StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In the Battle of Endor Lando suggests that the Rebel fleet move to point blank range. His reasoning is that when mixed in with Imperial ships the DS2 will not be able to target rebel ships and the fleet will last a little longer.

Admiral Ackbar though says that the Rebel wont last long against those star destroyers at that range.

That line is what confuses me. The range when the battle begins doesnt seem that extreme. When you consider the range of SW weapons the difference between where the engagement starts and when the ships mix it up really shouldnt matter.

So why would the Admiral care? The only thing I can figure is that when the ships all start to mix it up it forces the Rebel ships to max shield on every side instead of letting the aft ones run at a lower setting. The result would be that the ships would not last as long in battle. But if this hurts the Rebels it should also hurt the Imp fleet. Also shield strength depending on what EU source you use was one of the only advantages Mon Cal ships had over Imp ships. The Mon Cals overloaded their ships with shield generators.


So why did Ackbar not want to move from knife fighting range to spitting range?

Baal wrote:In the Battle of Endor Lando suggests that the Rebel fleet move to point blank range. His reasoning is that when mixed in with Imperial ships the DS2 will not be able to target rebel ships and the fleet will last a little longer.

Admiral Ackbar though says that the Rebel wont last long against those star destroyers at that range.

That line is what confuses me. The range when the battle begins doesnt seem that extreme. When you consider the range of SW weapons the difference between where the engagement starts and when the ships mix it up really shouldnt matter.

So why would the Admiral care? The only thing I can figure is that when the ships all start to mix it up it forces the Rebel ships to max shield on every side instead of letting the aft ones run at a lower setting. The result would be that the ships would not last as long in battle. But if this hurts the Rebels it should also hurt the Imp fleet. Also shield strength depending on what EU source you use was one of the only advantages Mon Cal ships had over Imp ships. The Mon Cals overloaded their ships with shield generators.


So why did Ackbar not want to move from knife fighting range to spitting range?

There were more ISDs than Mon Cal cruisers, and throw in an Executor to boot. All in all, the Rebels were outgunned. Not least that ISDs could deal significant broadsides.

However, some would argue that coming into close firing range would have benefited the Rebels as the ISDs wouldn't be able to work their long range gunnery and bring more weapons to bear onto the Mon Cal cruisers.

However, there's another argument that the Imperials fought with one leg on a clutch.

All in all, Ackbar shoved the ISDs near the Executors aside and proceeded to target all their weapons at the Executor and attempted to take it down.

This is pretty much an old debate however.

Having not counted the number of ships on both sides I am assuming the Imperial fleet is larger in numbers and average ship size. If that is the case then mixxing it up at close range is an excellent idea. It causes the Imperials to fight less efficiently as not every ship will always have a clear line of sight on a Rebel ship.

So I am still confused why Ackbar would not want to get in close.

Baal wrote:Having not counted the number of ships on both sides I am assuming the Imperial fleet is larger in numbers and average ship size. If that is the case then mixxing it up at close range is an excellent idea. It causes the Imperials to fight less efficiently as not every ship will always have a clear line of sight on a Rebel ship.

So I am still confused why Ackbar would not want to get in close.

Risk? The entire Rebel fleet lost is not an impossible proposition. While the Imperials aren't as efficient at fighting at close range, if they maneuver their ships well enough, 2 ISDs could hammer one Mon Cal. But it seems that they were less able to, couple that with the destruction of the communication ship which quite obviously hampered their fire control coordination.

However, in light of the fact that the Imperials placed interdictors on the outlying corners of the system makes me wonder if they had any choice in the first place.

So I am still confused why Ackbar would not want to get in close.

Tactical doctrine, maybe? IIRC the MonCals are relatively recent players on the galactic stage, so Ackbar wouldn't have experience with extremely close-in ship duels such as the Battle of Coruscant. Of course, this is merely a suggestion. My EU knowledge is limited.

Gildor wrote:

So I am still confused why Ackbar would not want to get in close.

Tactical doctrine, maybe? IIRC the MonCals are relatively recent players on the galactic stage, so Ackbar wouldn't have experience with extremely close-in ship duels such as the Battle of Coruscant. Of course, this is merely a suggestion. My EU knowledge is limited.

Close Range gunnery duels aren't standard doctrine for the Imperials either.

The Imperials can bring more weapons to bear better long range than short range. Battles like the Battle of Coruscant aren't standard issue.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Baal wrote:Having not counted the number of ships on both sides I am assuming the Imperial fleet is larger in numbers and average ship size. If that is the case then mixxing it up at close range is an excellent idea. It causes the Imperials to fight less efficiently as not every ship will always have a clear line of sight on a Rebel ship.

So I am still confused why Ackbar would not want to get in close.

Risk? The entire Rebel fleet lost is not an impossible proposition. While the Imperials aren't as efficient at fighting at close range, if they maneuver their ships well enough, 2 ISDs could hammer one Mon Cal. But it seems that they were less able to, couple that with the destruction of the communication ship which quite obviously hampered their fire control coordination.

However, in light of the fact that the Imperials placed interdictors on the outlying corners of the system makes me wonder if they had any choice in the first place.

If you cannot retreat then mixxing it up close with the larger force is the only way to go when ships are relatively equal and there is no other advantege you can play to.

The imperials we're only interested at keeping the rebels in system. This is confirmed by the orders of imperial admiral and Lando. By moving into point blank range the rebels are forcing the ISDs to open fire just to protect themselves and to keep the rebels from running away.
Ackbar was not going to provoke the imps, as he still had enough to take on the imperial fighters, which were the only force attacking at the beginning of the ambush.

Ackbar goes along with Lando after Lando points out that this is their only chance at blowing up the DS and killing the emperor. Before that he was considering retreating. I'd say Ackbar knew that even if the rebel fleet is able to escape the initial ambush, their chances of shaking off the imperial pursuit are quite small. Even if they manage to pull that off, they're finished as a fighting force and the DSII will be completed before they can mount an another assault against it.

-Gunhead

Pre-Special Edition the Rebel fleet was quoted in Heir To The Empire as being out gunned 10-to-1. After the Special Editions i think 4 or 5 new Mon Cal Cruisers where pasted in, which by my reckoning makes it closer to 3 to 2.

Still Given the design of the Imperial Class Star Destroyer Mark 1 and 2 the HTLs are perfectly designed for delivering huge broadsides. Mon Cal Cruisers have their HTL's spread out more IIRC, each of the bubbles on the hull housing a HTL cluster.

By my reckoning if a Mon Cal pilot knows his shit he can avoid the main clusters of the ISD and maximise his own HTL coverage, much like the Mon Remonda versus Iron Fist battle in the Wraith Squadron books.

Gildor wrote:

So I am still confused why Ackbar would not want to get in close.

Tactical doctrine, maybe? IIRC the MonCals are relatively recent players on the galactic stage, so Ackbar wouldn't have experience with extremely close-in ship duels such as the Battle of Coruscant. Of course, this is merely a suggestion. My EU knowledge is limited.

I find that hard to believe, considering Ackbar was Tarkin's personal slave and had a reputation for studying fleet tactics/strategies and absorbing Tarkin's strategies (Tarkin made it a habit to harass Ackbar over it) so he knew.

Maybe Ackbar was simply afraid of going close to the enemy fleets. Simple psychology to stay away and you'll feel safer thst way. And how close combat could hurt with recovering/rescuing pilots and ship crews. If the fleets were groped together against eahc other, the alliance migh thave an easisr time recovering pilolt than if the recovery/rescue ships had to go around enemy Star Destroyers/TIEs/etc to rescue their comrades.

EDIT: And one Alliance Fleet going against the Imperial Fleet's idea's advantage was to blast a hole in the Imperial fleet through which the Alliance forces might escape

Lord Pounder wrote:Pre-Special Edition the Rebel fleet was quoted in Heir To The Empire as being out gunned 10-to-1. After the Special Editions i think 4 or 5 new Mon Cal Cruisers where pasted in, which by my reckoning makes it closer to 3 to 2.

Still Given the design of the Imperial Class Star Destroyer Mark 1 and 2 the HTLs are perfectly designed for delivering huge broadsides. Mon Cal Cruisers have their HTL's spread out more IIRC, each of the bubbles on the hull housing a HTL cluster.

By my reckoning if a Mon Cal pilot knows his shit he can avoid the main clusters of the ISD and maximise his own HTL coverage, much like the Mon Remonda versus Iron Fist battle in the Wraith Squadron books.

The Mon Cal crews were said to be very well trained and dedicated. Also, they have very good pilots. The ISD could be quite easily out maneuvered at close range, although 2 ISD captains cooperating might be able to box a cruiser in.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:The Mon Cal crews were said to be very well trained and dedicated. Also, they have very good pilots. The ISD could be quite easily out maneuvered at close range, although 2 ISD captains cooperating might be able to box a cruiser in.

Also, I forgot. Supposedly there were problem with cooperation/skill between the Imperial Death Squadron and the Grand Admirals' personal ISDs and the local sector fleet which got worse after the Imperial communications ship was destroyed; made worse by DS II destruction

Warsie wrote:

Gildor wrote:

So I am still confused why Ackbar would not want to get in close.

Tactical doctrine, maybe? IIRC the MonCals are relatively recent players on the galactic stage, so Ackbar wouldn't have experience with extremely close-in ship duels such as the Battle of Coruscant. Of course, this is merely a suggestion. My EU knowledge is limited.

I find that hard to believe, considering Ackbar was Tarkin's personal slave and had a reputation for studying fleet tactics/strategies and absorbing Tarkin's strategies (Tarkin made it a habit to harass Ackbar over it) so he knew.

Maybe Ackbar was simply afraid of going close to the enemy fleets. Simple psychology to stay away and you'll feel safer thst way. And how close combat could hurt with recovering/rescuing pilots and ship crews. If the fleets were groped together against eahc other, the alliance migh thave an easisr time recovering pilolt than if the recovery/rescue ships had to go around enemy Star Destroyers/TIEs/etc to rescue their comrades.

EDIT: And one Alliance Fleet going against the Imperial Fleet's idea's advantage was to blast a hole in the Imperial fleet through which the Alliance forces might escape

I think it's simply because when you're out numbered and out gunned, you try to avoid a war of attrition at all cost, specially when you're whole operation relies on buying time. Good tactical maneuverability and coordination was all the rebels really had.
Btw. Since Ackbar didn't consider retreating when the trap was sprung leads to believe he thought the operation could still be completed. This is some indication of relative fleet size. If the disparity had been completely overwhelming, I think Ackbar would have tried to escape as soon as the trap was sprung instead of "sticking to his guns".

-Gunhead

Since Ackbar didn't consider retreating when the trap was sprung

Umm, Ackbar WANTED to retreat.

After the Death Star destroys the first MC Cruiser:

Ackbar wrote:We saw it, all craft prepare to retreat

It was Lando who convinced Ackbar not to abandon the strike team on the ground.

The Original Nex wrote:

Since Ackbar didn't consider retreating when the trap was sprung

Umm, Ackbar WANTED to retreat.

After the Death Star destroys the first MC Cruiser:

Ackbar wrote:We saw it, all craft prepare to retreat

It was Lando who convinced Ackbar not to abandon the strike team on the ground.

I know that, but it he didn't order the retreat immediately after the imps came out of hiding. I think I'll watch the fight from ROTJ again, to determine how much time passed between the initial ambush and the first shot from the DS. But I think it was enough that if Ackbar was considering throwing in the towel right from the start, he'd done so sooner.

-Gunhead

Risk? The entire Rebel fleet lost is not an impossible proposition. While the Imperials aren't as efficient at fighting at close range, if they maneuver their ships well enough, 2 ISDs could hammer one Mon Cal. But it seems that they were less able to, couple that with the destruction of the communication ship which quite obviously hampered their fire control coordination.

However, in light of the fact that the Imperials placed interdictors on the outlying corners of the system makes me wonder if they had any choice in the first place.

The ISD is designed for pursuits (at least they had an all-forward main gun arrangement) so closing the distance is indeed a good idea, because they could not concentrate all of their heavy batteries, only the half of them. The only possible reason not to close the range IMHO was that they wished to disengage.

Since longer range artillery duels are more common, most likely a majority of ships are designed to bring the largest number of guns to face their enemy, this likely being true on both sides since a forward facing battle line lets a ship use its engines to compensate for the most amount of backward momentum generated by the gun recoils. When staring down a Star Dreadnought and large force of ISDs with a few dozen SD equivalents and maybe three Star Cruiser / Battlecruiser analogs, the last place you want to be when you're trying to buy time for a commando team to finish its mission on the planet and subsequently for your fighters to destroy the Death Star is in front of the 5000+ guns of said Star Dreadnought.

If both fleets can't bring all their guns to bare on any single target then the battle is going to last a lot longer since less firepower per ship is being delivered to any one ship. Instead of two fleets concentrating their fire on a single ship from the opposite fleet until it is destroyed or pairing off into artillery duels with members of the opposing fleet, a point blank range fight is more chaotic and confused with the basic strategy involving shooting at anything any gun you have is in sights of.

bz249 wrote:The ISD is designed for pursuits (at least they had an all-forward main gun arrangement) so closing the distance is indeed a good idea, because they could not concentrate all of their heavy batteries, only the half of them. The only possible reason not to close the range IMHO was that they wished to disengage.

That is kind of disputable as the main turrets are mounted sideways and I'm not sure if they are designed for forward firing. Some have said it is possible, but i haven't seen anything explicit thus far. ICS sadly didn't include the turn radius and the elevation angle of the turrets.

bz249 wrote:The ISD is designed for pursuits (at least they had an all-forward main gun arrangement) so closing the distance is indeed a good idea, because they could not concentrate all of their heavy batteries, only the half of them.

Assuming they could outmaneuver the Star Destroyers. All the ISDs need to do to bring all their weapons to bear is roll/yaw fast enough.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:That is kind of disputable as the main turrets are mounted sideways and I'm not sure if they are designed for forward firing. Some have said it is possible, but i haven't seen anything explicit thus far. ICS sadly didn't include the turn radius and the elevation angle of the turrets.

What's the point of mounting them in turrets if they can't traverse worth shit?
Firing all of them forward requires a turn radius of 90° forward and an elevation of a few degrees so can fire over the other turrets, you can pitch the ship to compensate for additional needed elevation. If they have an elevation of 90° or better you can fire all of the forward with no turning ability at all by, again, simply pitching the ship.

Batman wrote: What's the point of mounting them in turrets if they can't traverse worth shit?
Firing all of them forward requires a turn radius of 90° forward and an elevation of a few degrees so can fire over the other turrets, you can pitch the ship to compensate for additional needed elevation. If they have an elevation of 90° or better you can fire all of the forward with no turning ability at all by, again, simply pitching the ship.

While at the same time presenting the enemy with a large target profile to hit? There's also the issue of recoil and whether the turret could fire in that configuration.

One of the points of having turrets is so that you can house those huge energy capacitors. Would you want to house them in the hull and if they blow up and leave a huge gaping hole?

Gunhead wrote:I think it's simply because when you're out numbered and out gunned, you try to avoid a war of attrition at all cost, specially when you're whole operation relies on buying time. Good tactical maneuverability and coordination was all the rebels really had.

They also had an advantage in staying together and a starfighter/defense advantage, as the Alliance didn't send their fighters out unsupported. Even with the advantage, some smaller Alliance ships were taken out and the Redemption took some damage.

EDIT: I forgot shield recharge times for CRS and ability to work independently

Btw. Since Ackbar didn't consider retreating when the trap was sprung leads to believe he thought the operation could still be completed.

Or he couldn't retreat at all. The Empire already activated the gravity-wells on their Immobilizers, and the DS II's natural gravity well, the largest Moon of Endor and the Gas Giant Itself mde it HARD to escape, maybe that's why.

I don't know why Ackbar ordered the ships to retreat; they couldn't an dtheir main hope was to blast a hole in the Star Destroyers through they might escape, which could b hard given the smaller ships in the sector fleet inthe outer system and possible other Imperators, etc out there.

This is some indication of relative fleet size.

Yeah, both fleets discounting the DSII were relatively equal,. I had a ship list thast I will hopefully post here (incomplete) soon, when I get home and open the document with Microsoft Works.

If the disparity had been completely overwhelming, I think Ackbar would have tried to escape as soon as the trap was sprung instead of "sticking to his guns".

-Gunhead

a retreat like thst might be unorganized and he might've wanted to reform the fleet; even after several minutes some Alliance ships were crashing into the DS II shield.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Batman wrote: What's the point of mounting them in turrets if they can't traverse worth shit?
Firing all of them forward requires a turn radius of 90° forward and an elevation of a few degrees so can fire over the other turrets, you can pitch the ship to compensate for additional needed elevation. If they have an elevation of 90° or better you can fire all of the forward with no turning ability at all by, again, simply pitching the ship.

While at the same time presenting the enemy with a large target profile to hit?

It beats not being able to shoot back with half or more of your firepower. And ISDs aren't exactly noted for their small target profile to begin with.
Besides, that's pathetically easy to avoid-enable your turrets to turn and elevate so you can fire forward.

There's also the issue of recoil and whether the turret could fire in that configuration.

You commented on potential limitations of the turrets' firing arcs, I pointed out how to work around those assuming they're an issue to begin with.

One of the points of having turrets is so that you can house those huge energy capacitors.

This is stated where? The main point of turrets in the real world is to a)protect the gun/gun crew from enemy fire and b) enable the gun to fire in directions other than straight ahead.

Would you want to house them in the hull and if they blow up and leave a huge gaping hole?

As they're going to do that anyway if they blow up who cares?
Besides, given the firepower of Wars capital ship weapons once they're past your shields and armour secondaries are of decidely limited concern.
Not that I can see what exactly that has to do with the movement limitations (or lack thereof) of TL turrets.

Batman wrote: It beats not being able to shoot back with half or more of your firepower. And ISDs aren't exactly noted for their small target profile to begin with.
Besides, that's pathetically easy to avoid-enable your turrets to turn and elevate so you can fire forward.

Well, sure, but why not direct more power to one side rather than distribute it out? After all, turbolasers are fairly scalable, not least shielding can be better devoted to one side of shields compared to the whole dorsal area.

One of the points of having turrets is so that you can house those huge energy capacitors.

This is stated where? The main point of turrets in the real world is to a)protect the gun/gun crew from enemy fire and b) enable the gun to fire in directions other than straight ahead.

Would you want to house them in the hull and if they blow up and leave a huge gaping hole?

Real world yes. But the real world doesn't have a freaking huge energy capacitor. ICS ROTS has a nice schematic of the Venator's turrets with an energy capacitor that supplies the turbolasers directly and occupies half the turret.

As they're going to do that anyway if they blow up who cares?
Besides, given the firepower of Wars capital ship weapons once they're past your shields and armour secondaries are of decidely limited concern.
Not that I can see what exactly that has to do with the movement limitations (or lack thereof) of TL turrets.

And compromise hull integrity? Incidentally, Tyrant's Test had a no. of NR warships blowing up due to exploding weapons magazines.

Armour of no concern? I guess that depends on the weapons outputs but it ships do need every bit of protection they can get.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Batman wrote: It beats not being able to shoot back with half or more of your firepower. And ISDs aren't exactly noted for their small target profile to begin with.
Besides, that's pathetically easy to avoid-enable your turrets to turn and elevate so you can fire forward.

Well, sure, but why not direct more power to one side rather than distribute it out? After all, turbolasers are fairly scalable, not least shielding can be better devoted to one side of shields compared to the whole dorsal area.

Depends on how scaleable, and against multiple targets on the same approximate bearing you'd want more guns (to a point), but your point is taken.

One of the points of having turrets is so that you can house those huge energy capacitors.

This is stated where? The main point of turrets in the real world is to a)protect the gun/gun crew from enemy fire and b) enable the gun to fire in directions other than straight ahead.

Real world yes. But the real world doesn't have a freaking huge energy capacitor. ICS ROTS has a nice schematic of the Venator's turrets with an energy capacitor that supplies the turbolasers directly and occupies half the turret.

Thank you. Again, however, this has no bearing on the maneuverability of ISD TL turrets (housing the capacitor outside the hull doesn't require the turret to be moveable at all, and we KNOW they are).

As they're going to do that anyway if they blow up who cares?
Besides, given the firepower of Wars capital ship weapons once they're past your shields and armour secondaries are of decidely limited concern.
Not that I can see what exactly that has to do with the movement limitations (or lack thereof) of TL turrets.

And compromise hull integrity?

How, exactly, would having the capacitors inside the hull compromise hull integrity? Or how would the turrets having mobility comparable to a WW2 battleship do it? *confused*

Incidentally, Tyrant's Test had a no. of NR warships blowing up due to exploding weapons magazines.

BFC also had a ludicrously small NR and navy and the bloody Yevethans being considered a credible threat to it.

Armour of no concern? I guess that depends on the weapons outputs but it ships do need every bit of protection they can get.

Notice how I never said that. What I did say was that once the enemy gets PAST the armour, with the firepowers involved secondary explosions are of limited concern because chances are you're dead already.

Batman wrote: Thank you. Again, however, this has no bearing on the maneuverability of ISD TL turrets (housing the capacitor outside the hull doesn't require the turret to be moveable at all, and we KNOW they are).

No there isn't. I was rather responding to your statement about mounting turbolasers into turrets if they couldn't traverse much. Whereas a turret is supposed to provide wide angles of fire, it does provide other advantages like housing all the necessary equipment to fire the weapon.

How, exactly, would having the capacitors inside the hull compromise hull integrity? Or how would the turrets having mobility comparable to a WW2 battleship do it? *confused*

Even WWII battleships had the ammunition housed deep in the ship so that if the turret was hit, the ship won't suffer too much damage. But given the nature of secondary explosions, an exploding turret in Star Wars will likely send some chain reaction down to the capacitor and exploding it. Of course I'm pulling fancy speculation and will concede if this isn't true. Regardless, an energy capacitor that explodes inside the hull will do more damage than one that explodes outside it.

BFC also had a ludicrously small NR and navy and the bloody Yevethans being considered a credible threat to it.

As ridiculous as it may seem, the NR was weak and the Yevethans had the Intimidator and an assortment of Star Destroyers. And we both know that the so called "New Class" ships gave the NR flexibility but no teeth and countless other weaknesses.