material of millions of Star Destroyers.

No, my view is that it is the galactic hegomon through the political power of Palpatine first and foremost, second through its vast military which outnumbers and outclasses every core world (thanks to the massive ISD superiority) and third due to lack of political willpower. It is my opinion that the empire can easily defeat and subjugate/starve out any core world.

When it comes to Kuat and Corellia, which IMO are special cases due to them being the biggest shipyards, the Empire could defeat them but it would cost them the loss of shipbuilding capacity.

Also, ownership of production does not equate a monopoly on use.

Please show me where I ever argued that Kuat does have a monopoly on use. The Empire controls Fondor, where it can built SSDs.

If so, KDY and the standing military forces of Kuat Sector should be the core of galactic defense. So we should hear a lot about Kuati admirals and former KDY security ships in the Clone Wars - but we don't, instead we get new build warships for galactic buyers (i.e. the Republic and Empire). I don't doubt it's probably the largest supplier of warships to the galaxy, but it seems like a stretch to suggest that its business model is to simply supply itself alone with ships.

And where was I arguing that?

The point of listing the major worlds (that have been seen to date) is not to list all the big shipyards. As I said, it is a list of merely some of the states with access to resources that could enable them to operate large militaries. Whether they buy them from CEC or KDY or build them themselves doesn't matter; as you yourself said earlier, they have had thousands of years to build up. What was the point of maintaining such large warship building capacity at Kuat, Fondor, or any number of places, if not to supply the other major member states as well as the Republic (when it fielded significant forces) with equipment? Or are we to assume that these massive shipyards, which built the Empire's galaxy-spanning fleet within a generation, simply exist to maintain the local military alone? The House of Tagge, despite having no huge shipyards known on the scale of Kuat or Corellia, fielded ships that (though ambiguously sized), look to be at least bigger than 3km (anonymous star battlecruisers 1-2 from SWTC). They might have simply bought them from KDY, who might also have marketed bigger ships. Does it not stretch credulity that Kuat built a planet girding shipyard over generations to build a few Mandators and Procurators for itself and no one else?

This has what to do with my point? If you want to argue that Kuat has a substantive military, fine, do so. But that does not mean any other planet has them or any other ships even approaching the size of the Executor. In General, the starwars galaxy is very undermilitiarized. Heck, according to he Imperial sourcebook, five ISDs are enough to guarantee space superiority in a major system.

And if the Kuati really fielded "squadrons" of SSDs as you claim, where were those when Kuat was attacked four times in a row? Did they all take collective naps? The point is the only time we see them appear is during the clone wars and even then they are not numerous enough to protect Coruscant. After the clone wars, they are never mentioned again. When Kuat is attacked during the Imperial reign, no Kuati local forces worth speaking off exist.

This leads me to conclude that if these ships existed past the clone wars, there was either a general disarmament or the Empire simply gained control of them/scrapped them because when Kuat is attacked, they did not respond and were not present.

Also, keep in mind the events of TPM; given the Star Dreadnought/Star Destroyer division you are proposing, the Trade Federation put into the field at one planet thousands of potential Star Dreadnoughts (certainly the war conversion variants of these hulls are in the double-digit ISD range for power generation, by reactor space if nothing else).

Actually, they apparently suck at power generation and warship design, as 4 -12 Venators (depending on what source you use) are enough to drive off a Lucrehulk.

These were however presumably no match for the collection of central and member state forces that could be brought to bear against the Federation, since they feared Senate intervention. If the naval forces of the Federation (or the rapidly upgraded force available to them) were actually stronger than the navies of central authority or the major member states, why worry so much?

Because the trade federation needed someone to trade with? Because the Neimoidians are notorious cowards? Note that once they had a strong coalition of allies, they did attack and cause severe casualties.

The military of the Empire would have had to replicate this role; commands such as Azure Hammer would have taken the lead. Does it seem credible that 57 ISDs and 1 SSD would deter a few thousand Lucrehulks if it came to it? Again, a third of the mobile forces of the Core to match a single member state equivalent?

Assuming that the Trade Federation, which was certainly among the most powerful groupings in the galaxy, had thousands of ISD equivalents, there is no reason to assume the Imperial Starfleet could not have concentrated an equal number of ISD equivalents against them. But no such groupings on even a similar power level to the Trade Federation seem to exist under the empire anymore, so the point is moot anyway.

Why not? The Empire went from basically non-existing central military to central military in the span of what, less than two decades?

Yet it built at least 25000 ISDs, and embodied unknown numbers of Venator and Victory class ships, as well as numerous Executors at least in the combined EU (Executor, Iron Fist, Intimidator (+2?), Annihilator, Lusankya, Reaper, Terror, Vengeance (Balance of Power Vengeance), Guardian, Aggressor, Whelm (possible)). As well as other intermediate warships such as the ships in the Byss cordon (would you argue that they are one-offs?), and ships such as the two Eclipses and four Sovereigns. What were the giant naval shipyards at Kuat and elsewhere used for this doing for the millenia previous, if not equipping member state and central government militaries?

Building freighters? We know that largescale freighters of the SWVerse easily outmass most warships. As for the ships around Byss, I would argue that they are indeed one-offs as they are never seen again and not even mentioned in any other media besides Dark Empire (except for the possible Shockwave, which might be Allegiance class or a similar-sized ship).

Furthermore, the fact that it took at least eight years for the Eclipse to be built suggests that building large-scale warships is not something that is standard and that smaller ships most likely took priority.

No, I cannot prove a negative. It is up to you to show that the battleships were existing at Coruscant. Their abscence from the central attack on the enemy flagship and enemy center seems to suggest that they do not exist.

You realize that's basically like saying "No other Executors were used in the most pivotal battle of the Rebellion, so there must not have been more." The existence of other ships of the class is indicated in other sources, just as the presence of Star Dreadnoughts and "battleships" [warranting an escort of Star Destroyers] is shown by the ICS, and intermediate sized vessels in comics and games. There are plausible reasons that no more than one dreadnought was used at Endor, in the same way there are plausible reasons no Star Dreadnoughts were shown in RotS.

This would be an apt point if the fleet at Endor would have had the objective of destroying the Rebeliion. It did not. The DSII was supposed to provide the main firepower there. Meanwhile, protecting the capital of the known worlds is a whole other matter, especially when there is at least one Trade Federation fortress world in close proximity to Coruscant. I would expect the capital to be protected by the best forces in the war if it can be attacked directly. Yet there are no Dreadnoughts. There are no Dreadnoughts used in any other battle we have seen depicted so far, either in comics nor in the novels nor in the TV series. This leads me to conclude that once more, they were under local control and not turned over to the Republic. This is different from the Battles regarding the EU after Yavin - there dreadnoughts are clearly mentioned in taking part in battles.

Why is there not a single dreadnought at the galactic capital? To my knowledge, the novelization does not mention even one dreadnought. Surely, if the Trade Federation fleet was so powerful, there needed to be at least one there instead of puny Venators? So either the Republic general staff is incompetent or there were too little dreadnoughts to go around. Or the Venators (and by extensions ISD) are enough to safeguard systems from potential attacks, in which case the additional expense of a Star Dreadnought is not necessary. In which case the same would apply to the Empire as it faces far lesser threats.

[fractalsponge1]

In my opinion ships should be classed as to their actual role. Thus, as the vast, overwhelming majority of ISDs we see serve as capital ships (aside from the small sample of commands that have dreadnoughts and even then there is a vast multitude of real screening vessels like Carracks or Strike class cruisers) I think it would be quite unfair to not give them that designation. Heck, they have served as flagships of the Empire both under Thrawn and under subsequent leaders. To argue that the Chimaera was not a capital ship is IMO arguing against the vast majority of evidence.

I would state again that I have no problem with the idea of an ISD being a capital ship in a Sector Group (or minimalist EU novel ). But it fits logically in a naming scheme for larger vessels in which an ISD is a screening ship and literal Destroyer. There are Arleigh Burkes hunting Somali fishing boats right now, that does not mean that it is correct to call them OPVs.

This might also offer an explanation on why there are so very few Dreadnoughts - of course Kuat would have no incentive to supply many of them to the Empire, instead focusing on turning out ISDs which are a far lesser threat to Kuati interests.

Please show me where I ever argued that Kuat does have a monopoly on use. The Empire controls Fondor, where it can built SSDs.
...
And where was I arguing that?

I am pointing out a potential implication of your statement; Kuat might have an incentive to supply any of their products - but can or would they refuse an procurement order from the Empire for large warships? I probably carried the tangent on too long there, apologies if I inadvertantly implied that that was in fact your argument.

How many Executor class ships were there in your opinion?

How many do you think there were? There is specific indication of only the named ships. If you will only accept that standard of evidence for the numbers of ships, then that's all I can add.

My interpretation is that the 58 capital ships of Azure Hammer are actual capital ships in the same size and power range as at least the star cruisers shown at Byss. To take a very rough approximation, if 1600 ships supported 24 ISDs in a Sector Group, then it would not surprise me if there were a similar ratio of ISDs to vessels larger than an ISD like an ISD is larger than, say, a Strike. I.e. over 300 ships of Giel's flagship's size and better. This would accord well with 58 ships of Azure Hammer constituting a third of the reserve held in the Core, which would then be around half of the total heavy firepower available to the Empire.

I do not believe that the relative under-representation in the extant, largely minimalist EU materials of Star Cruiser+ sized vessels constitutes bulletproof evidence that they are primarily one-offs. I will gladly accept that there is a large range of numbers possible for these ships, but the presence of Mandators, "large warships" for the defense of "industrialized sectors" (again ICS), or even Inexpugnables suggest that historically and in the time of the Clone and Civil Wars they are not extremely rare.

Those were VSDII and the shockwave itself was destroyed in a single salvo from the VSDs. And Darksaber itself just made no sense at all. I prefer we not use it as evidence for anything, because if then we also have to say that the Executor alone bankrupted the empire.

A lot of the EU is seriously minimalistic, or based on ideas that are demonstrably contradictory to other sources like the ICS. Thrawn's personal squadron in Zahn's books would not have matched even one of the Star Cruiser-sized ships in the visible part of the Byss cordon. I personally have no problem with throwing out a lot of it (Darksaber is truly awful), but where do you want to draw the line?

Re Darksaber specfically: Do you remember if Shockwave was destroyed by all 80 VSDIIs firing together; because if so, that's still took the equivalent of 20+ ISDs to bring down, which leaves a fairly large range for the potential size of the ship.

How are they comparable? They are much, much smaller.

Like how ISDs and larger are all grouped as capital ships? Because Victories are within an order of magnitude of power of an ISD (<3 VSDs = ISD, if they are comparable to Venators), quite a fair match if you compare an ISD to a Byss cruiser.[/quote]

[Simon_Jester]

When turbolasers are ranged in the light minute range (even if the effective range for a decent hit probability is lower), what's to stop you taking up station a few hundred kilometers from your neighbors and maneuvering in the space defined? I don't think Endor and Coruscant are valid counterexamples to this, given how narrow the conditions for those battles were.

Nothing, but remember that the greater the accelerations of the ships involved, the shorter the effective range becomes; effective range is defined by how far your projectile can travel in the time it takes for the target to travel a distance on the order of its own length away from where you expected it to be when your shot arrives. With accelerations in the thousands of gravities, that effective range is quite short, even for lightspeed weapons. At which point you start having to worry about collisions and friendly fire again if you're trying to pack multiple ships into effective range of a single opponent.

In the grand scheme of things thousands of Star Destroyers are hardly irrelevant. In that sense I absolutely agree. But it's very odd to lump Star Destroyers to Mandators in the same category "capital ship." And just as odd that in a galaxy where one sector can field Star Dreadnoughts and a 900km battlestation can be built in secret in the boondocks, that ships larger than ISDs are exceedingly rare.

Some possible explanations:

Star Destroyers are "light capital" class, big enough to be respectable units on the scale of most naval engagements, even if they're individually small potatoes in the large historic naval actions. The bigger stuff is "heavy capital," which is a whole different game. And yet both are "capital" because they're big enough to personally wreck your planet; on a galactic scale there's no reason why you can't have thousands of "capital" ships that are individually large and powerful.

ISDs might be common because ships much larger than an ISD have surface-to-volume problems. The bigger you make a ship, the more internal volume it has per unit surface area. For some purposes that's a good thing (you can bury stuff deep inside the hull where enemy fire can't reach it). But for others it's bad, because a warship needs "deck space" to physically mount turrets, sensors, and the like just as much as it needs internal volume for magazines, reactors, and things like that. At some point, you've got so much of your internal volume a kilometer or more 'below' the actual fighting surface of your hull that it starts to become a problem. You're wasting an increasing percentage of your hull on lift shafts, power cables, and other stuff designed to link the core of the ship to the distant fighting surface.

The only way to beat that is to use very large weapons a smaller ship couldn't possibly carry (the expensive superlasers, particularly), or to use exotic hull plans to get more surface area per unit volume... and anything much more exotic than the dagger-form hulls we already see will force you to sacrifice structural strength.

So at some point it just makes more sense to build a hundred million tons of ISD than a hundred million tons of superhyperdreadnought, even if the superhypercapital ship could beat the ISDs in a fight.

[Knife]

Which is why you would have a two tiered system in the first place. On a galactic scale, thousands and thousands of 'smaller' ships like the ISD to show the flag, be where they are needed, defend against credible forces (read local forces or pirates), and in the rare event of total Galactic War, screen the Battleships. However, on a local level; something the size of the Destroyer for the Galaxy is far heavier than what would be needed or possilble in a 'mainstream' sector or system. Sure, Kuat could make bigger and better ships to fuck up an Imperator, but Naboo can't. Hell, even the Trade Fed ships, converted freighters, could but even the Trade Fed couldn't field 25 thousand Hulks.

As for designation as a part of role, I think too many people get caught up in WWII naming schemes, instead of a power level format. A frigate, destroyer, cruiser format with say an order of magnitude of power levels between them, then on a galactic level with a local level cruiser being rougly the equal of a Star-frigate/destroyer in power then scale up from there to Starcruisers etc...

Solves the silly problem of Mon Cal cruisers as the dinky 1100 meters ships too. On a local level, they would be cruisers (read high end powerlevel ships) while on a galactic scale, mere frigates or destroyers to escort Home One style Cruisers.

[Thanas]

In my opinion ships should be classed as to their actual role. Thus, as the vast, overwhelming majority of ISDs we see serve as capital ships (aside from the small sample of commands that have dreadnoughts and even then there is a vast multitude of real screening vessels like Carracks or Strike class cruisers) I think it would be quite unfair to not give them that designation. Heck, they have served as flagships of the Empire both under Thrawn and under subsequent leaders. To argue that the Chimaera was not a capital ship is IMO arguing against the vast majority of evidence.

I would state again that I have no problem with the idea of an ISD being a capital ship in a Sector Group (or minimalist EU novel ). But it fits logically in a naming scheme for larger vessels in which an ISD is a screening ship and literal Destroyer. There are Arleigh Burkes hunting Somali fishing boats right now, that does not mean that it is correct to call them OPVs.

Arleigh Burkes do however not spend their entire service life doing so. ISDs almost all do. But I'll not argue this any further - at this point we are bound to repeat our arguments, as evidenced by the exchange above. Methinks that I don't think we are going to convince each other (and I think both our time can be spent more productive elsewhere. )

I am pointing out a potential implication of your statement; Kuat might have an incentive to supply any of their products - but can or would they refuse an procurement order from the Empire for large warships? I probably carried the tangent on too long there, apologies if I inadvertantly implied that that was in fact your argument.

Nah, no apologies necessary. As for how they would refuse a procurement order, I don't think this will be the case. At least they will not refuse outright. I do think however that they will drag their feet on it or simply just tell the emperor that they will gladly do his bidding but offer a much better deal on other equipment and if he "wouldn't rather take that one?" We all know how easy it would be for a yard to delay construction purposefully and make it all look like accidents.

How many Executor class ships were there in your opinion?

How many do you think there were? There is specific indication of only the named ships. If you will only accept that standard of evidence for the numbers of ships, then that's all I can add.

My interpretation is that the 58 capital ships of Azure Hammer are actual capital ships in the same size and power range as at least the star cruisers shown at Byss. To take a very rough approximation, if 1600 ships supported 24 ISDs in a Sector Group, then it would not surprise me if there were a similar ratio of ISDs to vessels larger than an ISD like an ISD is larger than, say, a Strike. I.e. over 300 ships of Giel's flagship's size and better. This would accord well with 58 ships of Azure Hammer constituting a third of the reserve held in the Core, which would then be around half of the total heavy firepower available to the Empire.

I do not believe that the relative under-representation in the extant, largely minimalist EU materials of Star Cruiser+ sized vessels constitutes bulletproof evidence that they are primarily one-offs.

See, here is what we differ. I think the impossibility of even Grand Admirals to secure even SSDs as their flagship does in fact allow us to make conclusions on the prevelance of SSDs. In total, my guess would be that there were probably no more than 24 Executor-sized SSDs, with about up to 72 ships on the size between an ISD and the Executor at the height of the empire.

I will gladly accept that there is a large range of numbers possible for these ships, but the presence of Mandators, "large warships" for the defense of "industrialized sectors" (again ICS), or even Inexpugnables suggest that historically and in the time of the Clone and Civil Wars they are not extremely rare.

No, and the Bulwark Battlecruisers MKII does exist as well. But I do not think there were many of them, certainly not up to several hundred.

Those were VSDII and the shockwave itself was destroyed in a single salvo from the VSDs. And Darksaber itself just made no sense at all. I prefer we not use it as evidence for anything, because if then we also have to say that the Executor alone bankrupted the empire.

A lot of the EU is seriously minimalistic, or based on ideas that are demonstrably contradictory to other sources like the ICS. Thrawn's personal squadron in Zahn's books would not have matched even one of the Star Cruiser-sized ships in the visible part of the Byss cordon. I personally have no problem with throwing out a lot of it (Darksaber is truly awful), but where do you want to draw the line?

I would allow Zahn's work, as at the time of Thrawn the empire had just fought a several-year long civil war. So the minimalism there does not bother me as much as Darksaber does which shows a MC-90 standing up to an Executor-class SD for several minutes. Which is just preposterous.

Re Darksaber specfically: Do you remember if Shockwave was destroyed by all 80 VSDIIs firing together; because if so, that's still took the equivalent of 20+ ISDs to bring down, which leaves a fairly large range for the potential size of the ship.

Yes, the book mentions them all concentrating on the Shockwave. But it is also described as an overgrown Star Destroyer, which IMO more suggest an Allegiance class or slightly larger.

How are they comparable? They are much, much smaller.

Like how ISDs and larger are all grouped as capital ships? Because Victories are within an order of magnitude of power of an ISD (<3 VSDs = ISD, if they are comparable to Venators), quite a fair match if you compare an ISD to a Byss cruiser.

[/quote]

I get your point. I disagree, but I don't think we'll come to an agreement here so I'll concede that.

[fractalsponge1]

(and I think both our time can be spent more productive elsewhere. )

Fair enough

But I do not think there were many of them, certainly not up to several hundred.

Shall we agree to disagree then? I don't think there will be a conclusive answer to this any time soon (though one can hope for the live-action series... )

[Thanas]

Yeah, I think that would be best. Not that I think the live-action series will have more than one or two dreadnoughts, if any at all, given the track record exhibited in the cartoon series.

[CaptHawkeye]

See, here is what we differ. I think the impossibility of even Grand Admirals to secure even SSDs as their flagship does in fact allow us to make conclusions on the prevelance of SSDs. In total, my guess would be that there were probably no more than 24 Executor-sized SSDs, with about up to 72 ships on the size between an ISD and the Executor at the height of the empire.

That's actually a pretty good ballpark figure given the Empire's "peacetime" operation against opponents such as the Rebellion. What would you guess the Empire could do if they faced an opponent on equal industrial footing as them however?

Personally i'd guess a minimum of at least a couple hundred SSDs with over a thousand in between size vessels. Not even taking into account a war economy.

The biggest thing to me has always been that the EU could make the preposterous claim that the Empire could only build a scant few SSDs. And that the construction of Executor "nearly bankrupted" the Empire. Um, Death Star anyone?

[Serafina]

There is a good reason why they can build a large number of ISDs, but only a small numbers of SSDs (and vessels of similar size):
They need speciaized shipyards to build SSDs.

There are propably hundres or thousands of shipyards that can build ISDs. It's a handy size for bulk freighters (if we look at MonCal ships), and a lot of other military vessels (operated by companies or local goverments) were of similar size.

But only a few powerfull nations actually built really huge shipyards. After all, they are a waste of money if you do NOT build giant vessels of war.
And the republic had a thousand years of peace - not much use for huge battlewagons.

[Thanas]

See, here is what we differ. I think the impossibility of even Grand Admirals to secure even SSDs as their flagship does in fact allow us to make conclusions on the prevelance of SSDs. In total, my guess would be that there were probably no more than 24 Executor-sized SSDs, with about up to 72 ships on the size between an ISD and the Executor at the height of the empire.

That's actually a pretty good ballpark figure given the Empire's "peacetime" operation against opponents such as the Rebellion. What would you guess the Empire could do if they faced an opponent on equal industrial footing as them however?

Personally i'd guess a minimum of at least a couple hundred SSDs with over a thousand in between size vessels. Not even taking into account a war economy.

If the empire would totally mobilize for war and had the political support of the populace, I would regard that as a minimum too, most likely we will see several DS constructed as well, assuming there is political willpower.

But the empire never got total unity as there was nobody that could really challenge it and when Palpatine the idiot lost his life at Endor and Isard the fool lost Coruscant, unity was gone and by that time the empire had gone through continous civil war, wrecking the infrastructure on many core worlds and disrupting vital supply lines.

The biggest thing to me has always been that the EU could make the preposterous claim that the Empire could only build a scant few SSDs. And that the construction of Executor "nearly bankrupted" the Empire. Um, Death Star anyone?

Yeah, this is why I have decided to toss out Darksaber. It just makes no sense, no matter how much I try to reconcile it.

[Agent Sorchus]

Where is it said that ISD's were fast in hyperspace? Everything I have ever read is that they are not really fast, and actually are slower than Victory Star destroyers. Victorys are noted as the slower than ISD in sublight acceleration but superior in FTL, source The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. I would love to hear your source for ISDs being fast in hyperspace.

Class two hyperdrive is not bad, and from Mark II they have Class I drives.

What again is your source for Mk 2s having class one hyperdrives? Wookiepedia sources point to MK 2's as having Class 2 just like the Mk 1's. The source is the most recent RPG Starships of the Galaxy book and its stats are valid unless you have a source for the mk 2 having a better hyperdrive.

[Agent Sorchus]

One the whole debate of how many Super star Destroyers there are, one should note how many equivelents to the Alliegence there were in Dark Empire. If Azure Hammer had a similar formation to the Eclipse battlegroup than it would have at least a couple ships greater than ISDs. And yet Byss security Cordon would be a credible threat to it. Here is the kicker of the arguement IF Byss actually had more an unusually high force concentration for a core world than the Republic forces would have had a better chance of figuring out that it was exceptional. And the fleet that is seen in one panel is not even orbiting byss itself, for all we can tell this is only one part of the full defense fleet that byss was endowed with. The other thing to note is that all these shots of byss are after the battle over Coruscant that left a major debris field around it.

If we had an estimation of the volume of the debris field than we could have a lower limit for the volume of combatants. We see the debris field a couple of times in Dark Empire and it is quite dense. Also we know that the cleanup of the field takes several years to clean up despite the massive ability to move bulk materials that SW has. From the main site:

More evidence of the massive scale of Imperial transport fleets can be seen in the fate of Gholondreine-b. On pg. 167, it states:

"The oceans of Gholondreine-b had been sucked down to the last molecule of saline liquid, then transported by a fleet of massive Imperial freighters to an orbital catalysis plant near Coruscant. Economy hadn't been the motivating factor- it was more expensive to ship that amount of water than to synthesize it- but punishment had been."

Note the ramifications: a single transport fleet carried the entire planetary oceans of Gholondreine-b away. If Gholondreine-b was similar to Earth, then the mass of its oceans would have been roughly 1.4E21 kilograms. Even if the transport fleet was composed of a million ships, each vessel would have had to carry 1.4 trillion tons of water! The density of water is roughly 1 metric ton/m³, so each ship would have needed at least 1.4 trillion cubic metres of cargo space.

It is possible that the debris field was less than all of the water, but I think it is a good aproximation because of the difficulties the Republic had in clearing it rapidly; unless someone else has a way to figure the actual density. Volume of Saturn's Rings ~3 x 1018m3 of Ice and the Volume of the ocean moved 1.4 x 1015 m3. I find it likely that the debris field falls in between these figures for Volume, due to the fact that moving that volume would put a legitimate strain on a the Republic.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=117422
According to this thread the volume of a Imperator is aprox. 9 x107 m3. The lower volume I suppose of the debris field is the equivalent of over fifteen million Imperator Star Destroyers. This is most likely a high end estimate, but it satisfies the long lasting nature and high density of the debris after the battle. However it also justifies the existence of numerous ships larger than a ISD exist in the Galaxy.

[Thanas]

One the whole debate of how many Super star Destroyers there are, one should note how many equivelents to the Alliegence there were in Dark Empire. If Azure Hammer had a similar formation to the Eclipse battlegroup than it would have at least a couple ships greater than ISDs.

The Eclipse battlegroup? You mean the three ships + the eclipse?

And yet Byss security Cordon would be a credible threat to it. Here is the kicker of the arguement IF Byss actually had more an unusually high force concentration for a core world than the Republic forces would have had a better chance of figuring out that it was exceptional.

That is not a good argument, for the Republic forces never had an access to a full imperial OOB and did not know at all how many Imperial forces there were. Heck, they did not even really know about any of the fortress worlds in the core. I can also twist that argument around - precisely because there were so little ships in the Byss battlegroup did they not get noticed.

And the fleet that is seen in one panel is not even orbiting byss itself, for all we can tell this is only one part of the full defense fleet that byss was endowed with. The other thing to note is that all these shots of byss are after the battle over Coruscant that left a major debris field around it.

Actually, we get a full shot of Byss in the Dark Empire comics afaik.

If we had an estimation of the volume of the debris field than we could have a lower limit for the volume of combatants.

Or about the number of ships. The largest piece in the debris field we see is a destroyed ISD.

We see the debris field a couple of times in Dark Empire and it is quite dense. Also we know that the cleanup of the field takes several years to clean up despite the massive ability to move bulk materials that SW has. From the main site:

Which might not have anything to do with volume and more to do with unsecure munitions, death traps, raiders etc. and the fact that the NR had a lot of planets to clean up.

More evidence of the massive scale of Imperial transport fleets can be seen in the fate of Gholondreine-b. On pg. 167, it states:

"The oceans of Gholondreine-b had been sucked down to the last molecule of saline liquid, then transported by a fleet of massive Imperial freighters to an orbital catalysis plant near Coruscant. Economy hadn't been the motivating factor- it was more expensive to ship that amount of water than to synthesize it- but punishment had been."

Note the ramifications: a single transport fleet carried the entire planetary oceans of Gholondreine-b away. If Gholondreine-b was similar to Earth, then the mass of its oceans would have been roughly 1.4E21 kilograms. Even if the transport fleet was composed of a million ships, each vessel would have had to carry 1.4 trillion tons of water! The density of water is roughly 1 metric ton/m³, so each ship would have needed at least 1.4 trillion cubic metres of cargo space.

It is possible that the debris field was less than all of the water, but I think it is a good aproximation because of the difficulties the Republic had in clearing it rapidly; unless someone else has a way to figure the actual density. Volume of Saturn's Rings ~3 x 1018m3 of Ice and the Volume of the ocean moved 1.4 x 1015 m3. I find it likely that the debris field falls in between these figures for Volume, due to the fact that moving that volume would put a legitimate strain on a the Republic.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=117422
According to this thread the volume of a Imperator is aprox. 9 x107 m3. The lower volume I suppose of the debris field is the equivalent of over fifteen million Imperator Star Destroyers. This is most likely a high end estimate, but it satisfies the long lasting nature and high density of the debris after the battle. However it also justifies the existence of numerous ships larger than a ISD exist in the Galaxy.

That is no argment at all when talking about warships - transport ships are known to be massive in size, far more massive than warships.

Matter of fact - we do not know how large the debris field actually was. All you are doing here is pulling numbers out of your behind. Hey, it took the russians a long time to clean up the Kursk mess. Surely this must mean their yards can only do so much, right?

[Agent Sorchus]

Thanas: I think what I was trying to get at is that at the height of war time the high end figures for construction based on the Death Star could reasonably match what was potentially seen. 15million Star Destroyers is indeed an almost absurd force, but it only nearly matches the first Death Star's volume and as such is within the Empires range. My estimation is very much so high and I place no bets on its accuracy, but if there had ever been the necessity to field that number of star destroyers than that would have been that battle.

I don't really have time to continue now but I'll be back Friday.

[bz249]

Thanas: I think what I was trying to get at is that at the height of war time the high end figures for construction based on the Death Star could reasonably match what was potentially seen. 15million Star Destroyers is indeed an almost absurd force, but it only nearly matches the first Death Star's volume and as such is within the Empires range. My estimation is very much so high and I place no bets on its accuracy, but if there had ever been the necessity to field that number of star destroyers than that would have been that battle.

I don't really have time to continue now but I'll be back Friday.

Yes, but imagine the C3I and logistical load of 15 million Star Destroyers. One Death Star is just one object while 15 million Star Destroyers are 15 million, not the same job, and the Humans of the Empire are not that much different from us, so managing such a fleet could be well over their capabilities.

[Simon_Jester]

With the right computer support (and an AWACS the size of a fairly respectable asteroid), I think it could be done, but it would indeed be immensely difficult. Remember that Sorchus is characterizing the ten-million-SD fleet as "almost absurd;" I think he's aware of the scope of the problem.