Capital ship warfare

[Connor MacLeod]

People forget, WEG=Bottom of the Barrel
We see 10K+KM fights in EU constantly and they where at least 2000KMs away from the DS before the SD showed up

Also suppsodly the Deleted Space battle in AOTC was 10K+Km ranges

What "Deleted space battle?"

And its not neccesary to pull the "WEG low end canon." Its official, and that only means it superseded by top canon (movies) and second canon (movie novels, radio dramas, and scripts.). Unless you can provide proof that other official sources HAVE been given higher status over WEG materials. To my knowledge they haven't, and this is only a "generally accepted" principle. It is not LFL policy.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think we have a contadiction here within the EU. WEG Rebel Alliance source book Page 54. Battle Zones. The Long Engagement Zone: The long engagement zone has a radious of approximatley 120,000 Meters. This is long range for the cruisers' weapons. As lasers lose Coherency and thus power over distance, cruisers are are pretty much unable to harm enemy cruisers in the long engagement zone. THerfore, at this range, they consentrate their fire against the more fragile escort vessels.
pg.54

the kill zone being 60,000 meters
Secondary zone being 40,000 meters
Primary Zone being 20,000 meters

I must disagree with the 500,000km+ theory. Close range may be anything under 20000meters.

You mean this?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/rcrierie/ ... lezone.gif

Basically if you did what I think you did, you tried scaling the engagement zones against the capital ships, and that CLEARLY does not work, since it says teh ship sizes are not to scale with distance.

anyhow, atmospheric ranges for the TLs are 150 kms by that source, and most other EU sources put them in the thousands to tens of thousands of km range (at least bombarding.)

I'm really puzzled why you seem obsessed at limiting ranges so.

I'm not my other post makes it clear. The source says and I am pointing out a contradiction in the EU books and data and you just helped me with that thank you.

There is no contradiction. It can be rationalized and has, and the supposed "method" you used to derive this inconsistency is invalid. I already stated this, unless you pulled that 120 km range from someplace else.

[Mr Bean]

What "Deleted space battle?"

Ahh you don't know? There is a roughly ten to twenty minute long Space battle in between when the Jedi's show up till the Clone Troopers appear that was cut for sake of brevity

[AL]

WEG and the EGVV also state that an imperial command ship is only 5km long. Both sources are very inaccurate

Cannon unless contradicted Al, thems the rules and why WEG is at the very bottom of the list

Back to the beginning I think we are getting off our original disagreement. This quote was disputed and the Command ships are larger than the 5KM states in WEG and the on Screen comparisons. SW offical sight has even raised their size of the ssd to 12.8km. So in this aspect WEG and the EGVV are over ruled............yes?

[Connor MacLeod]

People forget, WEG=Bottom of the Barrel
We see 10K+KM fights in EU constantly and they where at least 2000KMs away from the DS before the SD showed up

Also suppsodly the Deleted Space battle in AOTC was 10K+Km ranges

I agree with you, but does the EU get its sources from WEG and the EGVV? If they do the data is inconsistent with its own data from both sources and then I wonder do some of the authors just make it up as they go along?

Please show where this contradiction exists. You keep harping on the inaccuracies of WEG and the EGV&V as if you somehow expect it to be inconsistent. This "generally assumed" fallibility when it neccesarily has not been proven (like with the Executor scaling, which there IS proof as being inconsistent, even if its still rationalizable) is growing immensely tiring. You really DO seem to be going to extreme lengths to create implied contradictions and to convince everyone that those particular sources (if not the EU as a whole) are flawed.

[Mr Bean]

This quote was disputed and the Command ships are larger than the 5KM states in WEG and the on Screen comparisons. SW offical sight has even raised their size of the ssd to 12.8km. So in this aspect WEG and the EGVV are over ruled............yes?

Yes, also your forgetting the policy of time of publication

IE a Later publication overrides an eariler one of both have the same level of cannonsity

[Connor MacLeod]

What "Deleted space battle?"

Ahh you don't know? There is a roughly ten to twenty minute long Space battle in between when the Jedi's show up till the Clone Troopers appear that was cut for sake of brevity

No, I haven't heard of them existing besides in the script. I wasnt aware it was even filmed.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yes, also your forgetting the policy of time of publication

IE a Later publication overrides an eariler one of both have the same level of cannonsity

Is this apart of LFL's official policy? IF so, provide proof please, because I've never heard of this before.

[Mr Bean]

No, I haven't heard of them existing besides in the script. I wasnt aware it was even filmed.

Reference the thread about what the AOTC DVD will incuded, it was filmed as far as I know and was orgionaly slated to be on the DVD but was yanked for some reason(The obvious reason, because its going to be on the Super Special AOTC DVD in a few years, come on Lucus! Apply the suction to my wallet!)

[Connor MacLeod]

WEG and the EGVV also state that an imperial command ship is only 5km long. Both sources are very inaccurate

Cannon unless contradicted Al, thems the rules and why WEG is at the very bottom of the list

Back to the beginning I think we are getting off our original disagreement. This quote was disputed and the Command ships are larger than the 5KM states in WEG and the on Screen comparisons. SW offical sight has even raised their size of the ssd to 12.8km. So in this aspect WEG and the EGVV are over ruled............yes?

We ARE on topic. Nice change of subject however.

You brought this up when Doomriser referenced teh Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. The Implied statement was that because it was tied to WEG, it should be ignored as flawed in favor of something else that was never specified. Hence the current argument. I fail to see what the size of the Executor has to do with Doomriser's mention of the RASB.

As for the scaling itself, to my knowledge noone has said it ISN'T a contradiction, but simply because that contradiction exists is no reason to assume every OTHER bit of WEG data is going to be likewise flawed, unless we have sufficient proof otherwise (and implied contradictions one place are NOT evidence.)

[phongn]

Conventional triangulation is used with (apparently) EO sensors - the ISD Chimaera had a room dedicated to that at the time of the Hand of Thrawn series. Apparently there's problems with it - perhaps the EO sensors are blinded by lasers?

BTW, EO sensors? And which part was this (which book, page number if possible, etc.) I'd like to check it out

I assumed they had electro-optical sensors, because the thought of people triangulating with the Mark I Eyeball was a bit too much. It's around the end of Vision of the Future

[AL]

Cannon unless contradicted Al, thems the rules and why WEG is at the very bottom of the list

Back to the beginning I think we are getting off our original disagreement. This quote was disputed and the Command ships are larger than the 5KM states in WEG and the on Screen comparisons. SW offical sight has even raised their size of the ssd to 12.8km. So in this aspect WEG and the EGVV are over ruled............yes?

We ARE on topic. Nice change of subject however.

You brought this up when Doomriser referenced teh Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. The Implied statement was that because it was tied to WEG, it should be ignored as flawed in favor of something else that was never specified. Hence the current argument. I fail to see what the size of the Executor has to do with Doomriser's mention of the RASB.

As for the scaling itself, to my knowledge noone has said it ISN'T a contradiction, but simply because that contradiction exists is no reason to assume every OTHER bit of WEG data is going to be likewise flawed, unless we have sufficient proof otherwise (and implied contradictions one place are NOT evidence.)

Regardless, this data is not correct and the new publications use large distances for space combat. I still believe it is flawed it states that the max range is 120,000m out, any farther and the laser loses coherency. Thats roughly 75 miles, i would think these weapons have a creater range than 75 miles regardless if the ship size is not to scale with the distance on pg 54 of the WEG Rebel Alliance source book. This is flawed later publications and book in the EU time frame give weapons of this nature a greater range. Note its 120,000 meters stated in the book and not km. Like I said it says after this range the blast will losse its coherency and thus power over distance.

[omegaLancer]

AL it is, amazing that you are using WEG for support.. First WEG put the max range of a HTL at 75 space units... With a space unit = to 470,600km

We get this value from behind the Magic Cd which also list both the 75 space unit figure for TL and 100 space unit for the DS super laser..

The SWTJ gives the max DS range as 47,060,000km so a space unit is 470,600KM.

Long range according to WEG start at 30 SU.. Med 15 SU amd Short 3 SU..

The fact is that A Turbo Laser is not a laser.. My own pet theory is that bolt is a type of soliton ( a type of standing wave that is highily stable), which explains the long range...

[AL]

AL it is, amazing that you are using WEG for support.. First WEG put the max range of a HTL at 75 space units... With a space unit = to 470,600km

We get this value from behind the Magic Cd which also list both the 75 space unit figure for TL and 100 space unit for the DS super laser..

The SWTJ gives the max DS range as 47,060,000km so a space unit is 470,600KM.

Long range according to WEG start at 30 SU.. Med 15 SU amd Short 3 SU..

The fact is that A Turbo Laser is not a laser.. My own pet theory is that bolt is a type of soliton ( a type of standing wave that is highily stable), which explains the long range...

I agree I'm just stating what that weg source book says thats all. I'm not supporting it in any way shape or form.

[Connor MacLeod]

Back to the beginning I think we are getting off our original disagreement. This quote was disputed and the Command ships are larger than the 5KM states in WEG and the on Screen comparisons. SW offical sight has even raised their size of the ssd to 12.8km. So in this aspect WEG and the EGVV are over ruled............yes?

We ARE on topic. Nice change of subject however.

You brought this up when Doomriser referenced teh Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. The Implied statement was that because it was tied to WEG, it should be ignored as flawed in favor of something else that was never specified. Hence the current argument. I fail to see what the size of the Executor has to do with Doomriser's mention of the RASB.

As for the scaling itself, to my knowledge noone has said it ISN'T a contradiction, but simply because that contradiction exists is no reason to assume every OTHER bit of WEG data is going to be likewise flawed, unless we have sufficient proof otherwise (and implied contradictions one place are NOT evidence.)

Regardless, this data is not correct and the new publications use large distances for space combat. I still believe it is flawed it states that the max range is 120,000m out, any farther and the laser loses coherency. Thats roughly 75 miles, i would think these weapons have a creater range than 75 miles regardless if the ship size is not to scale with the distance on pg 54 of the WEG Rebel Alliance source book. This is flawed later publications and book in the EU time frame give weapons of this nature a greater range. Note its 120,000 meters stated in the book and not km. Like I said it says after this range the blast will losse its coherency and thus power over distance.

We're talking about the Reble Alliance Sourecbook, right? I haven't seen any 120,000 meter reference ever mentioned or used. The closest was the 150 km "atmospheric" range, and that hardly applies to space battles.

Perhaps you would provide the evidence proving where this 120,000 meter reference lies. Once we've established its there, and know what context its stated in, then we can worry about its implications.

[Connor MacLeod]

AL it is, amazing that you are using WEG for support.. First WEG put the max range of a HTL at 75 space units... With a space unit = to 470,600km

We get this value from behind the Magic Cd which also list both the 75 space unit figure for TL and 100 space unit for the DS super laser..

The SWTJ gives the max DS range as 47,060,000km so a space unit is 470,600KM.

Long range according to WEG start at 30 SU.. Med 15 SU amd Short 3 SU..

The fact is that A Turbo Laser is not a laser.. My own pet theory is that bolt is a type of soliton ( a type of standing wave that is highily stable), which explains the long range...

<beating head repeatedly against the wall>

FOR THE LAST TIME... I already explained this to you in another thread.

BTM only gives weapons ranges in space units in vaccuum. In the atmosphere its in kilometers. the 47 million km range is from the Star Wars Technical Journal.

Furthermore, the 47 million km only applies against planets. Unless a ship is disabled or somehow incapable of manuvering, there is almost no way it could reasonably hit a ship at that distance without some sort of FTL propogation.

To derive a more accurate range value against capital ships, one should use the Hoth Ion cannon as described in the ISB. We know that planetary ion cannons are typically used to defend inhabited worlds (read: Including Earthlike.) We also know that Planetary ion cannons (when used in a space battle situation) have a range of some 3 space units (space unit 3 being described explicitly as "high orbit.)

For an Earthlike planet, high orbit is typically defined as anything beyond geostationary/geosynchronous. Both of which for an earthlike planet are roughly 36,000 km. This means that the space range for a capital TL cannon can extend up to 900,000 km away, or 3 light seconds, against anohter vessel. Short range appears to be between 36,000 and 180,000 km (approximately half a LS), and medium range is about 1.5 LS.

And for WEG the range values for most TLs is 3-15 (short)/35 (medium)/75 (long). go look up roleplaying stats for an ISD or Mon Cal cruiser on Curtis' SWTC, or go look at the Galactic Empire databank. Some TLs (such as the heavy TL batteries on the Executor-class) are 5-20/40/60 (or 60,000-240,000/480,000/720,000.


Ironically, laser cannons have a range of around 1-3/12/25 IIRC (for ranges of 12,000-36,000/144,000/300,000.


and ion cannons have a range of 1-10/25/50 (or 12,000-120,000/300,000/600,000.

Tractor bems have a range of 1-5/15/30 for ranges of 12,000-60,000/180,000/360,000.

Concussion missiles (such as the Executor's) have a range of 2-12/30/60 (for ranges around 24,000-144,000/360,000/720,000

Fighter-scale protorps are typically 1/3/7 for ranges of 12,000/36,000/84,000.

This is somewhat conservative, since its implied that Ion cannons can reach beyond high orbit, and the 36,000 km figure for "high orbit" is rather conservative in and of itself. Nevertheless its a far more accurate gauge of ship to ship combat ranges than the superlaser range comparison (which works more against planets)

Some argue that WEG space units are not valid because they weren't meant to be defined and are completely arbitrary. However, this isn't correct, since if they were completely arbitrary they would have no real meaning whatsoever (and would be useless as a measurement of ANYTHING.). What is really the problem is that "space units" are context-sensitive - they are used to measure ship speeds, sensor ranges, as well as weapons ranges. This means you can't use sensor ranges to determine weapons ranges and max velocity/distance covered by starships. And its also target-sensitive. What oyu need is a valid point of reference for making comparisons (IE the superlaser, or orbital ion cannons) where a known distance value is approximated.

Note that we CAN be conservative as well and use "low orbit" - 1 space unit. For example, "low orbit" can be defined as around 300 km to 2000 km. This would be 1 space unit. Therefore, ship ranges for a TL (using "low orbit" Space unit comparisons) would yield ranges of
900-4500/10,500/22,500 km at the absolute low end, to around 6,000-30,000/70,000/150,000 km at the "upper" end of low orbit. Still WELL within the already established "thousands to tens of thousands" of km range already known from various EU sources.

Ironically, we CAN skip using WEG units altogether and simply use BTM space units. They only give single figures for a few weapons (100 for the DS, 75 for TLs, 50 for planetary ion cannons) but they still help, and provide ranges in the tens of thousands of km as well.

[omegaLancer]

I find that restricting the range of TL to a few light second is incorrect. Why restrict Light speed weapons to such short ranges when there is a example of long lag time for non guided weapons in WWII ship combats..

Take the battle between the Bismark and the Hood..

The muzzle velocity of the Bismark main guns was a mere 820 meter a second.. The Hood and the bismark began exchanging volley at a distant of 12.5 miles (23,150 meters / 25,330 yards).. It took 28 seconds for a shell to reach that distant..

this means that WWII Battleships were willing to fight with a Lag of 28 seconds till the round reach a target using optical targeting and analog firing computers...

It took five Salvo but at a distant of 9 miles (16,668 meters / 18,236 yards) the Bismark score multiple hit that sunk the hood.. this is at a lag of 20 seconds.....

even if we take into a account the round trip delay time due to speed of light a equivalent SW capital ship engagement should begin at at 14 to 20 light seconds...

[Master of Ossus]

The range of the turbolaser is not restricted to a few light seconds, but its ability to accurately target ships is limited to that range. The reason is that it is VERY difficult to predict several seconds in advance where a maneuvering target is going to be. Thus, the weapon itself can actually outfire the computers that target it. If this seems strange, think about modern rifles, in which the range of the weapon is generally MUCH greater than the ability of the shooter to target people. Most marksmen can only consistently hit targets within 500 meters, but some rifles have ranges extending well beyond 800 meters.

[omegaLancer]

Correct it the computer that limit the range of TL.. Even with analog computers Battleship were able to predict where an enemy ship was with a fair degree of error.

With shell flight times of 20 to 40 seconds the Bismark score several hits within 5 salvos..

A British Battleship was capable of hitting an italian Battleship with a lag of 90 Second..

The feat is amazing if you take into account that not only the future location of the opponent was taken into account but the shell flight path was Ballistic, not straigth line of sight.

And unlike TL which have a fire rate in the seconds, the main guns of WWII battleship were measure in the number of rounds per minutes..

Higher fire rate, Better computering, Advance optics ( digital Zoom camera)
and larger number of batteries, a stardestroyer should be able to engage enemy in 10's of light seconds, a Long range engagement should start anywhere from 30 to 40 light seconds..

[Master of Ossus]

Battleships are also not nearly so maneuverable as SW ships. They do not move nearly as quickly, or have as good lateral acceleration capabilities.

[omegaLancer]

The fact is that Battle ship are very fast when you compare the speed of the ship to muzzle velocity let take the Bismark..

Top speed of 30.12 knots or 15.49 meter/sec
main guns muzzle velocity = 820 m/s

so the battleship's max speed is 2% that of the shell or the same as a ISD traveling at 2 PSL

At a accerelation of 3000 g's it would take 204 seconds for a ISD to reach the same speed.

As for manueverable.. Come on A ISD is a flying brick and Death star II main laser had no trouble tracking and picking off rebel Capital ships ( NOT once did DS II miss)...


[/img]

[Connor MacLeod]

Ranges of 14-20 light seconds are impractical for Line of Sight weapons unless you can somehow inhibit an opponent's ability to move or manuver. Inertia can help in this regard, but realistically it doesnt take all that much of a change to cause a bolt to miss. At atthe distances you are proposing, any halfway decent ship would have PLENTY of time to react unless otherwise prevented from doing so. This doesnt even factor in any potential "lag time" in targeting (esp if using FTL sensors), the effects of EW (the difference between sensors/computers and EW is not that great to make long-distance targeting as reliable as visual ranges, hence why rangers are much shorter in SW), etc.

Even if we assuem its perfectly reasonable, its not a benefit to an ISD, but rather a liability. Its a BAD thing, because we HAVE good reason to believe an ISD should be capable of avoiding shots at the ranges you propose. The fact that you believe otherwise is irrelevant. At the very least, a simple microjump would take them out of firing range!

I have never seen any problem with ship combat ranges being several LS or less (4-5 LS maybe as an upper limit.) Logically, what limits the ISD's range also applies in virtually every other universe (unless you have a FTL-propogating energy weapon, or one whose destructive effects are delivered at FTL speeds) so Unless the enemy has a guided weapon (IE missile) they can't hurt you (and guided weapons can be spoofed, shot down, etc.)

What you are proposing hurts SW more than helps it, but even more imporantly, its unsupported by canon OR EU. IF you don't like it, tough. Deal with the reality. Even if we assume this works against an ISD even, there is no guarantee it would work agianst other kinds of targets, enemies, etc. But such ranges working against SW ships would give other opponents reason to believe THEY could target them at that range.

[Connor MacLeod]

Lets break down some of the problems in detail about why ranges greater than a few light seconds are problematic with "dumb fire/line of sight" weapons.

1.) EW/Targeting. I already covered this more or less, but to add: predictors only work if they have data to predict from. This assumes you have at least somewhat accurate knowledge of your opponent's capabilities and that you can get enough sensor data on them to get an accurate picture of their situation. Both of which are never guaranteed.

2.) Space. Space is vast. Space is three dimensional. SPace is mostly empty. Space lacks resistance to motion. This makes manuvering in space very much unlike wet-navy combat.

3.) ship capabilities. acceleration rates are MANY times greater than the dimensions of a ship. In a single second of acceleration, even the largest known warships (DS excluded, since its more of a battlestation) can cover nearly twice its own lenght in distance in a single second. Ships can cover light hours or light minutes by microjumping. They can detect/track targets from millions of kilometers away or more. Etc. This is MANY times greater than what any naval battleship can do, whose top acceleration would be at BEST 100 m/s^2, barely a third the length of an Iowa-class battleship.

Now, lets consider the implications of say, 12 light seconds as a combat range:

- active radar/lidar pulses would take 24 seconds to reach a target and return to the detecting ship. This rules them out as practical unless absolutely neccesary. FTL active sensors do not apply, and do exist. They, however, can be jammed, misdirected, etc.

- passive sensors (barring passive FTL) will take 12 seconds to detect most any emission from a ship at that range. Additionally, the distances involved will serve to weaken said emissions, rendering the quality of the data less than it would at closer ranges. FTL passives probably won't help much except in detecting FTL communications or sensors, and like active FTL, can be jammed.

- weapons fire takes 12 seconds to reach your target.

Now, disregarding fire control issues, you have quite a bit of lag time on your hands. Any shot you take has to account for what your opponent does 12 seconds from the point you fire at - his position, his velocity, facing, etc. Possible, but made dififcult by EW issues, knowledge of your opponents capabilities, etc.

Now, consider things from your opponents perspective. Have they detected the incoming fire? (TLs emit light, and dissipate as they travel - emissions would be and chould be detected) Have they detected you targeting them? They have twelve seconds to do so. And if/when they do, what can they do in that time? Twelve seconds is plenty of time to alter your position. Assuming 3000 gee's accel, an ISD can cover about 360 km in a second, ideally. Now factor in the three-dimensional nature of space... the targeted ship could move in any direction, even backwards.

Even if we assume they're already moving, and have inertia built up (Even a signficant amount that cannot be readily dumped) this does not make things easier. The enemy ship can still manuver some, even if its still moving in one direction. It can also choose to go FASTER or slow down.. even these can make targeting difficult..

And to insure a hit, a capital ship is going to have to lay down fire to cover EVERY vector that a target might take, or use, or travel on. Odds are this is going to be impractical. At best, you'll cover all vectors but doing so prevents effective concentration of fire to deliver any real damage. At worst, you won't get ANY hits. And the farther away you get, the greater this problem becomes.

Obivously, while the battleship principle works somewhat, its not 100% accurate.

[omegaLancer]

First of all line of sight is a good thing, space combat is all line of sight unless you hide behind an asteriod or Planet...

Second, there is no avoiding a LS weapon, you cannot dodge what would cannot detect.. The beam is traveling at C.... So unless you can detect it with FTL sensor ( remember jamming works both ways) you donot know where the enemy is firing...

Second TL work in batteries ( 2 - 2 gun turret and 1 single, for ISD I) no one single gun is experted to hit.. But it hope that due to the spread a single hit will be scored..

The fact is in WWII ship were manuevering, and still hit was score, that what Targeting computer are for and firing volleys

As for EU..

Well let look at Ambush at Corellia.. The MF traded shot at million KM with attacking Robotic fighters ( at a range of 3 light sec)..
And that with his quad lasers, not even heavy turbo laser...

.form Enemy Lines II - rebel stand

"In They 'know' that once its ready to fly, we can destroy their worldship in orbit around Coruscant; we faked up a low-power demonstration of this by positioning one of our capital ships outside the Coruscant system and firing off a laser battery attack at the worldship to coincide with the firing of our fake weapon array." - out side the system.. not Light second but maybe light hours


as for optical lag time.. light is constantily being reflected off a target, so unless the ship Hyperjump into a system, you will be constantily getting visual data. Knowing the distant of a target, it tell you how old the data is, taking the speed and bearing of a ship , you can computer where the ship should be now. and where it will be if you fire...The limiting factor is computing power and how many course changes a target make..

[Mr Bean]

barring passive FTL

Hyperwave Sensors to Dectect Ships in FTL are Passive as far as we know