Imperial Anti Fighter weapons a joke, but why?!

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2004-01-27 01:18am

I was thinking tonight, why the heck does the Empire have LTL's for anti fighter weaponary.

They are purely overkill as they are in the megaton range (what is the exact strength now a days for LTL, MTL, HTL,)
and the shield strength on the rebel fighters or any other fight that has seemed to crop up in that galaxy is kiloton range.

The battle of Yavin is a great example of why LTL's don't work well vs starfighters. In an area no larger than maybe a small apartment building, not a single Xwing/Ywing was hit in the trench. Jamming could have been part of that, but that is regular military doctrine in that universe so why would they continue to use something so rediculously ineffective.

Endor is another great example, those rebel ships were dancing all over the place,

So why does the Empire not produce guided proton torpedo's? Not tracking via radar signature, because of the jamming but just visual?

We know Proton torpedo's can turn at rediculous angles, so nothing is going to get away from them. And it will be a lot cheaper than losing two deathstars because of their inability to shootdown fighters.

yes it looks cool, and that is the 'real' reason, but if we use suspension of disbelief,

what could a reason be.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-27 02:19am

Proton torpedoes would be damned expensive, especially on the scale of a Death Star. Laser cannons are far more practical, just a slight power depletion which is instantly replenished. Now, why didn't the Empire employ laser cannons in the Death Star trench and bordering the gaping holes in the Death Star II? That I don't know, but I suppose you could chalk it up to arrogance, which is an Imperial SOP. Remember starfighters weren't supposed to be any threat whatsoever to the Death Star, especially the DSII. The turbolasers are for enemy capships that somehow make it beyond the superlaser's minimum firing range (that and the first DS took a much longer time to recharge). The Death Star II just wasn't finished, and the shield was never supposed to be down during an attack.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 02:22am

Now, why didn't the Empire employ laser cannons in the Death Star trench and bordering the gaping holes in the Death Star II?

The did employ them as much as they could in the trench on the Death Star. And the fact is that only a Jedi using the force made the shot so it wasn't like they overlooked some monstorous vulnerability.

The Death Star II didn't need guns since the shield protecting it never should have been brought down.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-27 02:29am

Shaidar Haran wrote:The did employ them as much as they could in the trench on the Death Star.

Those were turbolasers. There's a difference. Turbolasers are the big ship to ship guns. Too slow and inaccurate to be effective against starfighters.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 02:40am

Lazy Raptor wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:The did employ them as much as they could in the trench on the Death Star.
Those were turbolasers. There's a difference. Turbolasers are the big ship to ship guns. Too slow and inaccurate to be effective against starfighters.

Isn't the difference primarily simply in name? But either way, there was no good reason to expect them to need it in the trench.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-27 02:47am

Shaidar Haran wrote:Isn't the difference primarily simply in name? But either way, there was no good reason to expect them to need it in the trench.

No, laser cannons are weaker, more accurate and generally have a greater rate of fire. Of course there wasn't supposed to be a need for them, but covering your ass against unkowns is good military strategy. To take down starfighters, you need other starfighters or capships with laser cannons. Like the Lancer class frigates.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 02:51am

Lazy Raptor wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:Isn't the difference primarily simply in name? But either way, there was no good reason to expect them to need it in the trench.
No, laser cannons are weaker, more accurate and generally have a greater rate of fire. Of course there wasn't supposed to be a need for them, but covering your ass against unkowns is good military strategy. To take down starfighters, you need other starfighters or capships with laser cannons. Like the Lancer class frigates.

Why build in laser cannons in a totally unnecessary place? Especially since the DS1 could have launched enough fighters to smother any opposition.

No naval designer protects against absurd what if when there are real challenges to address.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-27 02:58am

Shaidar Haran wrote:Why build in laser cannons in a totally unnecessary place? Especially since the DS1 could have launched enough fighters to smother any opposition.

No naval designer protects against absurd what if when there are real challenges to address.

Better yet, why build so many friggin' turbolaser batteries? There's no way the Alliance could have fielded so many capships. Even if they could, they wouldn't. In the case of the DSI, it's excusable because they didn't know about the weakness, but the DSII had giant gaping holes in the hull. That should have had anti-starfighter defenses of some kind. But neither Palpatine nor Tarkin were known for their stunning military brilliance.

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2004-01-27 02:59am

Shaidar Haran wrote:
Lazy Raptor wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:Isn't the difference primarily simply in name? But either way, there was no good reason to expect them to need it in the trench.
No, laser cannons are weaker, more accurate and generally have a greater rate of fire. Of course there wasn't supposed to be a need for them, but covering your ass against unkowns is good military strategy. To take down starfighters, you need other starfighters or capships with laser cannons. Like the Lancer class frigates.
Why build in laser cannons in a totally unnecessary place? Especially since the DS1 could have launched enough fighters to smother any opposition.

No naval designer protects against absurd what if when there are real challenges to address.

How many times have we seen fighters running around causing huge problems, all that avoided with a different anti fighter system.

Imagine a Nimitz Fleet that could laugh as many fighters as they wanted, but as soon as a missle or enemy fighter got past the fighter defence, you coudln't shoot down the missle or the fighter?

thats rediculous

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-27 03:01am

Dude, how does someone with 56 posts have a custom title?

Okay, on topic. Quite frankly, Imperial designers are stupid when it comes to starfighters. They depend upon the swarms of TIE fighters (and later Lancer frigates) to get the job done, figuring that the capital ships won't have to deal with it. Unfortunately for them, they're wrong. *Shrug* I don't have any evidence that that's the Imperial design philosophy other than seeing that kind of design on screen. So I know what they do, but not why. This is only the most reasonable why I could come up with. So don't take this as any kind of definitive answer.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-01-27 03:28am

Lazy Raptor wrote: Better yet, why build so many friggin' turbolaser batteries? There's no way the Alliance could have fielded so many capships. Even if they could, they wouldn't.

Because when building an ultimate weapon, its best to do it right. That means a lot of guns.

Lazy Raptor wrote:but the DSII had giant gaping holes in the hull.

Only because it was not completed.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:31am

Lazy Raptor wrote:Better yet, why build so many friggin' turbolaser batteries? There's no way the Alliance could have fielded so many capships. Even if they could, they wouldn't.

Because the naval tacticians and designers were only capable of concieving of a cap ship attack? And realistically, it's the only thing that offers a realistic threat.

Lazy Raptor wrote:In the case of the DSI, it's excusable because they didn't know about the weakness, but the DSII had giant gaping holes in the hull. That should have had anti-starfighter defenses of some kind. But neither Palpatine nor Tarkin were known for their stunning military brilliance.

They did, it was that big freaking shield thingee.

Omega-13 wrote:How many times have we seen fighters running around causing huge problems, all that avoided with a different anti fighter system.

Imagine a Nimitz Fleet that could laugh as many fighters as they wanted, but as soon as a missle or enemy fighter got past the fighter defence, you coudln't shoot down the missle or the fighter?

thats rediculous

Actually, the DS situation is more analagous to a Nimitz not launching fighters and then wonder why it's CIWS isn't enough.

The fact is the most effective fighter defense is not gun, but fighters of their own. And the DS carried more fighters than an concievable threat so why worry about protecting something that wasn't vulnerable? The presumably did have any fighter guns around docking bay and such.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:31am

Rogue 9 wrote:Dude, how does someone with 56 posts have a custom title?

Wouldn't you like to know.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-27 03:32am

Yes, I would, given that I've accumulated what may be a record number of posts per time here. Man, I didn't realize I'd broken a thousand until a minute ago.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-27 03:33am

Rogue 9 wrote:Yes, I would, given that I've accumulated what may be a record number of posts per time here. Man, I didn't realize I'd broken a thousand until a minute ago.

It's called status.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-27 03:38am

Dang. Oh well, back to the Empire's pitiful antistarfighter guns.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:41am

Rogue 9 wrote:Yes, I would, given that I've accumulated what may be a record number of posts per time here. Man, I didn't realize I'd broken a thousand until a minute ago.

Well, too bad. I'm not telling.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-27 03:46am

The Empire's tendancy to overlook starfighters is damned stupid when you think about it. Most of the damage sustained during the GCW was from hit-and-fade strikes by hyperdrive equiped Rebel fighters. Of course the DS had adequate starfighter defenses, as did the DSII. Both were lost to the sheer arrogance and stupidity of the leadership. The DSI was lost because Tarkin didn't deploy his TIEs, the DSII was lost because it was played as a piece in Palpatine's stupid galactic board game.

Shaidar Haran wrote:Well, too bad. I'm not telling.

What if we guess correctly?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-27 03:48am

Probably something to do with the avatar.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:49am

Lazy Raptor wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:Well, too bad. I'm not telling.
What if we guess correctly?

Go ahead.

Rogue 9 wrote:Probably something to do with the avatar.

Well, the title is part of a theme.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-27 03:52am

Lazy Raptor wrote:The Empire's tendancy to overlook starfighters is damned stupid when you think about it. Most of the damage sustained during the GCW was from hit-and-fade strikes by hyperdrive equiped Rebel fighters.

It is most likely that the Empire was optimized to fight against its primary competitors from the last war. It is not a secret that the world's military forces tend to equip themselves to fight the last war in real life.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-27 03:54am

Waaaaaiiittttt... Its coming to me... Wheel of Time! Shaidar Haran means Hand of the Dark. Nae'blis is the right hand of Satan or something.

Google is my friend.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-01-27 03:56am

Shaidar Haran wrote:
Lazy Raptor wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:Well, too bad. I'm not telling.
What if we guess correctly?
Go ahead.

You are:

1. A Mod/Admin's auxillary account
2. Relative of a Mod/Admin
3. Friend of a Mod/Admin

Now which one...

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-27 03:58am

Yo, lazy dinosaur, look up.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:59am

Rogue 9 wrote:Waaaaaiiittttt... Its coming to me... Wheel of Time! Shaidar Haran means Hand of the Dark. Nae'blis is the right hand of Satan or something.

Google is my friend.

Yes, it does. Though Nae'blis is actually not what the Forsaken think it means. It's supposedly the Dark One's regent on Earth, but in reality is the last one to die as the Dark One breaks free.