Military Doctrines of the Clone Wars

[Srelex]

If we are talking about larger strategies here, the new essential atlas had a nice section on that.

Really? What was the gist?

[Thanas]

Basically, it used the old stateless strategy vs. fortification world and went from there. I'd say more, but I am too lazy to summarize five pages right now.

[Metahive]

Meta, you seem to be confusing their doctrine with equipment. Imperial doctrine is that snubfighters are a threat only to other snubfighters, hence, the "comparatively" loose defence screen of the Death Star.

Wasn't that because Tarkin refused to launch fighters, hence Vader only getting his own squadron off the hangar? Also, I already conceded that this isn't actually so much about doctrines but more general observations made of the series.

The ISDs loadout of starfighters and the like are used as a screen against other starfighters and light spacecraft, with TIE bombers being used to provide ordinance in TESB. The problem is the TIE and X-wing games, which placed other more significant roles/tactics on Imperial TIE bombers and assault gunboats.

Can't say anything there. While the games are lowest canon, is there anything higher on the ladder directly stating a capship heavy doctrine for the Empire?

The question is, why the shift towards this doctrine as opposed to the starfighter heavy doctrine of the Clone Wars?

It could be just that capships are a more impressive sight than a fighter squadron. Intimidation was one of the main legs upon which the Empire's authority rested after all and the enemy they were fighting was lacking in bigships anyway.

[PainRack]

Wasn't that because Tarkin refused to launch fighters, hence Vader only getting his own squadron off the hangar? Also, I already conceded that this isn't actually so much about doctrines but more general observations made of the series.

I'm referring to Dodonna comments about their defence screens, presumably, the turbolasers and missile fixed defences.

Can't say anything there. While the games are lowest canon, is there anything higher on the ladder directly stating a capship heavy doctrine for the Empire?

Guide to Starship and etc, particularly the Lancer frigate. I don't think we are told what the capship heavy doctrine actually means though, other than it being protrayed as an Imperial weakness.

Could it have something to do with attrition rates inherent with strike craft heavy doctrines and a shift away from using clones for everything? It would certainly make sense to switch over to a largly volunteer military after the Empire is established for purposes of building up loyalty to the state, and heavy casualties amoung the sons and daughters of the populace tend to have negative influences on thier opinion of the government (especially I'd imagine following the devastation of the Clone Wars). IIRC only the Stormtrooper Corps. seems to contain clones in significant numbers by the time of the OT and we don't hear much if anything about conscription until Zahn's writing.

The Imperial navy was supposed to be mostly volunteer according to Zahn before the Empire reversals. The problem is, such a notion doesn't jive with the TIEs are expendable propaganda epsoused by the guides...... something which can be dismissed if it wasn't for the fact that former TIE pilots from Han to Fel also believe in this.

[Thanas]

Can't say anything there. While the games are lowest canon, is there anything higher on the ladder directly stating a capship heavy doctrine for the Empire

How about any of the Zahn Novels? Or any of the novels in which we do see fleet battles? Starfighters alone and unsupported are not really a threat to capships.

The question is, why the shift towards this doctrine as opposed to the starfighter heavy doctrine of the Clone Wars?

How is the clone wars starfighter heavy?

[PainRack]

How is the clone wars starfighter heavy?

The phrase starfighter heavy is probably... misleading on my part. A more accurate term is a shift in prestige/importance of the starfighter corps.

General Dodonna statement that the Empire believes a snubfighter is a threat only to other snubfighters and other EU establishes that the Empire uses starfighters as screening forces only. Yet, Heir to the Empire and the Clone Wars season establish that the Galactic Republic places more importance on the use of starfighters to secure space supremacy, from the hunt for Malvolence to Afyon statement that the Clone War propaganda showed it to be won by Jedi and fighter jockies.

So, was this shift due to the assessment of tactics and starfighter effectiveness in the Clone Wars and later era or motivated by special interests against the Jedi/Old Republic?

Perhaps the fact that the size of engagements between Rebel and Imperial pilots decreased on average away from the big battles between clone pilots and their droid counterparts? Granted the Rebellion did have access to an unknown number of ships like the Lucrehulk that could carry a large number of fighters, but the large scale battles of the Clone Wars were not quite as commonplace between the Rebels and the Empire.

The shift away from starfighters appears to have happened before the Rebel Alliance, although I understand Force Unleashed changed the timeline significantly.

[Darth Fanboy]

I just look at the number of fighters carried aboard Venators compared to their later Star Destroyer counterparts. The Rebels didn't carry nearly as many fighters as CIS ships did except for when they used former CIS ships. (Compare the Rebel Capships to Providence Destroyers and/or Lucrehulks).

[recon20011]

Then what was that about Anakin's plan to specifically target the bridge of the Malevolence just to get Grievous? None other Jedi objected to that. Obi Wan later gave orders to target the bridge too. That sounds suspiciously close to a shoot on sight order since SW capships don't go immediately down when the bridge is hit (with one exception).

Specifically targeting the bridge of a warship does not constitute a "shoot on site" policy. Neither does specifically targeting enemy officers. "Shoot on site" would be refusing to accept the surrender of enemy officers, or accepting their surrender and then executing them. That is something the Jedi would not allow. But attacking a legitimate military target, i.e. the "head" of the enemy, would be fully acceptable to them.

[Thanas]

How is the clone wars starfighter heavy?

The phrase starfighter heavy is probably... misleading on my part. A more accurate term is a shift in prestige/importance of the starfighter corps.

General Dodonna statement that the Empire believes a snubfighter is a threat only to other snubfighters and other EU establishes that the Empire uses starfighters as screening forces only. Yet, Heir to the Empire and the Clone Wars season establish that the Galactic Republic places more importance on the use of starfighters to secure space supremacy, from the hunt for Malvolence to Afyon statement that the Clone War propaganda showed it to be won by Jedi and fighter jockies.

The easiest answer is that Dodonna is wrong, as evidenced in TIE Fighter and the very existence of the TIE Bomber itself.

[Jaevric]

This is purely speculative, but alternately, General Dodonna could have been absolutely right. Perhaps the Empire primarily looked at the TIE bomber as being a means to engage lighter starships like Corellian Corvettes or heavily-shielded, armed freighters that would be fast enough to avoid engagement by capital ships and tough enough to escape short-ranged TIE fighters that lacked missile armaments. Or perhaps TIE bombers were usually assigned to space stations or planetary bases that needed a way to project force throughout a system but weren't expected to engage Star Destroyer analogues. A smuggler freighter heavily shielded enough to run away from a TIE fighter long enough to get into hyperspace might promptly surrender when faced with the very real possibility of a volley of proton torpedos blowing it out of space.

That analysis could have easily changed after the destruction of the Death Star, hence the events of the TIE Fighter game putting more emphasis on the use of TIE bombers against heavier vessels and the introduction of the Missile Boat.

Something like the TIE bomber can play a useful, if situational, role without being able to go "Rogue Squadron" on a Mon Calamari Cruiser.

*EDIT*
Basically, what PainRack said earlier. The TIE bomber has a role, it's just not expected to be a capship killer.

[Adam Reynolds]

Then what was that about Anakin's plan to specifically target the bridge of the Malevolence just to get Grievous? None other Jedi objected to that. Obi Wan later gave orders to target the bridge too. That sounds suspiciously close to a shoot on sight order since SW capships don't go immediately down when the bridge is hit (with one exception).

Specifically targeting the bridge of a warship does not constitute a "shoot on site" policy. Neither does specifically targeting enemy officers. "Shoot on site" would be refusing to accept the surrender of enemy officers, or accepting their surrender and then executing them. That is something the Jedi would not allow. But attacking a legitimate military target, i.e. the "head" of the enemy, would be fully acceptable to them.

There is also the fact that we see several instances of Republic troops capturing CIS leaders: Liberty of Ryloth, Bombad Jedi, ect.

[Thanas]

This is purely speculative, but alternately, General Dodonna could have been absolutely right. Perhaps the Empire primarily looked at the TIE bomber as being a means to engage lighter starships like Corellian Corvettes or heavily-shielded, armed freighters that would be fast enough to avoid engagement by capital ships and tough enough to escape short-ranged TIE fighters that lacked missile armaments. Or perhaps TIE bombers were usually assigned to space stations or planetary bases that needed a way to project force throughout a system but weren't expected to engage Star Destroyer analogues. A smuggler freighter heavily shielded enough to run away from a TIE fighter long enough to get into hyperspace might promptly surrender when faced with the very real possibility of a volley of proton torpedos blowing it out of space.

That analysis could have easily changed after the destruction of the Death Star, hence the events of the TIE Fighter game putting more emphasis on the use of TIE bombers against heavier vessels and the introduction of the Missile Boat.

Something like the TIE bomber can play a useful, if situational, role without being able to go "Rogue Squadron" on a Mon Calamari Cruiser.

*EDIT*
Basically, what PainRack said earlier. The TIE bomber has a role, it's just not expected to be a capship killer.

Again, contradicted by other sources, especially TIE Fighter, where Bombers are actually used as primary attack forces against MonCal cruisers.

[Metahive]

Specifically targeting the bridge of a warship does not constitute a "shoot on site" policy. Neither does specifically targeting enemy officers. "Shoot on site" would be refusing to accept the surrender of enemy officers, or accepting their surrender and then executing them. That is something the Jedi would not allow. But attacking a legitimate military target, i.e. the "head" of the enemy, would be fully acceptable to them.

We are entering "From a certain point of view" territory here. Fact is, both Anakin and Obi Wan priorized the killing of Grievous over the destruction of the Malevolence.

There is also the fact that we see several instances of Republic troops capturing CIS leaders: Liberty of Ryloth, Bombad Jedi, ect.

Because they aren't robots or cyborgs. Meatbags always get special respect over machines or near-machines. It's a running theme in Star Wars.

[Thanas]

Uh - Metahive, the deliberate killing of enemy military officers is a timed-honed tactic that is legal in any set of our earth codes. WTH are you arguing about here? Are you saying that in war, we should not target the enemy command structure?

[Metahive]

Uh - Metahive, the deliberate killing of enemy military officers is a timed-honed tactic that is legal in any set of our earth codes. WTH are you arguing about here? Are you saying that in war, we should not target the enemy command structure?

I don't remember having anywhere said that they shouldn't do that, the opposite actually, that specifically targeting the CIS leadership is the best strategy for them to win the war due to the enormous superiority the CIS has in producing and fielding troops. I only noticed that taking Grievous alive is never a priority for the Republicans, unlike with most of the other CIS leaders.

[Thanas]

That is because the other CIS leaders are not as dangerous as he is (except for Ventress). However, Kit Fisto did try to take Grievous alive, only to be killed nearly for his trouble.

Quite simply, taking Grievous alive is an option, however the circumstances never are the ones that will allow them to take him alive.

[PainRack]

The easiest answer is that Dodonna is wrong, as evidenced in TIE Fighter and the very existence of the TIE Bomber itself.

The Essential Guide to Starship and vehicles and the entry on Lancer Frigates, Escort carriers support Dodonna statement. The game is of much lower canon value than these ohter sources.

The TIE bomber in TESB was used to flush out the Millenium Falcon and not any other anti-capital ship role. Similarly, outside of the X-wing linked series, TIE bombers were never used in anti capital ship roles.

[Thanas]

The easiest answer is that Dodonna is wrong, as evidenced in TIE Fighter and the very existence of the TIE Bomber itself.

The Essential Guide to Starship and vehicles and the entry on Lancer Frigates, Escort carriers support Dodonna statement. The game is of much lower canon value than these ohter sources.

How so?

The TIE bomber in TESB was used to flush out the Millenium Falcon and not any other anti-capital ship role. Similarly, outside of the X-wing linked series, TIE bombers were never used in anti capital ship roles.

Because we never see any capship battle during Hoth or TESB. How could they have been used against capships there, pray tell?

And I love how you just ignore the other stuff. So, according to you, Thrawn never used TIE Bombers against capital ships, neither did Vader, neither did Zaarin. What, did they all experience mass hallucination?

Is this going to be another "this can't be because it must not be?"

[PainRack]

How so?

What's the question? How does the entry support Dodonna statement or the canon status of the TIE games?

And I love how you just ignore the other stuff. So, according to you, Thrawn never used TIE Bombers against capital ships, neither did Vader, neither did Zaarin. What, did they all experience mass hallucination?

Actually, the answer is they didn't. The Thrawn trilogy featured no use of TIE bombers against capital ships, TIE fighters were used but with conjunction with ISD and Dreadnought support and against very light elements.
Vader didn't use TIE bombers in the classic literature either.
They only did so...... in the TIE fighter game where 600 laser blasts is enough to take down a star destroyer shields.

Is this going to be another "this can't be because it must not be?"

Or...... its another fuck you to you Thanas.

1. Dodonna statement applies to pre Yavin scenarios. Guess where TIE fighter occured? 3 years ABY, which occurred AFTER the Empire began a drastic re-orientation of their doctrine as seen in the Lancer Frigate and Imperial Escort carriers.

2. Its explictly fucking stated in multiple EU sources, supporting General Dodonna G canon statement that the Empire pre Yavin did not consider snubfighters to be a threat to capital ships. It was the Y-wings successful raids on Imperial convoys and the disaster of Yavin which reorientated Imperial doctrine.

And just to rub the salt in, the Empire was enforcing a blockade against the Rebels, which broke through with Rebel transports. Starships. Yet, no TIE bombers were used against them THERE.

So pray tell, how on earth are you going to rebut multiple EU sources because you claim so?

[Thanas]

How so?

What's the question? How does the entry support Dodonna statement or the canon status of the TIE games?

The first one.

They only did so...... in the TIE fighter game where 600 laser blasts is enough to take down a star destroyer shields.

And I repeat...did the incident of TIE Bombers being used in that role not occur? In case you do not know it, one can reconcile the sources.

Or...... its another fuck you to you Thanas.

Says the guy who lost the last arguments.

1. Dodonna statement applies to pre Yavin scenarios. Guess where TIE fighter occured? 3 years ABY, which occurred AFTER the Empire began a drastic re-orientation of their doctrine as seen in the Lancer Frigate and Imperial Escort carriers.

So what? The TIE Fighter was in existence long before that.

2. Its explictly fucking stated in multiple EU sources, supporting General Dodonna G canon statement that the Empire pre Yavin did not consider snubfighters to be a threat to capital ships. It was the Y-wings successful raids on Imperial convoys and the disaster of Yavin which reorientated Imperial doctrine.

Wrong. The Empire clearly considered snubfighters a threat, otherwise they would have simply scrapped the fighters on the ISDs for scout fighters only. Did it ever occur to you that Dodonna's statement pertains only to the specific situation of Yavin?

And just to rub the salt in, the Empire was enforcing a blockade against the Rebels, which broke through with Rebel transports. Starships. Yet, no TIE bombers were used against them THERE.

Wrong.

During the Battle of Hoth, several TIE bomber squadrons attacked escaping Rebel transports trying to run the blockade, causing significant losses among them. Only the intervention of Rogue Squadron in holding off enough of the bombers allowed the greater part of the Rebels to escape.

You can see those events in Rogue Squadron.



But hey, let us revisit that quote from Dodonna again.

General Dodonna: The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct, large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense.
Gold Leader: Pardon me for asking, sir, but what good are snub fighters going to be against that?
General Dodonna: Well, the Empire doesn't consider a small one-man fighter to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense. An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has demonstrated a weakness in the battle station. But the approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point...

It is quite clear that he was only talking about the Death Star here.

Nowhere does he claim the Empire does not consider snubfighters in general to be no threats to capital ships. Looks like the quote does not say what you claim it does.

[Metahive]

1. Dodonna statement applies to pre Yavin scenarios. Guess where TIE fighter occured? 3 years ABY, which occurred AFTER the Empire began a drastic re-orientation of their doctrine as seen in the Lancer Frigate and Imperial Escort carriers.

During the Battle of Turkana and Operation Strike Fear they were deploying bombers against Rebel capships too, and that was before the Battle of Yavin.

[FTeik]

Since I've been away for a while, this is as much a test-post as it is a reply.


Isn't the official name of the TIE-Bomber TIE/sa? An in TIE/surface assault? That doesn't sound like its primary purpose is the battle against (capital) ships. And since Stackpole based the fighter-combat within his novels on the games, ... well, we don't have to guess much, what is chicken and what is egg in that particular case.

The GalacticRepublic of the clone-wars certainly employed dedicated naval and planetary bombers according to the ROTS:ICS, namely the NTB-630 and PTB-625. In the case of the empire I would expect the TIE-Bomber to be used for planetary bombardment and the Assault Gunboats (when did those actually become a part of the Imperial Forces?) for battle against ships.

[Thanas]

Since I've been away for a while, this is as much a test-post as it is a reply.


Isn't the official name of the TIE-Bomber TIE/sa? An in TIE/surface assault?

Where do you get surface assault from that?

In the case of the empire I would expect the TIE-Bomber to be used for planetary bombardment and the Assault Gunboats (when did those actually become a part of the Imperial Forces?) for battle against ships.

I don't think this proves anything with regards to the stuff I meantion, because the Assault Gunboat is more of a scout than a real capship killer.

[FTeik]

Since I've been away for a while, this is as much a test-post as it is a reply.

Isn't the official name of the TIE-Bomber TIE/sa? An in TIE/surface assault?

Where do you get surface assault from that?

At the moment only from Wookiepedia:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/sa

I know, I know, its no official side and not always reliable, but considering how anal some of the contributors are about sources ... .

In the case of the empire I would expect the TIE-Bomber to be used for planetary bombardment and the Assault Gunboats (when did those actually become a part of the Imperial Forces?) for battle against ships.

I don't think this proves anything with regards to the stuff I meantion, because the Assault Gunboat is more of a scout than a real capship killer.

Assuming, that fighter- or shuttle-sized craft have any use against capships (anything bigger than a Lancer-or Nebulon-B-class frigate?) outside of games and novels by M.Stackpole. Where do you get the idea, that the Assault Gunboat is a scout most of the time? I understand how it can be a possibility, but the empire already has several TIE-variants, that serve as scouts and then there are also the Skipray-blastboats.

I think TIE-bombers originally started as planetary bombers, with some use as naval bombers. And while they are very good at the first job, they are less so at the second. For the few cases before the rebellion got better organized, where a better naval bomber was needed, the empire used gunboats and Skipray-blastboats. Once the war intensified they were stuck with the TIE-bomber and probably intended to increase the number of gunboats, if they weren't actually intending to replace those with something like the missile-boat. If the Imperial Admirality actually realized/cared at all, that they should get a better naval bomber.

[Thanas]

Since I've been away for a while, this is as much a test-post as it is a reply.

Isn't the official name of the TIE-Bomber TIE/sa? An in TIE/surface assault?

Where do you get surface assault from that?

At the moment only from Wookiepedia:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/sa

I know, I know, its no official side and not always reliable, but considering how anal some of the contributors are about sources ... .

Meh, good enough. Still, that is no proof it was used exclusively in that role.

Assuming, that fighter- or shuttle-sized craft have any use against capships (anything bigger than a Lancer-or Nebulon-B-class frigate?) outside of games and novels by M.Stackpole.

They do, because otherwise the Imperials were even more stupid when they ordered fighter attacks against the rebel ships at endor.

Where do you get the idea, that the Assault Gunboat is a scout most of the time? I understand how it can be a possibility, but the empire already has several TIE-variants, that serve as scouts and then there are also the Skipray-blastboats.

Well, because these are the missions we see it on in TIE Fighter. Also, wookiepedia:

It proved very useful in conducting hyperspace raids against convoys and space stations, and also served in a reconnaissance capacity.

I think TIE-bombers originally started as planetary bombers, with some use as naval bombers. And while they are very good at the first job, they are less so at the second. For the few cases before the rebellion got better organized, where a better naval bomber was needed, the empire used gunboats and Skipray-blastboats.

The gunboats were introduced in 0 ABY, and the Empire actually did not like the Skipray that much.

If the Imperial Admirality actually realized/cared at all, that they should get a better naval bomber.

They did, see the scimitar assault bomber.