StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bombard fleets contain an average of 416 vessels, 2-4 bombard forces,
and 2-4 escort forces. Assigned to sectors where the empire has determined the possibility of repressing the Rebellion is less then even. System bombards are used when the Empire would rather destroy a world then see it fall into rebel hands.

So, first off, how many ships? Assuming 4 bombard forces, thats 400 ships and 48 torpedoe spheres, I'll treat a torp sphere as I would an ISD2 and assume the ships are ISD2's also.

There are other lighter elements to this, but I do not think they will matter much in the actual bombarding, so I ignore them.

Anyway, we'll require around 1e31 joules here(we don't really require the debris to scatter at more than escape velocity, 1e31j will disrupt a planetary mass just fine), spread over 448 ships thats 2,2e28j per ship.

Assuming fire this over a course of one day, that means each ship will have to put out 1e24j per second, divide that amongst the heavy guns(assuming they can fire once everyother second) and we have 8e21j per heavy weapon, or ~2TT per HTL barrel on an ISD2, not an unreasonable estimate I think.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Bombard fleets contain an average of 416 vessels, 2-4 bombard forces,
and 2-4 escort forces. Assigned to sectors where the empire has determined the possibility of repressing the Rebellion is less then even. System bombards are used when the Empire would rather destroy a world then see it fall into rebel hands.

So, first off, how many ships? Assuming 4 bombard forces, thats 400 ships and 48 torpedoe spheres, I'll treat a torp sphere as I would an ISD2 and assume the ships are ISD2's also.

There are other lighter elements to this, but I do not think they will matter much in the actual bombarding, so I ignore them.

Anyway, we'll require around 1e31 joules here(we don't really require the debris to scatter at more than escape velocity, 1e31j will disrupt a planetary mass just fine), spread over 448 ships thats 2,2e28j per ship.

Assuming fire this over a course of one day, that means each ship will have to put out 1e24j per second, divide that amongst the heavy guns(assuming they can fire once everyother second) and we have 8e21j per heavy weapon, or ~2TT per HTL barrel on an ISD2, not an unreasonable estimate I think.

Won't this refer more to a BDZ than a DS type attack?Although it might be possible,considering that the Technical Journal lists a Star Destroyer as capable of leaving a planet surface in smoking debris in a matter of hours.

PainRack wrote:Won't this refer more to a BDZ than a DS type attack?Although it might be possible,considering that the Technical Journal lists a Star Destroyer as capable of leaving a planet surface in smoking debris in a matter of hours.

Well a single ISD can do a BDZ in a short time, they got over 400 ships here, not including escorts and such, I think they're planning to do a bit more than an instant BDZ.
Anyway, I recognize it's quite assumptious, but it's interesting to know that such a bombard fleet could likely shatter a planet in a day or two, without really giving them figures that aren't higher than what scaling estimates have said.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Bombard fleets contain an average of 416 vessels, 2-4 bombard forces,
and 2-4 escort forces. Assigned to sectors where the empire has determined the possibility of repressing the Rebellion is less then even. System bombards are used when the Empire would rather destroy a world then see it fall into rebel hands.

So, first off, how many ships? Assuming 4 bombard forces, thats 400 ships and 48 torpedoe spheres, I'll treat a torp sphere as I would an ISD2 and assume the ships are ISD2's also.

There are other lighter elements to this, but I do not think they will matter much in the actual bombarding, so I ignore them.

Anyway, we'll require around 1e31 joules here(we don't really require the debris to scatter at more than escape velocity, 1e31j will disrupt a planetary mass just fine), spread over 448 ships thats 2,2e28j per ship.

Assuming fire this over a course of one day, that means each ship will have to put out 1e24j per second, divide that amongst the heavy guns(assuming they can fire once everyother second) and we have 8e21j per heavy weapon, or ~2TT per HTL barrel on an ISD2, not an unreasonable estimate I think.

System bombards, IIRC are a separate unit (and a smaller one) than Bombard fleets

I am not able to find any such mentions, and it seems to me that it's reffering to the act of bombarding by the fleet as a system bombard to me.

Its part of the Systems Force listing under Organization of the Navy. System bombards contain an average of 100 ships divided between 3 bombard squadrons and a light squadron. Bombard squadronds have two torpedo lines, a skirmish line, and a pursuit line for around 20-28 vessels.

Light suqadrons consist of at least two attack lines, a skirmish line, and a recon line - averaging 20-30 vessels.

Torpedo lines consist of 2 torpedo spheres (or their equivalent)

Skrimish lines have 4-20 small combat starships, u sually corvettes.

Recon lines contain 2-4 ships, usually fast light cruisers tradnig half their weapons for increased sensor capability.

Pursuit lines have 4-10 ships, usually light cruisers or corvettes.

Attack lines have 3-6 ships, fewer if the line consists of heavy cruisers or larger ships, six if the line consists of light cruisers or frigates.

Why use a bombard-fleet to destroy a planet?

A single ISD can do the same with a BDZ, making the planet totally useless in perhaps less than an hour.

And if the planet is shielded you need a new calculation.

To totally break it up. Why did the Empire make a Death Star when it could BDZ (beyond shielded worlds, that is).

Illuminatus Primus wrote:To totally break it up. Why did the Empire make a Death Star when it could BDZ (beyond shielded worlds, that is).

Why do that?The Death Star was a symbol for Imperial might,akin to the nuclear subs of now.It carries within it a superlaser,a WMD,that makes irrelevent any attempt at defending oneself against the weapon.It is the ultimate detterent as envisaged by its designers,as no fleet could hope to take on such an opponent.

However,in this case,a BDZ just seems to serve the same stragetic,tactical purpose as breaking up a planet will do.

I'm more leaning towards this being a task force out to conduct a BDZ campaign.One intended to BDZ every single shielded,well defended world an enemy has.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:To totally break it up. Why did the Empire make a Death Star when it could BDZ (beyond shielded worlds, that is).

Maybe because (if you did the math for the System bombard force) you'd note it would require some TWELVE torpedo spheres. (2 Spheres per Torpedo line, two lines per squadron, 3 squadrons per system Force = 12.) And they only have SIX torpedo spheres so far, if they even bother to make any more.

EDIT: Additionally, consider the concentration of forces required to accomplish a System Bombard. It can take time and coordination to assemble those scattered forces. A Death Star is a much more simplified platform (you have everything required in a single, impregnable shell)

I figure that once t he Executor class ( or maybe just the 8/12.8 km "Super Star Destroyer" that gets mistaken as an Executor-class) was in production, they stopped making Torpedo spheres because the Executors were already a comparable vessel. This suggests that its probable a System Bombard employs Movie Executor class or EU Super Star Destroyers (8/12.8 km) rather than the Torpedo Spheres. So the firepower output probably applies more to Executor classes than to any other ship (since most of the rest o fthe ships in the System Bombard are corvette/Frigate/light cruiser classes - IE Escorts.)

To back this up:

The Imperial Sourcebook wrote: Housed within the shell of a Torpedo Sphere, the two-wave gravshock - or planetbuster - is designed to do terrible damage on a near-planetary scale.

By localizing a planet’s gravity, the gravshock waves can simulate earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters. Unfortunately, time and power make this weapon somewhat impractical on the everyday scale. The Super-class Star Destroyer, for example, is the only ship with engines powerful enough to pump the massive amounts of energy necessary for a full planetary disruption, but it has no need of such a weapon considering the armaments it packs.

The localization effect of the gravwave is not without problems either. As a planet’s gravitational field is altered, any vessels navigating in near-space (including the attacker) are subject to rapid and unpredictable orbital shifts.

However, successful tests make this ordnance worth exploring. Crushing cities in upon themselves, shaking them to pieces, redirecting waterways to make the most of their destructive power, the gravshock device is worthy of Imperial thinking and use.

One new concept for the gravshock technology involves asteroid mining and surveying. Imperial engineers theorize that by studying the effects of a weak gravwave attack on a small body, like a moon or asteroid, they can learn information about its interior. Thus, the weapon can be used to find important ores and metals for making even more weapons.

Also consider that in Before the Storm, 3 Executor/Super class and around two-score or more ISDs and VSDs were considered enough firepower to overwhelm a planetary defense (including shields) - which included Coruscant I believe.

The comparison of the Executor class to the Torpedo sphere can also explain how the Lusankya escaped Coruscant in the Krytos trap - Isard would know of (or have been able to create) weaknesses in the Corucant planetary shield that she could direct fire against in order to create an escape window.

Those 400 some ships are basically applying DS-level firepower into a planet over the course of a long period of time, right? Wouldn't that mean that portions of the planet that get stripped away will simply fuse together again out of gravity?

PainRack wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:To totally break it up. Why did the Empire make a Death Star when it could BDZ (beyond shielded worlds, that is).

Why do that?The Death Star was a symbol for Imperial might,akin to the nuclear subs of now.It carries within it a superlaser,a WMD,that makes irrelevent any attempt at defending oneself against the weapon.It is the ultimate detterent as envisaged by its designers,as no fleet could hope to take on such an opponent.

However,in this case,a BDZ just seems to serve the same stragetic,tactical purpose as breaking up a planet will do.

I'm more leaning towards this being a task force out to conduct a BDZ campaign.One intended to BDZ every single shielded,well defended world an enemy has.

*shrug*

From this and other discussions with HDS I believed he was projecting it as a bound a world to rubble description for destroying planets; I was speaking from the presumption. Am I wrong, HDS?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:To totally break it up. Why did the Empire make a Death Star when it could BDZ (beyond shielded worlds, that is).

Because a 160/900 km DeathStar turning a habitable planet to rubble in a matter of milli-seconds is much more impressing, than more than 400 ships doing the same in the timeframe of an entire day.

But i suspect you already knew that.

Besides that i don´t believe, that the TS were to be replaced by the Executors. 5 ISDs and 1 Executor weren´t able to destroy the shields of the rebels in TESB.

However, given the fact, that Commandships of the Eclipse- or Sovereign-Class were probabely already in the making (at least as blueprints) i think, that those were intended to replace the TS, as well as the Executors.

Both designs are superior to an Executor by having a superlaser and gravity-well-projectors. Because of this we also have a possible explenation, why only 10 (?) were buildt before Endor despite the empires ability to build a lot more during that time.

Well, yes, I did. But I don't think many would argue that it would've cost less to do what the Death Star does in a smaller but less impressive package.

AFAICT, the Executor-class Star Destroyer is no match for a Torpedo Sphere. When Grand Admiral Pitta obtained a TS and used it to defend the planet Talus from Grand Admiral Grunger's entire fleet--30 ISDs and VSDs, 60 strike crusiers, and 100 Carracks, plus the ECS Aggressor--he was actually winning, against ALL of those fleet elements, until Grunger rammed the Aggressor into Pitta's sphere killing them both.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:AFAICT, the Executor-class Star Destroyer is no match for a Torpedo Sphere. When Grand Admiral Pitta obtained a TS and used it to defend the planet Talus from Grand Admiral Grunger's entire fleet--30 ISDs and VSDs, 60 strike crusiers, and 100 Carracks, plus the ECS Aggressor--he was actually winning, against ALL of those fleet elements, until Grunger rammed the Aggressor into Pitta's sphere killing them both.

Holy shit. Is that from Gamer?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Holy shit. Is that from Gamer?

Star Wars Insider "Who's who: Imperial Grand Admirals".

PainRack wrote:Why do that? The Death Star was a symbol for Imperial might,akin to the nuclear subs of now.

I think aircraft carriers are the symbol of might today, not nuclear submarines.

[quote="Illuminatus Primus]From this and other discussions with HDS I believed he was projecting it as a bound a world to rubble description for destroying planets; I was speaking from the presumption. Am I wrong, HDS?[/quote]

I was trying to show that it's within the abilities of the empire to destroy planets without the use of a deathstar, consequently, the firepower requirements aren't above what is most commonly accepted firepower wise.

I've heard that the Agressor is acutally an SSD.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Well, yes, I did. But I don't think many would argue that it would've cost less to do what the Death Star does in a smaller but less impressive package.

You´d be right, if the destruction of planets was its only purpuse. But the DS was also a psychological weapon and intended as such (Tarkin Doctrin, his letter to Palpatine in the ISB).

DS and all/most of the other superweapons are the SW-equivalent of strategic weapons, more useful if there is no need to use them, because everybody is afraid of what they would do.

Concerning the costs, why needed USA and UDSSR several hundred, if not thousand times the ability to destroy the surface of earth, if once would have been enough?

Do we know, that Pitta had only one Torpedo-Sphere and not other forces comparable to those of Grunger? Seems a little questionable to me.

FTeik wrote:Concerning the costs, why needed USA and UDSSR several hundred, if not thousand times the ability to destroy the surface of earth, if once would have been enough?

Because they never could and you're repeating media exaggerated bullshit.

Even the three billion in the Terminator series is vastly exaggerated (by an order of magnitude IIRC).

And Thrawn's style of using relatively small threats (if assessed logically) that had far more historical and emotional feelings among the populace, like cloning, and the Dark Force, and the blockade of Coruscant. Much of his campiagn, at least in my opinion, more effective than the Death Star. His psyops was extremely carefully orchestrated victories and acquisitions to strike fear and to make him seem far more dangerous than a couple tens of thousands of clone cylinders, and two hundred picket ships (by KDY standards) would make you think so, because of their infamy.

FTeik wrote: Concerning the costs, why needed USA and UDSSR several hundred, if not thousand times the ability to destroy the surface of earth, if once would have been enough?

....



BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, thank you, i wasn´t talking about BDZ-level destruction.

And with more than 30,000 nuclear warheads like in 1966 you can still cause a lot of damage.

FTeik wrote:Oh, thank you, i wasn´t talking about BDZ-level destruction.

And with more than 30,000 nuclear warheads like in 1966 you can still cause a lot of damage.

An honest mistake. I myself believed that crap until I saw the real estimates elsewhere.