StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If their primary job is urban or space then why are they even there, does the Empire not have an army, are the stormies supposed to be space cops, marines, something else?

Aaron wrote:If their primary job is urban or space then why are they even there, does the Empire not have an army, are the stormies supposed to be space cops, marines, something else?

From most of the sources, the Stormies are a special marine unit. They are supposed to be able to serve in Army and Naval units but are not subordinate to either.

The more one gets into the lore behind them, the more it sounds they are a special unit created by the Emperor and his loyalist solely for the fact they keep the other units in line.

In that context I suppose a "look at us! We're badass!" uniform does make a certain kind of fucked up sense.

Aaron wrote:If their primary job is urban or space then why are they even there, does the Empire not have an army, are the stormies supposed to be space cops, marines, something else?

Because they are the supper dupper loyal to the Empire shock troops. Probably there to ensure loyalty to the Empire as much as protect against rebels. The Rebellion isn't the CIS, they were small, and insignificant to the Emperor. Large amounts of Stormtroopers can be interpreted as internal security as well as external security.

Aaron wrote:In that context I suppose a "look at us! We're badass!" uniform does make a certain kind of fucked up sense.

Also, we tend to view such things with our own military experience. Maneuver warfare and small unit tactics utilizing terrain and camouflage to get small units close to they enemy and engage them. Imperial units may not use that system. Superior sensors to Earth's may make camo silly, so why not have uniforms that make it even easier to see for command and control? Camouflage is a kind of protection after all, if they can't see you they can't shoot you till you shoot them, but if your armor can mitigate that problem then why continue with the camo?

It's not even like Western armies have used camo all the time either. Only the last 60 something years has camouflage been a standard part of a kit.

Knife wrote:

Aaron wrote:In that context I suppose a "look at us! We're badass!" uniform does make a certain kind of fucked up sense.

Also, we tend to view such things with our own military experience. Maneuver warfare and small unit tactics utilizing terrain and camouflage to get small units close to they enemy and engage them. Imperial units may not use that system. Superior sensors to Earth's may make camo silly, so why not have uniforms that make it even easier to see for command and control? Camouflage is a kind of protection after all, if they can't see you they can't shoot you till you shoot them, but if your armor can mitigate that problem then why continue with the camo?

It's not even like Western armies have used camo all the time either. Only the last 60 something years has camouflage been a standard part of a kit.

And it depends on branch - the Air Force, with a few exceptions, used olive drab fatigues until 1988, when the first issue of camouflaged BDUs occurred. The olive drabs were still in use until the early 1990s.

The Dark wrote:

Knife wrote:It's not even like Western armies have used camo all the time either. Only the last 60 something years has camouflage been a standard part of a kit.

And it depends on branch - the Air Force, with a few exceptions, used olive drab fatigues until 1988, when the first issue of camouflaged BDUs occurred. The olive drabs were still in use until the early 1990s.

Depends how you define camouflage - that figure of 60 years could be 100+ if you count the switch from red to khaki, or even 200 for the greenjackets. They may not have been as effective, but the intention was certainly to reduce the individual soldier's visibility.

Indeed, I was referring to roughly WWII where most combat troops wore green fatigues. WWI they wore standard uniforms not colored for any particular environment, though in some instances they had camo, let alone turn of the century with old Union Blues, or even earlier with colored coats and back to days of armor suits. Hell, even in my day, not all combat personnel in Desert Storm had desert camo and sported good old woodland cammies. Camo for every environment is realities new.

Stofsk wrote:

Bakustra wrote:There are significant problems with calling Star Destroyers "battleships" or "carriers" (There are significant problems with using modern naval nomenclature period, but that is another matter).

I don't know why anyone tries to designate them with a wet navy role. They're called Star Destroyers. Shouldn't that be enough?

Because they fly alongside cruisers, bulk and otherwise, Headquarters Frigates, corvettes, and other "modern" naval names. I'm starting to prefer Star Destroyer as an equivalent more for "Ship of the Line" (In the Napoleonic/18th century fashion) than anything else; the lack of heavy guns on the Executor (or anywhere but the Separatist Frigate) essentially precludes any real equivalency to modern vessels, Curtis Saxton's valiant efforts notwithstanding. Besides, going from the movies, "frigate", "corvette" and "cruiser" are the only ship types I can recall besides "Star Destroyer", both of which happily antedate modern navies and thus can be wrenched to fit my pet theory. An added bonus is that this gives us schooners, sloops, and brigs amongst the stars, if we want.

The problem with declaring Star Destroyers "battleships" is simple: what about the Executor? Is it a battleship, too? Why, then, do battleships range in size from 1.6 km long to 19 km long? Where are the Imperial destroyers and cruisers at Endor? Furthermore, do they really perform the role of a battleship? In ANH, they operate alone or in small groups. In ESB, they escort the larger Executor. In ROTJ, they act as part of a combined fleet with the Executor. In ANH, they act as cruisers, while in ESB and ROTJ, they act as destroyers, insofar as they can be said to be equivalents to modern Earth ships.

The part that will blow your mind is how in the OT three characters call the Executor a Star Destroyer.

Eh? I'm only aware of Vader and Ackbar. Who's the third? (And that is why I refrain from giving Executor any designation unless pressed.)

Stofsk wrote:

Bakustra wrote:The part that will blow your mind is how in the OT three characters call the Executor a Star Destroyer.

Eh? I'm only aware of Vader and Ackbar. Who's the third? (And that is why I refrain from giving Executor any designation unless pressed.)

I believe Lando refers to it as such in ESB.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Bakustra wrote: Eh? I'm only aware of Vader and Ackbar. Who's the third? (And that is why I refrain from giving Executor any designation unless pressed.)

I believe Lando refers to it as such in ESB.

Thank you.

Bakustra wrote:

Stofsk wrote:

Bakustra wrote:There are significant problems with calling Star Destroyers "battleships" or "carriers" (There are significant problems with using modern naval nomenclature period, but that is another matter).

I don't know why anyone tries to designate them with a wet navy role. They're called Star Destroyers. Shouldn't that be enough?

Because they fly alongside cruisers, bulk and otherwise, Headquarters Frigates, corvettes, and other "modern" naval names. I'm starting to prefer Star Destroyer as an equivalent more for "Ship of the Line" (In the Napoleonic/18th century fashion) than anything else; the lack of heavy guns on the Executor (or anywhere but the Separatist Frigate) essentially precludes any real equivalency to modern vessels, Curtis Saxton's valiant efforts notwithstanding. Besides, going from the movies, "frigate", "corvette" and "cruiser" are the only ship types I can recall besides "Star Destroyer", both of which happily antedate modern navies and thus can be wrenched to fit my pet theory. An added bonus is that this gives us schooners, sloops, and brigs amongst the stars, if we want.

I'm not particularly enamoured with Saxton's efforts to categorise everything into wet navy analogues. It comes across as convoluted. I like your idea that the term is more like a 'ship of the line' than anything else.

The problem with declaring Star Destroyers "battleships" is simple: what about the Executor? Is it a battleship, too? Why, then, do battleships range in size from 1.6 km long to 19 km long? Where are the Imperial destroyers and cruisers at Endor? Furthermore, do they really perform the role of a battleship? In ANH, they operate alone or in small groups. In ESB, they escort the larger Executor. In ROTJ, they act as part of a combined fleet with the Executor. In ANH, they act as cruisers, while in ESB and ROTJ, they act as destroyers, insofar as they can be said to be equivalents to modern Earth ships.

The part that will blow your mind is how in the OT three characters call the Executor a Star Destroyer.

Eh? I'm only aware of Vader and Ackbar. Who's the third? (And that is why I refrain from giving Executor any designation unless pressed.)

Leia calls it a Star Destroyer, so does Vader, and Ackbar calls it a Super-Star Destroyer. I'm inclined to take their word for it over anyone elses.

Stofsk wrote: I'm not particularly enamoured with Saxton's efforts to categorise everything into wet navy analogues. It comes across as convoluted. I like your idea that the term is more like a 'ship of the line' than anything else.

To be fair to Saxton, anything is going to be convoluted when you throw the EU in the mix, and Dr. Saxton is very much an inclusionist.

My idea mainly came from two things: Lucas labeling Separatist frigates as "Star Destroyers" in the ROTS DVD commentary, and the Executor being called a "commandship" and a Star Destroyer, super or no. These suggest that Star Destroyers vary wildly in size and are not really a description of a role. However, the Rebel ships and the Trade Federation "battleships" are not labeled as such, so it cannot be a general description of a warship. So I thought: well, what if it just means "frontline warship/ship of the line"? Then you can incorporate the wide range of other terms by suggesting that these are second-line or support warships, local bulk cruisers if you will. And you can slide other methods of classification into it without them stretching too much!

Leia calls it a Star Destroyer, so does Vader, and Ackbar calls it a Super-Star Destroyer. I'm inclined to take their word for it over anyone elses.

I still hate Super Star Destroyer, but don't mind Star Destroyer at all. Executor is Executor, regardless of the designation after her name.

What's wrong with 'Super Star Destroyer'? It indicates a really BIG Star Destroyer, and, um-it IS. It's not like the term 'superbattleship' hasn't been used in the real world before (Yamato or the later iterations of the H class anyone?)

Batman wrote:What's wrong with 'Super Star Destroyer'? It indicates a really BIG Star Destroyer, and, um-it IS. It's not like the term 'superbattleship' hasn't been used in the real world before (Yamato or the later iterations of the H class anyone?)

It's a personal dislike, mainly stemming from its origin as a description on a toy.

You're allowed to have personal dislikes as much as anybody else. I just wondered

Batman wrote:What's wrong with 'Super Star Destroyer'? It indicates a really BIG Star Destroyer, and, um-it IS. It's not like the term 'superbattleship' hasn't been used in the real world before (Yamato or the later iterations of the H class anyone?)

I can think of an even better comparison - the term "super battleship"was only ever applied to the Yamatos colloquially. The Orion-class (and later) were officially designated Super Dreadnoughts. IIRC, anyway.

I am trying to address some of the points not really focused on in the original post.

Stormtroopers being crap is just wrong, when ever the plot allows the stormies do a good job. The attack on the sand crawler, the boarding of the Tanitive, Hoth. The Stormtroopers all dominate in those occasions.

I will give you that the at-st being destroyed is irksome. I would expect a galactic power with the technology of star wars would be able to create lightly armed transports (see glorified humvee) with better protection than a modern day tank.

Iirc they actually had trouble making a model weak enough to get the effect they were after when filming rotj. Irony or what.

By the same token shields or not I would have expected the bridge of the Executor to survive a mere collision with an a-wing for a bridge presumedly built to survive gigaton level weaponry (not necessarily direct hits).

With the ewoks there is some credit to the idea of endor's forest moon being a very agressive high gravity world with lots of large predators. Figuratively the ewoks may be teddy bears but not literaly. Would we be having this discussion if instead of ewoks they were 3 foot tall lizards with no convenient 'teddy bear' motif/comparison? Though it could be just rationalizing an embarrassing defeat.

Jolyreaper touched on this before but I thought I would say it my way. It's a reoccuring theme in movies. The enemy is made out to be real bad ass to create tension and show the heroes as against the odds but it all fails against the plot and the character shields of the main characters with invented weaknesses to help explain the loss.

Personally i think star wars would have been more interesting if the Empire crushed those upstart terrorists.

Bakustra wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Bakustra wrote: Eh? I'm only aware of Vader and Ackbar. Who's the third? (And that is why I refrain from giving Executor any designation unless pressed.)

I believe Lando refers to it as such in ESB.

Thank you.

Princess Leia calls the ship a Star Destroyer in TESB.

She did? It's been a while since I saw the original OT but I don't recall her doing it in THAT.
That being said, since 'Star Destroyer' seems to essentially mean 'big, triangular, and mean' what's the problem? Executor definitely fits the bill.

It's when they're fleeing Bespin in the Falcon. She points to Vader's ship and says "Star Destroyer" (6:02):



Sorry, couldn't find a clip with dialog but she said it.

Elfdart wrote:It's when they're fleeing Bespin in the Falcon. She points to Vader's ship and says "Star Destroyer" (6:02):

Sorry, couldn't find a clip with dialog but she said it.

Wasn't the entire Death Squadron there too?

Bakustra wrote:...the lack of heavy guns on the Executor (or anywhere but the Separatist Frigate) essentially precludes any real equivalency to modern vessels, Curtis Saxton's valiant efforts notwithstanding.

I dispute this. In the 19th and 20th centuries, mounting extremely heavy weapons was a must for large capital ships, because only the big guns could penetrate enemy capital ship armor, and only the big guns had the range to engage an enemy from a safe distance in the face of mines and torpedoes.

In Star Wars the constraints may be different. If all turbolaser bolts move at the same speed, "effective range" is determined not by how far your gun can throw a bolt, but by how fast it can get out of the way; small ships suddenly outrange big ones by default. If there's an optimum size for turbolasers beyond which the power-to-weight ratio of the gun mount drops dramatically, a bigger ship won't mount bigger guns; it'll just mount ten times more of the same ones as a smaller ship. And so it goes.

Besides, going from the movies, "frigate", "corvette" and "cruiser" are the only ship types I can recall besides "Star Destroyer", both of which happily antedate modern navies and thus can be wrenched to fit my pet theory. An added bonus is that this gives us schooners, sloops, and brigs amongst the stars, if we want.

Now this is a much more appealing argument...

Darksun wrote:By the same token shields or not I would have expected the bridge of the Executor to survive a mere collision with an a-wing for a bridge presumedly built to survive gigaton level weaponry (not necessarily direct hits).

One way to justify this is to suggest that Ackbar's order to concentrate fire on Executor had already worn the shields down to nothing. The fighter colliding with the bridge (possibly having its very energetic fuel and munitions detonate on impact) could have been effective enough to achieve localized penetration of a shield that was already badly damaged by enemy fire.

Azron_Stoma wrote:

Elfdart wrote:It's when they're fleeing Bespin in the Falcon. She points to Vader's ship and says "Star Destroyer" (6:02):

Sorry, couldn't find a clip with dialog but she said it.

Wasn't the entire Death Squadron there too?

No.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Bakustra wrote:...the lack of heavy guns on the Executor (or anywhere but the Separatist Frigate) essentially precludes any real equivalency to modern vessels, Curtis Saxton's valiant efforts notwithstanding.

I dispute this. In the 19th and 20th centuries, mounting extremely heavy weapons was a must for large capital ships, because only the big guns could penetrate enemy capital ship armor, and only the big guns had the range to engage an enemy from a safe distance in the face of mines and torpedoes.

In Star Wars the constraints may be different. If all turbolaser bolts move at the same speed, "effective range" is determined not by how far your gun can throw a bolt, but by how fast it can get out of the way; small ships suddenly outrange big ones by default. If there's an optimum size for turbolasers beyond which the power-to-weight ratio of the gun mount drops dramatically, a bigger ship won't mount bigger guns; it'll just mount ten times more of the same ones as a smaller ship. And so it goes.

Well, but terms like "battleship", "battlecruiser", and "destroyer" are defined either by the size of their armament or by their relation to another ship. Since SW warships top out in armament size while midway through their range of vessel sizes, such terms become essentially arbitrary. That is what I mean by a lack of real equivalency; the situation is different, and so too the terms necessary.

Besides, going from the movies, "frigate", "corvette" and "cruiser" are the only ship types I can recall besides "Star Destroyer", both of which happily antedate modern navies and thus can be wrenched to fit my pet theory. An added bonus is that this gives us schooners, sloops, and brigs amongst the stars, if we want.

Now this is a much more appealing argument...

Well, that's ultimately why I advanced it.

Darksun wrote:By the same token shields or not I would have expected the bridge of the Executor to survive a mere collision with an a-wing for a bridge presumedly built to survive gigaton level weaponry (not necessarily direct hits).

One way to justify this is to suggest that Ackbar's order to concentrate fire on Executor had already worn the shields down to nothing. The fighter colliding with the bridge (possibly having its very energetic fuel and munitions detonate on impact) could have been effective enough to achieve localized penetration of a shield that was already badly damaged by enemy fire.

That's not quite supported by the film: one of the bridge crew reports "We've lost our bridge deflector shield", so the shield was actually down when the A-wing hit, and the bridge is clearly vulnerable to attack without the shield, as Piett orders intensified firepower around the bridge to keep Rebel ships away.