Turbolaser crews

[pellaeons_scion]

Was looking at one of the images of a HTL battery and it showed the area where the gun crews operated. But the thought occured, what are they all for? Isnt most of the system computerised (firecontrol, heat dispersion, power levels). So why does each battery require so many seemingly superflous crew? Also, Im still trying to work out the fire discipline that would be used, coz it just doesnt make sense to me to have most of the TL batteries under individault commanders firing at whatever they deem to be best.

There has got to be some form of protocol for gunnery, but for all intents and purposes in the resources I have read I cant find one! Logic tells me that perhaps there are groups of batteries under the control of a battery commander, and it would be he/she who dicates what part of a target to fire on. Also, if the fire rates are timed at 2 seconds per shot (HTL) would sychrinised fire be even neccesary to beat the peak rating of an enemies shields? Could just a constant flow of TL fire do the same job, or would that be ineffective. Or does it require an all-battery broadside targeted on a sigle point on the shield facing to break it down with an overload?

I dunno, maybe its because in the movies we only ever see Cap ships engage starfighters and the like that the out put of fire from them seems...well..an undisciplined free for all. And that doesnt make sense for a warship to me.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Genuine "all-battery" director control seems to be unexistant in many or most Imperial vessels. The gunnery officer is there to give verbal orders as to what the guns shoot at, but it would seem the guns all individually aim either on their own will or at the target the gunnery officer designated.

At best, it is a "follow-the-pointer" system (where the gunners altered elevation and azimuth manually to match a lit set of dials,) rather than anything like fully automated RPC.

The computer room isn't that big of a problem, though. The gun might be automated most of the time, but if they really want to change something, this really shows the complexity of the largest guns, for they seem to need so many crews to absorb all the data and handle all the knobs (or buttons, dials...etc) with sufficient efficiency.

[Boba Fett]

I think Pellaeon scion was thinking about the TL that you can see in ANH.

There was approx. 5 crew person handling the gun.

[Robert Treder]

I think Pellaeon scion was thinking about the TL that you can see in ANH.

There was approx. 5 crew person handling the gun.

I'd imagine he's talking about the original ICS picture of a HTL battery. They show the control rooms for it, and it takes up several decks, and there are presumably many people working on it (IIRC like two dozen are shown working).

[Boba Fett]

Can someone post the pic here?

It would be easier to discuss it.

Thanks in advance!

[pellaeons_scion]

A pic? sure here it is


as you can see it appears to require a large amount of crew. But for what reason?

[Howedar]

At best, it is a "follow-the-pointer" system (where the gunners altered elevation and azimuth manually to match a lit set of dials,) rather than anything like fully automated RPC.

And your support for this is... what? Why can the crew not be controlling the gun in much the same way as modern naval guns are manned?

[Sea Skimmer]

I count about 14 seats, and its likely about 20 total for the lower levels, maybe six for the fire control level. That's not actually not that many considering the size and complexity of the weapon, mounting and support structure. After all, modern nuclear reactors are almost totally automated, yet each one can easily have several hundred people working to support it. Each HTL has its own reactor and massive power cells as well.

The guns may very well be totally automated though, but with these detachments as backups in case of computer damage or malfunction. Or a situation in which the system can't cope. A guy with a joystick and video feed to a camera alongside one barrel should always work.

Keep in mind even fully automated systems like AEGIS or even Phalanx can have a man or men in the loop.

[Sea Skimmer]

Genuine "all-battery" director control seems to be unexistant in many or most Imperial vessels. The gunnery officer is there to give verbal orders as to what the guns shoot at, but it would seem the guns all individually aim either on their own will or at the target the gunnery officer designated.

At best, it is a "follow-the-pointer" system (where the gunners altered elevation and azimuth manually to match a lit set of dials,) rather than anything like fully automated RPC.

The computer room isn't that big of a problem, though. The gun might be automated most of the time, but if they really want to change something, this really shows the complexity of the largest guns, for they seem to need so many crews to absorb all the data and handle all the knobs (or buttons, dials...etc) with sufficient efficiency.

You know the RN still has a man in its 115mm turrets, just to make sure everything in the automatic loading, firing and fire control system is working okay. Guess thats mean the RN still use follow the pointer as well.

[SPOOFE]

Let's see....

A few crewmen to do the targeting, and a few backup crewmen for those gunners... a commander to be in charge of the whole shebang, and a lieutenant or two to assist him.

A few dozen crewmen to monitor the heat dissipation, power relays, energy reserves, etc.

A few crewmen to monitor space, targetting, sensors.

And a few more men on hand to handle a crisis, in case there is one.

Seems like you'd get a pretty sizeable bunch for a single HTL battery. Say, about 25-30 men per turret, times 8 turrets... that's 200-240 men, just for the HTL operation. Not including maintenance and security workers. Factor in maybe another five or six men for each smaller turret, and you can get up to a thousand people working the guns alone (again, not counting maintenance or security workers). Each individual section of the ship would probably be designed to be almost completely self-sufficient... this redundant design pumps up the manpower requirement a lot.

Sure, they could just give a single guy a joystick and have him target everything... but he'd get overwhelmed by the amount of data he'd have to process. Realy combat isn't like Freespace or Wing Commander.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

"Follow-the-pointer" has nothing to do with how many people are in the particular turret, though of course you need at least one man for a follow-the-pointer system. It has to do with how the guns are coordinated onto a single point.

If you have RPC in your system, the turret crews are relatively uninvolved. The Gunnery Officer designates a target or aimpoint. Computer works out firing solution. All the guns are slewed automatically to the appropriate elevation and bearing. All the crews have to do until something goes wrong with the central control is basically push the FIRE button (or maybe the director would take over even that part,) and in a manually-loaded projectile gun, chamber the next round.

While the evidence is weak (I don't see anyone so far with much actual knowledge of their fire control,) I think the evidence slightly leans toward a less automated system.

In Isard's Revenge, page 107. Notice how they emphasize the "gunners." Not the "gunnery officer," but the "gunners." The gunners don't have any real say in a RPC system. The gunnery officer would set the aimpoints, and the guns would traverse to the appropriate elevation and azimuth to make the shot hit that point automatically. All the gunners can do is watch the instruments and the gun constantly fire away.

This pattern repeats in HTTE P. 394. Again, it is the "gun crews." If the RPC was up, the gunnery officer would be setting the aim point and the crew would have no credit.

Another example comes in Tyrant's Test P. 97. The gunnery master (apparently the equivalent of the gunnery officer) had to order his fire stations to attend, then had to give his targetting orders by mouth. In fact, it seems like the guns are under local control (another step down from follow-the-pointer,) since they have to "acquire tracking" all by themselves. If he had RPC, he'd just have designated his wanted aimpoints and assigned guns. The guns will traverse to the proper bearing and elevation. Then he had to order the firing manually, when part of the idea of the director is to synchronize the broadside automatically.

Does that sound weak? Yeah, I know. But I don't see us having a lot of information, and this is the conclusion I'm coming to based on what little I have. I'd love to hear counterevidence. Being pro-SW, there is little reason I won't like to hear that they do have a fully centralized, Aegis-like or better, automated fire control system. We know they can go manual if necessary, so more automation is not a bad thing

[Mr Bean]

How it works is simple, The Imperal Star Destroy is designed with backups in mind
If the Bridge is lost each HTL can easy switch over to fire control, Some of those fokes are probably sensor crew as well, givin what other redudances they have I would not be suprised if your typical HTL Crew can do everything the Bridge Can, However they are only in charge of their gun


Let me put it a better way

In your modern submarine to fire a Torpedo you need to feed information from both where the ship is, To where you are in realtion to that ship to what kind of weapon your using and what to set it to


In a Star Destroyer your avarage HTL has a Pair of Guys who are targeting the gun, One feeding Sensor info to them along with looking for weakspots to aim at, You have your Commander in contact with the bridge and keeping an eye on the show and your probably have one to four fokes looking over the HTL itself and ready to spring into action should it be damaged

[Sea Skimmer]

"Follow-the-pointer" has nothing to do with how many people are in the particular turret, though of course you need at least one man for a follow-the-pointer system. It has to do with how the guns are coordinated onto a single point.

If you have RPC in your system, the turret crews are relatively uninvolved. The Gunnery Officer designates a target or aimpoint. Computer works out firing solution. All the guns are slewed automatically to the appropriate elevation and bearing. All the crews have to do until something goes wrong with the central control is basically push the FIRE button (or maybe the director would take over even that part,) and in a manually-loaded projectile gun, chamber the next round.

While the evidence is weak (I don't see anyone so far with much actual knowledge of their fire control,) I think the evidence slightly leans toward a less automated system.

In Isard's Revenge, page 107. Notice how they emphasize the "gunners." Not the "gunnery officer," but the "gunners." The gunners don't have any real say in a RPC system. The gunnery officer would set the aimpoints, and the guns would traverse to the appropriate elevation and azimuth to make the shot hit that point automatically. All the gunners can do is watch the instruments and the gun constantly fire away.

This pattern repeats in HTTE P. 394. Again, it is the "gun crews." If the RPC was up, the gunnery officer would be setting the aim point and the crew would have no credit.

Another example comes in Tyrant's Test P. 97. The gunnery master (apparently the equivalent of the gunnery officer) had to order his fire stations to attend, then had to give his targetting orders by mouth. In fact, it seems like the guns are under local control (another step down from follow-the-pointer,) since they have to "acquire tracking" all by themselves. If he had RPC, he'd just have designated his wanted aimpoints and assigned guns. The guns will traverse to the proper bearing and elevation. Then he had to order the firing manually, when part of the idea of the director is to synchronize the broadside automatically.

Does that sound weak? Yeah, I know. But I don't see us having a lot of information, and this is the conclusion I'm coming to based on what little I have. I'd love to hear counterevidence. Being pro-SW, there is little reason I won't like to hear that they do have a fully centralized, Aegis-like or better, automated fire control system. We know they can go manual if necessary, so more automation is not a bad thing

They can hit 10% C fighters in combat. No way in fuck a human is going to do that, human gunners can't even hit aircraft going beyond mach 1.

[Darth Wong]

In Isard's Revenge, page 107. Notice how they emphasize the "gunners." Not the "gunnery officer," but the "gunners."

Let me get this straight: your whole position is based on the semantic use of the word "gunner" instead of "gunnery officer?"

What the fuck have you been smoking? The goddamned three-man Gian landspeeder in TPM had a computer-controlled gun, and you're trying to seriously argue that monster warships don't?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

You two are not even thinking in the correct direction.

You guys are saying "They have fire control computers inside and they can hit very high relative velocity targets, therefore, they must be on centralized director control."

No, all that means is that they have fire control computers and sensors to assist their targetting (a fact I never contested.)

Local control merely means that each gun or turret does its aiming (either by eye or by sensor) and firing independently. The individual turrets or guns can have the best gun control (sensor and fire control) suite in the known universe, but if they do their targetting independently, they're on local control.

Director control means that there is one great big centralized gun control suite controlling the lay of all the guns from one central location and synchronizes their shooting into broadsides. Even a WWI follow-the-pointer system with visual sighting only is director control.

Local control is not necessarily bad. It is better to use director control in our world because in general, the great big centralized gun control system would have a better suite than can be fitted into the individual turrets. For instance, most directors in WWII have bigger and thus more accurate rangefinders than the turret rangefinders, and so their solution is more accurate.

But different pressures might apply in the SW world. For instance, perhaps more separate sensor suites from dozens of locally-controlled guns locking onto the same target might overload the ability of the enemy ECM to fool them all, and thus some guns would be locking onto the real target rather than ECM produced phantoms. Again, don't be so repulsive that and leap from local control = primitive. All I've said is that they used local control. Not anything more.

And my Lord, I am more aware than you may think that this is a semantics argument. You are right, it may not mean anything at all. But IF it does mean anything, I believe it tends towards my interpretation.

I've also said I'll love to hear concrete evidence. A nice fire-control layout diagram explaining how their fire control works is a great treasure. But we don't have that. But all I've got are slight hints in their diction choices and circumstantial evidence, and am doing the best with them.

[Sea Skimmer]

You two are not even thinking in the correct direction.

Snip unnecessary crap. Shut up Kaz. I'm aware if anything you are likely to know about fire control. What you clearly don't know is that you can have an central control system, and still have weapons acting independently against many targets or different parts of a target. An AEGIS equipped warship is an ideal example of this.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Come on, give me a little benefit of the doubt. I'm sure most Aegis systems can shift over to local fire control. They can do that in WWII.

You can know everything there is to know about fire control in warships throughout all of history, but I believe our misunderstanding is that you are not using the right "part" of your immense knowledge bank.

Your argument is flawed. Your argument is "The fact they have local fire control does not mean they can't do centralized fire control! They can do both."

Problem: Come on, give me evidence of automated centralized fire control. My evidence is not that strong, though it is still better than what you put so far (nothing.) I want to hear news that they do have automated, CENTRALIZED fire control.

Tell me this, if Aegis detects two inbound missiles, what would it do? I doubt the response would be to say "All VLS stations, attend! Forward VLS, acquire tracking and target port missile. Aft VLS, target starboard missile. Guns and CIWS, rig for antimissile warfare and stand by!"

Then most embarassingly of all, "Forward launcher fire! Aft launcher fire!"

But that's effectively what they're doing in Tyrant's Test.

[Darth Wong]

Problem: Come on, give me evidence of automated centralized fire control.

Zahn trilogy. Mara shuts down the Chimaera's central computer, thus reducing their targeting accuracy. Gunners can still fire independently on local control, but the loss of centralized co-ordination allows her to get away safely.

[Sea Skimmer]

Come on, give me a little benefit of the doubt. I'm sure most Aegis systems can shift over to local fire control. They can do that in WWII.

You can know everything there is to know about fire control in warships throughout all of history, but I believe our misunderstanding is that you are not using the right "part" of your immense knowledge bank.

Your argument is flawed. Your argument is "The fact they have local fire control does not mean they can't do centralized fire control! They can do both."

Problem: Come on, give me evidence of automated centralized fire control. My evidence is not that strong, though it is still better than what you put so far (nothing.) I want to hear news that they do have automated, CENTRALIZED fire control.

Tell me this, if Aegis detects two inbound missiles, what would it do? I doubt the response would be to say "All VLS stations, attend! Forward VLS, acquire tracking and target port missile. Aft VLS, target starboard missile. Guns and CIWS, rig for antimissile warfare and stand by!"

Then most embarassingly of all, "Forward launcher fire! Aft launcher fire!"

But that's effectively what they're doing in Tyrant's Test.

WTF?

The commander gives order to fire specific numbers of anti ship missiles. That’s exactly what's done on any modern warship. There are no order to the anti missile mounts, they just fire at will as AGEIS in automatic mode would. The two other orders, switching guns to shoot at fighters, and ordering them to target a specific point are both tactical choices that would be made by any vessels commander and not an automatic system today.

The ships fight just like modern ones would. If this is what your tiring to use as evidence you clearly are delusional.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I could have suggested that ... oh, screw it, I want an automated centralized director controlled system as much as you two do. Conceded.

[Sea Skimmer]

I could have suggested that ... oh, screw it, I want an automated centralized director controlled system as much as you two do. Conceded.

Concession accepted fool. Arguments based off semantic's and one example which proves the opposite of what you want don't stand much of a chance.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Wong provided evidence needed to suggest a centralized fire control system. So that's fine, but let's argue the point anyway, Sea Skimmer.

In an antiship scenario, YES, the Captain may order the commitment of X Harpoon missiles on a particular target. BUT, I doubt you'd see the TAO bark into his interphone for individual missile handling teams to acquire the target themselves and try to target it. Then scream at the individual crews to fire.

Rather, he's probably going to designate a blip, assign missiles in the comfort of his seat (possibly with the help of a dedicated tech in the CIC) and launch them, all in the comfort of the CIC.

There are no other threats than the vagabond in the Tyrant's Test scenario.

Concentration of fire is wise, YES. The Captain should order such a tactic, or just leave it to the judgment of the gunnery master. What is not so great is that the Gunnery Master had to order individual gunners to concentrate verbally, rather than doing it on the bridge at his station.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Concession accepted fool. Arguments based off semantic's and one example which proves the opposite of what you want don't stand much of a chance.

Just one thing, Sea Skimmer. Right or wrong, I don't want them to be stuck on local control. Just that I feel the three pieces of evidence I see tend to support that conclusion IMO. Get that straight, please.

[Ender]

More evidence for central control: In Darksaber Dalaa has the gunnery controls for an Ion cannon shifted over to her. Same thing with the captain of the Luysanka in Rebel Lines 1

[Sea Skimmer]

Wong provided evidence needed to suggest a centralized fire control system. So that's fine, but let's argue the point anyway, Sea Skimmer.

In an antiship scenario, YES, the Captain may order the commitment of X Harpoon missiles on a particular target. BUT, I doubt you'd see the TAO bark into his interphone for individual missile handling teams to acquire the target themselves and try to target it. Then scream at the individual crews to fire.

Rather, he's probably going to designate a blip, assign missiles in the comfort of his seat (possibly with the help of a dedicated tech in the CIC) and launch them, all in the comfort of the CIC.

Actually you will. The orders to lock on, and then fire will all be given verbally to subordinates. Generally the commander and top officers in the CIC stand so they can move from station to station and best view the plot board.