something about blasters (couldn't think of a better title)

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-04-21 04:38pm

Covenant wrote:No reason to consider it suspect behavior, I was merely trying to find some common ground, since it's the bizzare, difficult-to-quantify nature of turbolasers that allows for the large variety of interpertation and speculation as to how one can reconcile their onscreen performance and their otherwise stated nature.

Of course, we already know this, so I'm not really sure why you keep repeating it.

The problem with that position is the difficulty in determining whether the effect was intentional or not. Or, if it was intentional, why it was done that way. Damage-before-impact, for example, appears in several times in both the original and prequel trilogies. Either there is a reason the visual effects team did it that way, or the error is easy to make even when the effects are computer-generated.

Covenant wrote:For the purposes of discussing the effects they seem to have in movies, therefore, you need to take them all literally or all not.

There's also the concept of outliers. If an effect that totally flies in the face of all the other established evidence (and cannot be rationalized), but it only occurs once, then one could label it as an outlier (basically considered a measurement error). In order for this approach to be consistent, if the effect occurs several times then it cannot be considered an outlier and must be addressed.

Such an approach wouldn't necessarily differentiate between visual effects errors and intentional effects, however.

Most of the strange effects with turbolaser behavior occur more than once, however, so such an approach likely wouldn't be very effective when dealing with turbolasers.

If the "visible portion slower than real portion" effect consistantly holds throughout a DVD or Film copy of the newer movies and special edition originals, then it's still canon enough to merit debate. If it's been removed as an artifact of ILM's imperfect syncing system (or done intentionally for various practical reasons not germane to the discussion) then going back and re-analyzing it might be in order. It would be a retcon.

It does consistently appear throughout the movies, including the prequels. However, that irrelevant, as simply occuring throughout the original trilogy is enough to prevent it from being an outlier and thus something that must be rationalized.

One possible rationalization -- if the effect did not occur repeatedly in the prequels -- could be that the commonly-used weapons in each era are somewhat different.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-04-21 05:57pm

Dude, I said it, like, once and then once more to rephrase it. If we stop talking about it, I won't ever have to say it again! Heh! I apologize for ever saying it though, if this'll break the chain of repetition.

I'm fully aware of outliers and inconsistancies and the means with which you rationalize them. I'm just not taking turbolasers very seriously, and making no attempt to redefine them, I was only making up an example of their possible function based on something I was pulling out of thin air. I willfully ignored the established accepted science for the purpose of an interesting spin on their mechanics, that's all! Don't give it more thought than it deserves.

But since you responded to that older post, how about the bottom of my newest one? I wanted to know if aside from the need to rationalize the consistant observations there was any need to have them operate this way. As in, are there other canon materials that depend on the burn-before-hit model of blaster/turbolaser mechanics, or is this technical commentary useful only for analyzing these specific instances?

I'm not on these boards to seriously debate the science, since I assume any debate's been done enough by now, but if there's a reason besides film evidence that this is an important part of the fiction, I'd be interested in it.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-04-21 10:35pm

Covenant wrote:I'm fully aware of outliers and inconsistancies and the means with which you rationalize them. I'm just not taking turbolasers very seriously, and making no attempt to redefine them, I was only making up an example of their possible function based on something I was pulling out of thin air. I willfully ignored the established accepted science for the purpose of an interesting spin on their mechanics, that's all! Don't give it more thought than it deserves.

Why plasma? There's no reason for it to be plasma based on what we see in the movies. The fiction/story certainly doesn't depend on the turbolasers being made of plasma. And there's certainly no scientific reason for it.

And if you're intentionally throwing out accepted science, then why can't you just claim the bolts are made of pixie-slime or are manifestations of the Force in your idea?

And nobody here has been giving your concept much thought. If someone had, he or she would have torn it apart sentence by sentence.

But since you responded to that older post, how about the bottom of my newest one? I wanted to know if aside from the need to rationalize the consistant observations there was any need to have them operate this way. As in, are there other canon materials that depend on the burn-before-hit model of blaster/turbolaser mechanics, or is this technical commentary useful only for analyzing these specific instances?

Nothing in the story, if that's what you're asking. There are a number of printed sources that refer to turbolaser behavior that is consistent with an invisible and/or lightspeed beam, however.

I'm not seeing how your question isn't a huge red herring, though. If we write off all instances of damage-before-impact throughout both the original and prequel trilogies, and use a completely subjective analysis method to throw out whatever we find to be visual effects errors (e.g. anything we can't explain with our pet theory), then we have a pet theory that can't be disproven!

But it's useless.

So what's the point?

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-04-22 05:30am

It's not a theory. I have no theories. I don't care how they work! It's not important to me! It's obviously important to you, so why don't you just ignore it? I've got other reasons to be here than to debate people, so don't make this into an arguement, since there's nothing to argue about.

And my comment's not a red herring, it's an attempt to move on. I accept the Wong articles as the truest nature of a TL, for what it's worth, and I said I liked yours too when you posted it. It'd be a red herring if I could somehow 'win' a debate I've never even entered by getting you to say that nobody else references a FTL invisible beam being the damage-carrying element. I never tried to argue otherwise, and I never made a move to defend my own idea. My question was just because I never heard of this outside of the SW vs ST debate and I wanted to know if, as a casual-at-best purveyor of Star Wars material, I should care more.

Do you want an engraved apology for ever making up a bizzare nonsensical theory about how turbolasers work for my own amusement? I'm not sure when it'll arrive, but many bothans will die delivering it to you. I don't need to defend my idea to you--I don't need to defend it to anyone--it's not a theory! I don't believe it either! Is that clear enough?

I really don't want to get any further into this on the boards since it's even less important than the original post I made, which now I sincerely regret ever making. When I ever make a statement I believe enough to defend, I'll be sure to tell you, and we can fight over that.

If you have a morbid interest in carrying this on any further, just send me a PM, I'll be cordial to you. But really man, like you said, it might as well have been pixie dust I said. I made a post on the ST with the same level of seriousness in which I claim that the Whales are in fact puppetmasters controlling the federation, and that the Whale and Dolphin Tanks on the Enterprise and other flagships are used so aid them in their domination of space. If you want to go blow holes in that too, be my guest, I don't really believe that either. ;p

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-04-22 06:57am

There's however one problem that always arises when TLs are accepted as correctable, controlled and indiscrete C-beams - the fact that they miss an awful lot. And sometimes they miss targets which are almost stationary. Although that could be written off to targeting, what kind of crappy targeting misses a slow-moving target with a C-beam?

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-04-22 07:15am

Well, are we even sure what kind of targetting they use? We know they have no-frills but perfectly adequate locking technology. We saw an ISD gunner react to a pod being dropped off the Tantive, but ignore it due to lack of life signs. He seemed to be within the turret, and at least capable of some variety of manual control. At long range, against moving targets FROM a moving target and with a pinpoint beam, it might be harder to aim a TL than we think.

And we've seen those Death Star artillery pieces. We did also get to see the inside of a Trooper's helmet at one point. Do you think it's possible that they use a weak form of assisted targetting? A HUD (ala the targetting computer), some small muzzle-correction on the weapon, and their own manual-fired best guess? They don't seem to want to use a lot of automatic aiming, and you are hard pressed to find many examples of computer-controlled weapon systems in the original trilogy. If they aren't too worried about a few misses, having people with a HUD uplink dialed into their turret (similar to the Falcon?) might be acceptably accurate for them.

Might seem silly to us to eyeball it, but who knows, this is just more of my wild speculation, perhaps automated aiming systems and computers for turrets are the first things to go in an Ion strike, so maybe some computer-assisted eyeballing is more reliable and effective enough for their needs.

Whatcha' think? Anyone with some canon facts on targetting systems got input? I'm just guessing from what the movies show.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-22 09:09am

Stas Bush wrote:There's however one problem that always arises when TLs are accepted as correctable, controlled and indiscrete C-beams - the fact that they miss an awful lot. And sometimes they miss targets which are almost stationary. Although that could be written off to targeting, what kind of crappy targeting misses a slow-moving target with a C-beam?

If the gun itself weighs 50 tons, you could have perfect targeting and you could still miss if the target is moving, just because it's difficult to quickly swivel it. The guns could have been designed for larger, heavier targets such as enemy capital ships like the type they would have fought during the Clone Wars.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-04-22 10:01am

Stas Bush wrote:There's however one problem that always arises when TLs are accepted as correctable, controlled and indiscrete C-beams - the fact that they miss an awful lot. And sometimes they miss targets which are almost stationary. Although that could be written off to targeting, what kind of crappy targeting misses a slow-moving target with a C-beam?

Sensor stealth and jamming. If the targetting systems can't tell precisely where the target is, the weapons can't hit 'em.

Covenant wrote:My question was just because I never heard of this outside of the SW vs ST debate and I wanted to know if, as a casual-at-best purveyor of Star Wars material, I should care more.

It's more of a technical debates issue than a versus debate issue. Both Dr. Curtis Saxton and Brian Young have mentioned it on their respective technical (non-versus) discussion pages, the SWTC and Turbolaser Commentaries.

There are also several printed (both tech books and novels) sources that describe invisible beams with visible bolt side-effects. In the novels, such descriptions usually aren't important to the story beyond "turbolasers hit sooner than missiles."

Whether you care or not is up to you.

Now, I have noticed some interesting backpedaling on your part here. You go from saying "assuming that you want to explain every visible messup as an intentional phenomenon of fact, this might suffice" and "but I was just proposing a bizzare theory based on wild speculation for if you just HAD to justify it some manner in line with some manner of understandable science, how might one do that" (BTW, "theory"?

) to saing something completely different, namely "not making any serious attempt at shoehorning it into reality" and "I willfully ignored the established accepted science for the purpose of an interesting spin on their mechanics, that's all!"

Now maybe you just aren't communicating clearly and are thus sending mixed messages. I don't care if you don't respond to this, but I'm sure you can now see why I responded the way I have thus far.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-22 10:43am

Mad wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:There's however one problem that always arises when TLs are accepted as correctable, controlled and indiscrete C-beams - the fact that they miss an awful lot. And sometimes they miss targets which are almost stationary. Although that could be written off to targeting, what kind of crappy targeting misses a slow-moving target with a C-beam?
Sensor stealth and jamming. If the targetting systems can't tell precisely where the target is, the weapons can't hit 'em.

I'd also like to add that Star Wars ships generally, we can infer from the ROTS ICS, engage at a range of light-minutes; this is far beyond any effective visual range, so sensor stealth and jamming is far more important in a generalized setting than specifically in the incidents we've seen in the movies.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-04-22 01:37pm

Oh for Pete's sake, Mad. What? You're going back and analyzing my statements, looking for logical fallacies and inconsistancies now? This seems patently ridiculous to me--nobody else seemed driven to do this, and what you're doing is essentially like trying to weaken the structural integrity of swiss cheese by putting another hole in it. My arguements and statements were never designed to be weightbearing, so of course you're finding all manner of backpedalling. To use a line from what you said, "Everyone knows this, so why do you keep repeating it?"

Are you like this when your friends go out and talk randomly about stuff, or can you suppress your urge to crush the honest, stupid fun out of a good-natured exchange of ideas long enough to last the evening? I'd just PM you, but I didn't want anyone else reading this to think you've somehow crushed me into submission and I'm pretty sure we can both let it rest now.

Afterall, assuming that last bit was your parting shot and not another attempt to draw me back into this, I suppose I could see why you did that. You don't know me, I don't know you, so a miscommunication is always possible--especially when an unreasoned idea is tossed out on a website based on mathmatical analysis. I am very liteary with my speech, and that can lead people to believe I'm far more serious than I intend to be. An honest mistake on your part, I should have added a disclaimer that said "I don't believe a word of this, I'm just making it up for fun" so that anyone who thought I was your garden-variety new guy wouldn't jump all over me. If someone had made the same statements I had, on this site, with the intention of being taken seriously, then they would have deserved worse.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-04-22 01:39pm

Sensor stealth and jamming.

So are things like asteroids... uh... sensor-stealthy?

Surlethe

specifically in the incidents we've seen in the movies

Endor is an incident. How come Coruscant is one? And that aside, there's been not a single movie engagement far beyond visual range. Not at all. But that's nitpicking - it's fully understood that movies cannot show such type of combat in a visually stunning way, so... they don't.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-22 02:38pm

Stas Bush wrote:
Sensor stealth and jamming.
So are things like asteroids... uh... sensor-stealthy?

So are you like ... totally incapable of reading my fucking post? How heavy are these guns and their recoil bracings? A heavy gun with a large recoil bracing and rotational moment of inertia, as well as heavy damping, will take a while to swing around to a target. It will have trouble hitting objects which are nearby and moving, especially if it wasn't really designed for that. If these ships were designed for medium-range slugfests, then their gun designs would be laid out accordingly.

Endor is an incident. How come Coruscant is one? And that aside, there's been not a single movie engagement far beyond visual range. Not at all.

Visual range for what? Mile-long ships? You can see a mile-long ship at very long range. But they were certainly well beyond visual range for fighters, and I don't recall the big ships missing each other.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-04-22 02:43pm

Stas Bush wrote:
Sensor stealth and jamming.
So are things like asteroids... uh... sensor-stealthy?

How many asteroids were missed? Mike's response is adequate for explaining a missed asteroid or two anyway.

Stas Bush wrote:Surlethe
specifically in the incidents we've seen in the movies
Endor is an incident. How come Coruscant is one? And that aside, there's been not a single movie engagement far beyond visual range. Not at all. But that's nitpicking - it's fully understood that movies cannot show such type of combat in a visually stunning way, so... they don't.

Endor was specifically stated to be much closer than normal combat operations in the novelization and hinted at in the movie. Coruscant had longer-ranged battles described in the novelization, the furball we saw in the movie could be explained as the area around the Invisible Hand being crowded to help keep the high-profile ship from escaping hyperspacing out.

Covenant wrote:I'd just PM you, but I didn't want anyone else reading this to think you've somehow crushed me into submission and I'm pretty sure we can both let it rest now.

I thought there wasn't anything to crush?

Afterall, assuming that last bit was your parting shot and not another attempt to draw me back into this, I suppose I could see why you did that. You don't know me, I don't know you, so a miscommunication is always possible--especially when an unreasoned idea is tossed out on a website based on mathmatical analysis.

Your assumption is correct, and that is basically what happened.

I am very liteary with my speech, and that can lead people to believe I'm far more serious than I intend to be. An honest mistake on your part, I should have added a disclaimer that said "I don't believe a word of this, I'm just making it up for fun" so that anyone who thought I was your garden-variety new guy wouldn't jump all over me. If someone had made the same statements I had, on this site, with the intention of being taken seriously, then they would have deserved worse.

Heavy sarcasm would have been a cue, such as what you did in your Transwhale Drive post. Such sarcasm was absent and the label of "might suffice" gave a serious tone to the TL post.

Miscommunication? I'm fine with that. Done.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-04-22 02:46pm

Stas Bush wrote:
Sensor stealth and jamming.
So are things like asteroids... uh... sensor-stealthy?

Actually, they are to a degree. They always run silent, shouldn't that be obvious? Besides, given the violent number of collisions in the Hoth asteroid belt, it should also be obvious that they only had seconds to react, against an asteroid approaching (suddenly for all we know) at the worst possible angle. Nevermind that the captain was busy in conference with Vader.

Stas Bush wrote:
specifically in the incidents we've seen in the movies
Endor is an incident. How come Coruscant is one? And that aside, there's been not a single movie engagement far beyond visual range. Not at all. But that's nitpicking - it's fully understood that movies cannot show such type of combat in a visually stunning way, so... they don't.

Not only that, Lucas' inspiration for naval battles was largely old pirate movies. Of course, that's not applicable under SoD, but I certainly wasn't surprised that ROTS was taking place at spitting distance. Our last hope is the TV show.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-22 02:51pm

Stas Bush wrote:Surlethe
specifically in the incidents we've seen in the movies
Endor is an incident. How come Coruscant is one? And that aside, there's been not a single movie engagement far beyond visual range. Not at all. But that's nitpicking - it's fully understood that movies cannot show such type of combat in a visually stunning way, so... they don't.

Of course Endor and Coruscant are the incidents I'm referring to -- they're engaged at much less than a light second, let alone light minutes. In both cases, the engagement is at such close ranges because of extenuating reasons (preventing escape, preventing superlaser blasts). How does the fact we tend to see abnormal incidents (with respect to the rationalization) in the movies combat my point that jamming is going to be less effective at relative close ranges than at normal combat distances?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-04-22 10:31pm

Surlethe

Of course Endor and Coruscant are the incidents I'm referring to -- they're engaged at much less than a light second, let alone light minutes.

Endor is specifically stated to be abnormal, however, the ranges that are implied (Executor's "in position") are still within sight. Moreover, the firing position of the Imperial Fleet at Endor makes zero sense if they're able to hit ships from lightminutes away. It's just plain stupid to stay close and let your enemy use you as a shield.

jamming is going to be less effective at relative close ranges than at normal combat distances?

If so, why the horrible misses in the close-distance battles? Unwieldy guns are a better explanation than jamming for all I see.

nightmare
They always run silent, shouldn't that be obvious?
That's true, however, the pod from Tantive didn't use it's engines IIRC, so it was also running silent. So they are fitted with mechanisms for targeting silent-running objects.

they only had seconds to react, against an asteroid approaching (suddenly for all we know) at the worst possible angle

You mean the ISD that got hit in the tower, I suppose. While that may be, there were also multiple misses beforehand, by an ISD, when the asteroids reached it's hull and exploded against it.

And yes, I agree that the TV show is the only way some long-range combat be seen.

Mad

How many asteroids were missed? Mike's response is adequate for explaining a missed asteroid or two anyway

A few on screen, one of which deals gross damage to an ISD, others explode against the hull with no visible damage. But the fleet somehow sustained heavy damage in the Hoth asteroid field. That would mean hundreds of impacts.

Coruscant had longer-ranged battles described in the novelization

Exactly. However, the ranges used in ROTS nov and the "in position" in ROTJ are all around a hundred-few hundred kilometers, IIRC.
area around the Invisible Hand being crowded
Except that there's quite a few ships seen in the background, further away, and they're still in the rumble.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-04-22 10:46pm

Stas Bush wrote:A few on screen, one of which deals gross damage to an ISD, others explode against the hull with no visible damage. But the fleet somehow sustained heavy damage in the Hoth asteroid field. That would mean hundreds of impacts.

Where's your evidence that turbolasers fired at those and missed? There wasn't even any turbolaser fire at all on the bridge tower impact scene. Those scenes don't tell us anything about turbolaser accuracy.

Exactly. However, the ranges used in ROTS nov and the "in position" in ROTJ are all around a hundred-few hundred kilometers, IIRC.

"We only need to keep them from escaping." If they were further away, then the Imperial fleet would be too sparse to prevent hyperjumps.

Except that there's quite a few ships seen in the background, further away, and they're still in the rumble.

Yes, so? This doesn't invalidate the novelization in any way.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-04-22 10:49pm

Stas Bush wrote:nightmare
They always run silent, shouldn't that be obvious?
That's true, however, the pod from Tantive didn't use it's engines IIRC, so it was also running silent. So they are fitted with mechanisms for targeting silent-running objects.

Yes, of course they do. EPRs for example. Aka cameras. The point is, however, that sensors are in general less effective against a passive object.

Stas Bush wrote:You mean the ISD that got hit in the tower, I suppose. While that may be, there were also multiple misses beforehand, by an ISD, when the asteroids reached it's hull and exploded against it.

Causing no noticeable damage. You might also notice that they were in the middle of a thick and very violent asteroid belt... in other words, it shouldn't be a far stretch to assume that the asteroid belt doesn't magically disappear off-screen in the immediate vicinity. What I'm saying; "misses" could be aimed for something we don't see.

There's relatively few instances where we can say that a ship is actively trying to kill another and missing completely. I can only recall the AOTC asteroid chase at the moment. But that was a small fighter made for a Jedi, not a multi-km warship or a large asteroid. Maybe analysing ROTS would bring more meat to that particular discussion.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-22 11:17pm

Stas Bush wrote:Surlethe
Of course Endor and Coruscant are the incidents I'm referring to -- they're engaged at much less than a light second, let alone light minutes.
Endor is specifically stated to be abnormal, however, the ranges that are implied (Executor's "in position") are still within sight. Moreover, the firing position of the Imperial Fleet at Endor makes zero sense if they're able to hit ships from lightminutes away. It's just plain stupid to stay close and let your enemy use you as a shield.

Remember, they were explicitly instructed not to open fire; they were in position strictly to prevent the ships from escaping. They could've opened fire as they rounded the planet while the rebels emerged from hyperspace; they didn't, both to keep themselves secret (the rebels were unaware of the Imperial fleet until it was in position, or shortly before) and to avoid scaring the rebel fleet away before the ships had closed the escape routes.

More importantly, we need to rationalize the statements from the ICS (effective range: 10 light minutes) with what we see in the movies, and supposing the two major fleet engagements are abnormal, especially given the explicit statements and extenuating circumstances

jamming is going to be less effective at relative close ranges than at normal combat distances?
If so, why the horrible misses in the close-distance battles? Unwieldy guns are a better explanation than jamming for all I see.

I wasn't saying jamming was the only explanation for misses; unwieldy guns, within a certain range, will explain the misses equally well, if not better. However, I would like evidence of "horrible misses" in the close-distance battles.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-04-23 01:54am

Mad

There wasn't even any turbolaser fire at all on the bridge tower impact scene.

That's the thing. Why? Don't they uh... know that asteroids are dangerous, since they sustained heavy damage? Or maybe that damage was fatal for the ISD's weaponry? But anyway, in the ISD-shooting-asteroids scene there is TL fire and the asteroids still hit the hull. And how did they sustain damage, if the TLs don't miss? Then it means the asteroid field is enough to fill the sensor capacity or the weapon fire capacity... which is equally bad.

"We only need to keep them from escaping." If they were further away, then the Imperial fleet would be too sparse to prevent hyperjumps.

How can ~30 ships gathered in a tight formation prevent a HYPERJUMP?

They don't even form a sufficient gravity well, and even if they did, even in PLANAR space there are ways to escape.

This doesn't invalidate the novelization in any way.

Of course not. I was just pointing out that the distances in the novellisations are still a lot less even if they are normal.

nightmare

The point is, however, that sensors are in general less effective against a passive object.

True. But the objects in question were even visible to the naked eye. They could have been caught even by a primitive visual sensor.

You might also notice that they were in the middle of a thick and very violent asteroid belt...

As for thick, true. Very violent - no, not really, at least not in the scene in question. The ISD only received a couple of hits in quite a time - both of which could be prevented by firing TLs. But the "damage we sustained" in the novellisation means that they must've received hunreds of hits.

"misses" could be aimed for something we don't see.

Uh, yes, but the ones that hit the ISD aren't even shot at.

And the ISD has quite a few TLs, but only fires from one or two emplacements, isn't that strange?

Maybe analysing ROTS would bring more meat to that particular discussion.

Sure, once I'd get my DVD back, I'd post some screenshots.

Surlethe

they were in position strictly to prevent the ships from escaping

And how exactly did they "prevent" anything in such a position? See above. It's rather strange. Space is not planar and definetely not linear, so putting 30 ship-fleet on the "line" of escape doesn't do shit. Ship gatherings aren't enough to prevent hyperjumps (at least, per novellisations and EU), and neither can such a formation prevent sublight escape.

They could've opened fire as they rounded the planet while the rebels emerged from hyperspace

They could not, because of the order.

both to keep themselves secret (the rebels were unaware of the Imperial fleet until it was in position, or shortly before) and to avoid scaring the rebel fleet away before the ships had closed the escape routes.

Heh. The order "not to open fire" was Palpatine's pure silliness, to demonstrate the DS2 power. Nothing more, because it bears no other sense whatsoever - once they were "in position" to blast the rebel fleet, they should've done it straightaway, and not wait for the rebels to go point-blank.

More importantly, we need to rationalize the statements from the ICS

I thought it's the other way round (the ICS is supposed to rationalize the movies). I'd say more of it, but my DVD is currently off-hands, and speaking stuff out of air is not the best thing to do.

However, I would like evidence of "horrible misses" in the close-distance battles.

See above. I need my DVDs for that.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2006-04-23 03:08am

Stas Bush wrote:How can ~30 ships gathered in a tight formation prevent a HYPERJUMP? They don't even form a sufficient gravity well, and even if they did, even in PLANAR space there are ways to escape.

Hmm, on another thread, there was a bit of discussion about the role tractor beams play in capital ship-to-capital ship combat.

Due to the ability to simply jump into hyperspace whenever things go your way, there doesn't seem to be any point for such combat in the Star Wars galaxy.. unless they used tractor beams to prevent just such a tactic.

Despite the rather large separation between the Imperial and rebel fleets, I hypothesize the possibility that the large grouping of both allowed the Imperial ships to use wide-area effect that combines each ship's tractors' effect with all the other ships.

Darth Wong wrote:If the gun itself weighs 50 tons, you could have perfect targeting and you could still miss if the target is moving, just because it's difficult to quickly swivel it. The guns could have been designed for larger, heavier targets such as enemy capital ships like the type they would have fought during the Clone Wars.

Mike, your explanation about real limitations behind mechanisms used for aiming massive weapons (on http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... /Misc.html) should be placed in a more prominent location. I've pointed friends toward it more than once when discussing how computer-assisted targeting on everything from turrets to battle droids isn't "perfect", and everyone who's read it found it instantly enlightening.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-04-23 03:23am

Cykeisme

I hypothesize the possibility that the large grouping of both allowed the Imperial ships to use wide-area effect that combines each ship's tractors' effect with all the other ships

That is an interesting possibility. However, if capship tractors are so effective even over a good hundred kms, why would they not use them in space combat all the time? It's rather strange that the only use of capship tractors was on a very small ship and from a short distance. There could be some limitation on the capship tractor technology? Even more appaling is the DS tractor beam passive behaviour. WTF?!!! They caught the Falcon from beyond visual, however in AHN and ROTJ they NEVER used DS' incredible tractors to gain advantage in battle. Truly mind-boggling. And Coruscant? Why no planetary-mounted tractors, such devices could spell doom at least for the smaller ships should an invasion happen...

As for the mechanical limits of guns in general, that's a very good explanation, I agree, and also one of the most important moments in SF warfare in general.

Shadowtraveler · Post by **Shadowtraveler** » 2006-04-23 09:56am

Stas Bush wrote:That is an interesting possibility. However, if capship tractors are so effective even over a good hundred kms, why would they not use them in space combat all the time?

It could be possible for bigger ships to break out of a tractor lock through sheer brute force speed, and there are ways for smaller ships to do so as well (those two times during the Thrawn trilogy). Tractoring isn't exactly precise, nor is it superefficient.

In any event, it sounds more like they had an interdictor or two during Endor.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-04-23 10:51am

Shadowtraveler wrote:In any event, it sounds more like they had an interdictor or two during Endor.

At the system edge. But there's a much easier method to prevent hyperspace travel; get in the way.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-04-23 11:40am

Stas Bush wrote:That's the thing. Why? Don't they uh... know that asteroids are dangerous, since they sustained heavy damage? Or maybe that damage was fatal for the ISD's weaponry? But anyway, in the ISD-shooting-asteroids scene there is TL fire and the asteroids still hit the hull. And how did they sustain damage, if the TLs don't miss? Then it means the asteroid field is enough to fill the sensor capacity or the weapon fire capacity... which is equally bad.

Given the violent nature of the asteroid field, unexpected collisions between asteroids altering trajectories suddenly is also a possibility. We simply don't know, but we didn't see turbolasers firing and missing at the ones that impacted the hull for whatever reason. Thus, you can't claim poor accuracy based on that. Of the bolts we did see fired at the asteroids, there were more hits than misses.

How can ~30 ships gathered in a tight formation prevent a HYPERJUMP? They don't even form a sufficient gravity well, and even if they did, even in PLANAR space there are ways to escape.

Three starships were preventing Invisible Hand from making a hyperspace jump in the RotS novelization, and the loss of one would have been enough to allow escape:

[i]Revenge of the Sith[/i] novelization, page 89: wrote:the clone fighters peeled away, leaving Invisible Hand exposed to the full fire of Home Fleet Strike Group Five: three Carrack-class light cruisers--Integrity, Indomitable, and Perseverance--in support of the Dreadnaught Mas Ramdar.

Strike Group Five had deployed in a triangle around Mas Ramdar, maintaining a higher orbit to pin Invisible Hand deep in Coruscant's gravity well.

[i]Revenge of the Sith[/i] novelization, page 91 wrote:"Concentrate fire on Indomitable," he told the senior gunnery officer. "All batteries at maximum. Fire for effect. Blast that hulk out of space, and we'll make a hyperspace jump through the wreckage."

[i]Revenge of the Sith[/i] novelization, page 97 wrote:"I have a counteroffer. Maintain your cease-fire, move that hulk Indomitable out of my way, and withdraw to a minimum range of fifty kilometers until this ship achieves hyperspace jump."

The Imperial fleet at Endor was apparently doing something similar.

Of course not. I was just pointing out that the distances in the novellisations are still a lot less even if they are normal.

So you're claiming you could see the entire battle area in the movie, even in light of what the novelization says?

[i]Revenge of the Sith[/i] novelization, page 44 wrote:Sophisticated sensor algorithms compressed the combat that sprawled throughout the galactic capital's orbit to a view the naked eye could enjoy: cruisers hundreds of kilometers apart, exchanging fire at near lightspeed, appeared to be practically hull-to-hull, joined by pulsing cables of flame.

True. But the objects in question were even visible to the naked eye. They could have been caught even by a primitive visual sensor.

Visual sensors (the EPRs nightmare mentioned) are the main system used in short-range targetting computers (both EGW&T and SWSB say this). They are still fooled by jamming. You could even see it in A New Hope at the Battle of Yavin. Darth Vader's screen showed relatively stationary targets jumping around due to the jamming.

Want to try again?

Uh, yes, but the ones that hit the ISD aren't even shot at. And the ISD has quite a few TLs, but only fires from one or two emplacements, isn't that strange?

And this supports your implicit claim about turbolasers having low accuracy against asteroids, how, exactly?

And how exactly did they "prevent" anything in such a position? See above. It's rather strange. Space is not planar and definetely not linear, so putting 30 ship-fleet on the "line" of escape doesn't do shit. Ship gatherings aren't enough to prevent hyperjumps (at least, per novellisations and EU), and neither can such a formation prevent sublight escape.

And yet 3 Carrack-class starships could keep the Invisible Hand from hyperjumping to safety. So I think it's safe to say that you're wrong here.