Cap Ships vs. fighters.

[John]

Question: If SW capships are immune to fighter attack, why do they have anti-fighter weaponry? It seems to me that if fighters were no threat to StarDestroyers (leaving aside the question of whether SD's are capital vessles) there would be no reason for Imperial naval architechts waste space and mass on anti-sf weaponry. Comments?

[Howedar]

If you have no anti-fighter weaponry, the other guys can load their fighters to hell with bombs and shit, and you can't do anything about it. Adding anti-fighter weaponry (which, it should be mentioned, would take up comparitively little space next to capital ship weaponry) would keep this from happening. SAMs in Vietnam rarely hit US fighers, but they could force them to drop their bombs to evade.

[Tychu]

Any capital ship without its own starfighters or snubfighters if you will is as good as dead.

If you have no anti-fighter weaponry, the other guys can load their fighters to hell with bombs and shit, and you can't do anything about it.

I dont know if i did that quote thing right, my first time doing that sorry Howedar if it didnt come out right.

you need your own fighters to fight against the enemys. But you cant always count on your fighters destroying every one of the enemies so you need your anti-fighter weaponry.

[LordChaos]

They aren't imune in the sense that it would be completely physicaly impossible to destroy them with fighters. They are imune in the sense that it would extreamly dificult, time consuming, resource consuming, and life consuming to destroy them via fighters only. Note the wording "destroy". Damage is a different idea (the theoretical "soft kill"), being as many items, ranging from weapon implacements to sensors to comunication gear are going to be surface mounted or partialy surface mounted, making those points easier for fighter grade weapons to damage, disable, or even destroy then the overall ship.

[John]

Remember, we assume capships are 'immune' to fighter attacks.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Remember, we assume capships are 'immune' to fighter attacks.

Who's "we"? I don't think anyone has ever said that. I believe that the fighters are intended to hammer point targets on capital ships and to exploit shield failures. In such a situation they could be deadly, and they could very possibly declaw and blind a capital ship independent of support.

[Needa]

Perhaps it's me John, but I think Howedar, Tychu and LordChaos have already responded to your question. Capital ships AREN'T immune to fighters attack. And if they were immuned, then they would not need anti-fighter weaponery.

[John]

Capital ships AREN'T immune to fighters attack. And if they were immune, then they would not need anti-fighter weaponery.

With respect, in The Phantom Menace, the neomoidian on the bridge of the Trade Fed BB says, "Impossible. Nothing can get through our shield." Moreover, many Warsies hold that Capships are 'immune' to fighter attack.

[Needa]

Mmmm now I see what you mean. Sorry John. My mistake.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember well the N-1 are not the strongest type of fighters. They were not designed to do such thing as an assault on the Trade Federation station, and were commonly used to hunt down pirates and to do some military shows. Their lasers were probably to weak to destroy the Feddy in a short time, but I can't hardly conceived that they were doing no damage. They might be have been doing only minimal one. And destroying the station might had taken a very long time at this rate. I don't think the Naboo got any bombs to haste the job.

If you ever played Tie Fighter, or X-Wing Alliance (ok, I know games are at the very low list of canon sources, right before KJA books), you know that when you are using let's say, a Y-Wing, to destroy a Golan III station and you got no missiles or bombs it will take you a long time. Lasers are not the most efficient way to destroy big ships. I'm not sure if I used the best exemple, but I believe you got my idea.

And maybe that's where the "Cap Ships are immune to fighters" came from. Because, as said before, it's not time-efficient. If someone has a better explanation for this, I would gladly hear it.

[Needa]

eeee I mean:

-----) but I can hardly conceive

[LordChaos]

Capital ships AREN'T immune to fighters attack. And if they were immune, then they would not need anti-fighter weaponery.

With respect, in The Phantom Menace, the neomoidian on the bridge of the Trade Fed BB says, "Impossible. Nothing can get through our shield." Moreover, many Warsies hold that Capships are 'immune' to fighter attack.

As I said, there's immune, and then there's IMMUNE.

The later implies that absolutely nothing you do is going to have a real impact. This would be the proper use of the word immune when discribing a M1A2 being immune to someone outside of the tank armed with a bb gun.

The former use implies highly resistant to attack, whether because the attacker is incabable of doing more then "soft killing" the target "damaging surface mounted items), or that the attacker carries insignifigant ordinance/fuel to actualy heavily damage/destroy the target. A F6F Hellcat attacking the IJN Yamato with it's machineguns is an example here. While the Hellcat's weapons do have an effect, they do not have enough ammo nor do they have enouhg punch to do more then damage some surface mounted equipment.

[John]

As to your English, see the film 'Sgt. York' with Gary Cooper.
German Officer: "Tell him it's useless. There are twenty macine-guns on that ridge."
American Private: "You tell him, you speak English better than I do!"

[John]

The later implies that absolutely nothing you do is going to have a real impact. This would be the proper use of the word immune when discribing a M1A2 being immune to someone outside of the tank armed with a bb gun.

The former use implies highly resistant to attack, whether because the attacker is incabable of doing more then "soft killing" the target "damaging surface mounted items), or that the attacker carries insignifigant ordinance/fuel to actualy heavily damage/destroy the target. A F6F Hellcat attacking the IJN Yamato with it's machineguns is an example here. While the Hellcat's weapons do have an effect, they do not have enough ammo nor do they have enouhg punch to do more then damage some surface mounted equipment.

And thus, the Yamato could ignore the Hellcat, without wasting mass and space on anti-fighter weapons.

[Master of Ossus]

They aren't imune in the sense that it would be completely physicaly impossible to destroy them with fighters. They are imune in the sense that it would extreamly dificult, time consuming, resource consuming, and life consuming to destroy them via fighters only. Note the wording "destroy". Damage is a different idea (the theoretical "soft kill"), being as many items, ranging from weapon implacements to sensors to comunication gear are going to be surface mounted or partialy surface mounted, making those points easier for fighter grade weapons to damage, disable, or even destroy then the overall ship.

Mmmm.... I find it more likely that star fighters are not as cost effective for attacking capital ships than other capital ships. Remember that by all accounts proton torpedoes are prohibitively expensive, and that these are the only weapons star fighters carry that can cause significant amount of damage to a capital ship very quickly.

There are a few reasons to have anti-starfighter weapons, even if star fighters do not pose a significant threat to your ship.

1. Discourage assault by pirates, etc.
2. Such weapons make a ship FAR more versatile. Since large turbolasers, like the HTL's on an ISD, have difficulty tracking smaller targets, it would be important to be able to intercept light traffic, such as light freighters (Millenium Falcon, etc.). These cannons are also less energy-consuming per shot than HTL's. Do you really want to fire off several hundred gigatons in the hopes of hitting a fleeing transport? Incidentally, note that the Trade Federation's lack of small weapons might have cost them the Battle of Naboo (along with about fifty other factors).
3. Such weapons would allow a commander to be better able to defend his ship against things like asteroids.
4. Such weapons MIGHT be more accurate, though I find this somewhat unlikely. I don't think there would be much of a difference between the accuracy of heavy weapons and light weapons, and it might even be in favor of heavier weapons. IF light weapons are more accurate, they would allow for more surgical strikes, even against capital ships. Alternatively, they might have better firing rates, or require less maintenance.
5. Light weapons allow a ship to protect itself from missiles, and other such threats.
6. Look at an ISD and realize that that ship only has space for a few HTL's. Their firing arcs are likely limited, especially since they tend to mount those weapons in places that allow for an ISD to engage a single target with most of its HTL's at one time. Other arcs are left comparatively unprotected. LTL's would allow for a capital ship to cover greater arcs of fire, and they would be able to harass small pickets that tried to exploit these "blind spots" on capital ships.

[LordChaos]

The later implies that absolutely nothing you do is going to have a real impact. This would be the proper use of the word immune when discribing a M1A2 being immune to someone outside of the tank armed with a bb gun.

The former use implies highly resistant to attack, whether because the attacker is incabable of doing more then "soft killing" the target "damaging surface mounted items), or that the attacker carries insignifigant ordinance/fuel to actualy heavily damage/destroy the target. A F6F Hellcat attacking the IJN Yamato with it's machineguns is an example here. While the Hellcat's weapons do have an effect, they do not have enough ammo nor do they have enouhg punch to do more then damage some surface mounted equipment.

And thus, the Yamato could ignore the Hellcat, without wasting mass and space on anti-fighter weapons.

No, because while a singular Hellcat is only an annoyance, 500 of them could knock out everything not behind heavy armor.. and that includes quite a few combat systems. This is known as a soft kill. If the Yamato didn't have any AA weapons, it wouldn't get a chance to use it's primary weapons. Same thing with a star destroyer. Just because fighters can't destroy it, and just because an individual fighter can't do more then annoy it, that doesn't mean a swarm of fighters can't put it out of battle through massive surface damage, softkilling the ship.

(a soft kill, as opposed to a hard kill, doesn't result in the ship being destroyed. Only in the ship being rendered incapable of continuing it's mission. this could be done via destroying weapons, power generation, drive systems, etc).

[John]

I agree. If SW fighters can damage SW ships, then it makes sense for SW ships to carry anti-fighter weaponry, thus giving the lie to the idea that SW ships are immune to fighter weapons.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't understand, John. SW fighters are capable of damaging SW capital ships, but only in very large numbers, and probably only with fairly heavy weapons (although a million light weapons would add up). But even if they did not pose ANY threat to a capital ship, I think I have shown that it would still be a good idea to have a significant number of light weapons on such a ship. SW capitals are NOT immune to starfighters, but if they WERE, we could expect to see similar things on SW capital ships.

[John]

But even if they did not pose ANY threat to a capital ship, I think I have shown that it would still be a good idea to have a significant number of light weapons on such a ship.

Master, if nothing I can do, under most circumstances, can hurt you, why do you need to be defended against me? That is my question. If SW fighters 'can' hurt Capships, then it makes sense for SW ships to carry anti-fighter weapons. If SW fighters cannot hurt Capships, then why do capships need anti-starfighter weapons?

[Master of Ossus]

Did you even read my post on the last page? I gave several reasons why, if starfighters cannot damage capital ships in most circumstances, they would be useful, anyway. I could add to that list that they would help an ISD protect its picket ships, which ARE vulnerable to starfighter attacks, but from what I have seen here, you don't want to listen.

[LordChaos]

I agree. If SW fighters can damage SW ships, then it makes sense for SW ships to carry anti-fighter weaponry, thus giving the lie to the idea that SW ships are immune to fighter weapons.

You STILL don't get it.

Against fighter numbers below that of entire wings (plural), capital ships ARE FOR ALL PURPOSES IMMUNE TO FIGHTERS. They are an annoyance that can cause some superficial damage, but in any number less then entire wings of fighters, they can't truely damage the vessel.

Let's look at it this way. You, as a human being, are all but immune to mesqueto bites (assuming no desease). it's annoying, but it's not going to effect your abbility to do anything. However, 1,000 mosquitos on the other hand can be fatal quick enough.

[Howedar]

Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that SW capships are 100% immune to fighters.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You = ISD.

Mosquito = Snubnose.

One mossie versus you and you don't notice it. A million mossies and you might think again.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Mmmm now I see what you mean. Sorry John. My mistake.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember well the N-1 are not the strongest type of fighters. They were not designed to do such thing as an assault on the Trade Federation station, and were commonly used to hunt down pirates and to do some military shows. Their lasers were probably to weak to destroy the Feddy in a short time, but I can't hardly conceived that they were doing no damage. They might be have been doing only minimal one. And destroying the station might had taken a very long time at this rate. I don't think the Naboo got any bombs to haste the job.

Watch TPM again, and you'll see during a certain part in the fight (it was really short tho) that an N-1 strafes a part of the bridge tower while being chased by droid fighters, and blows of a significant portion of it. But they would have all been killed before they could have done similar damage to any critical systems.

Also in ROTJ (I think it might be in the novel) it describes several B-wings bombing the crap outta an ISD and destroying it.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Darth Garden Gnome, re-read the novel, and see if it was in there. If it was, were the shields down?

The hardest part of a fighter destroying a capship would be overloading the shields. Shielding is measured in watts, and starfighter weapons are insufficient to overload the shields.

Anakin destroyed the Trade Federation ship by flying in the hangar while the shields were down. When the say "immune to fighter attack, I think they mean "immune from the outside".

[Darth Garden Gnome]

asst. asst. cmdr. smi. - I know how the Trade Fed ship was destroyed, I'm saying that a diffrent N-1 did do some damage to it that was not simply superficial, and wiht its laser cannons, not protorps. However it was too small to have any huge effect on the battles outcome. If there had been more than 2-3 squandrons of fighters putting out similar damage I would imagine they would have had a good chance of defeating the vessel.

As for B-wings, I don't have the novel on hand, and even if I did I doubt it would mention the sheilds, thus we can assume they were done, I suppose.