StarDestroyer.Net BBS

FTeik wrote:Concerning the battle-meditation, ROTJ makes it clear that it is the emperor's death and not Grand Admiral Declann, whose death is the root for the sudden cohesion of the Imperial Forces

Yes, the novelization says that.

It also says something about Kenobi's brother being Owen Lars and that Anakin never encountered Yoda.

The latest retcon I heard about the Endor Battle Meditation was that Declann interrupted the thing when he felt the Emperor's death and tried to intercept the Skywalkers before they could leave the Death Star, but got lost in the way to the throne room or some other daft thing.

Murazor wrote:

FTeik wrote:Concerning the battle-meditation, ROTJ makes it clear that it is the emperor's death and not Grand Admiral Declann, whose death is the root for the sudden cohesion of the Imperial Forces

Yes, the novelization says that.

It also says something about Kenobi's brother being Owen Lars and that Anakin never encountered Yoda.

So because a few things are no longer right since the prequels the entire novel is worthless? Is that what you are trying to say?

That argument is pointless because it doesn't refer to Jedi Battle Meditation specifically, and could as well be a reference to the Shroud of the Dark Side lifting, or to the Emperor's death being psychically broadcast as to the power that was invented after the fact in response to another after-the-fact innovation.

FTeik wrote:So because a few things are no longer right since the prequels the entire novel is worthless? Is that what you are trying to say?

No, but that a few things have been retconned since then. It doesn't make a difference anyway, the question is still if enough rebel fighters could survive until that point of morale break.

On the topic of the lack of mechanised formations, I suppose one could argue that man-portable anti-tank weapons have advanced so far that armor is practically useless unless supported by infantry forces. A massed forces of armor would just get chewed up by a bunch of anti-tank platoons firing from all directions. It's sketchy, but it sort of help explain things.

Knife wrote:You guys are confusing the concept of modern day tactics and best possible for ever and ever. We're dealing with technology that is vastly different than modern day armies, and quite frankly modern day tactics and doctrine should not or would not apply except in specialized or general ways.

Not really. The fundamentals of modern combat are totally applicable, because the technology does not negate them. Utilizing cover and concealment works against blasters just as it does bullets. Winning firefights by gaining fire superiority still applies (except possibly against droids, which don't have enough sense to duck). Fire superiority facilitates maneuver and engaging in close combat on your terms. But really those are all modern tactics, not even modern warfighting principles, which are far more important. Things like properly conducting a METT-TC analysis; identifying the enemy's center of gravity and critical vulnerability and using those to develop an exploitation plan; issuing mission-type orders to your subordinates to facilitate subordinate leader initiative, etc... This is all stuff that is either NEVER seen or wouldn't be picked up on by the untrained.

A giant robot army with shields, who cares if they march in a big block formation. Kill off a couple hundred still leaves you a reserve of quintillion. Lose a planet to stupid tactics, you still have thousands, tens of thousands of planets left. Hell, those same tactics could have picked you up a couple dozen while losing you one.

This is an attrition-based approach to warfare. While attrition has it's place, on the sliding scale of attrition warfare<---->maneuver warfare, pure attrition is considered an inferior approach to warfighting, and should not be relied upon. ref: MCDP-1 Warfighting

Connor MacLeod wrote:Isn't tactics/doctrine or even strategy going to be alot more complicated than "what the foot soliders, tanks, etc." do on the ground or in the air? I mean logisitcs is going to be a huge factor, but you rarely see that covered in the visual media.

MCDP 1-3 Tactics defines it as "the art and science of winning engagements and battles". So it is very much associated with what your personnel and machines are doing on the battlefield.

Also, what tactics/doctrine would exist would tend to vary according to many factors like who they fight, tech levels, where you fight, and so on. After all, if you don't know (at a minimum) what you and your enemy can and can't do, you can't really do much planning, can you?

There is plenty of planning you can do for "when the enemy situation is unknown". There are flexible formations that are used for a Movement to Contact or for Patrolling, for example. Plus you develop and rehearse IA (Immediate Action) drills, which are maneuvers that your personnel execute immediately (imagine that) upon certain occurrences on the battlefield, such as receiving indirect fire, or spotting an enemy that hasn't spotted you yet. Unending rehearsals of immediate action drills are your real money-maker; they can shave precious seconds off of the unit's response time and gain a tempo and initiative advantage over your adversary.

FTeik wrote:The gunboat and the TIE-bomber are another matter. I don’t know, when the TIE-bomber was introduced, but IIRC it was also around the time of ANH (I could be wrong on this). Prior to that the empire used this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/gt

Just an aside, but the introduction date is 18 BBY at the latest for the TIE Bomber - it was used at Belsavis when Eye of Palpatine failed to show up. Given the quick introduction after the Clone Wars ended in 19 BBY, it's more plausible to me that the TIE/gt and TIE/sa were competing designs, with the /gt being a simpler design, quicker to build and cheaper, but less flexible due to relying on the TIE/fc for targeting information.

Noble713 wrote:
Not really. The fundamentals of modern combat are totally applicable, because the technology does not negate them. Utilizing cover and concealment works against blasters just as it does bullets. Winning firefights by gaining fire superiority still applies (except possibly against droids, which don't have enough sense to duck). Fire superiority facilitates maneuver and engaging in close combat on your terms. But really those are all modern tactics, not even modern warfighting principles, which are far more important. Things like properly conducting a METT-TC analysis; identifying the enemy's center of gravity and critical vulnerability and using those to develop an exploitation plan; issuing mission-type orders to your subordinates to facilitate subordinate leader initiative, etc... This is all stuff that is either NEVER seen or wouldn't be picked up on by the untrained.

Kiddo, don't play A-school infantry with me. I was running patrols and doing convoy ops when you were playing with your GI Joe.

1) Orbital fire negates fire and maneuver.
2) Heavy ships with large fighter complements for air superiority/space superiority negates fire and maneuver.
3) Very high yield energy weapons negates most 'normal' covered position unless you want to haul around actual armor. Han Solo's hand blaster was taking huge chunks out of the concrete like substance in Mos Eisley space port, and blaster weapons were shredding trees to splinters at Endor. What cover and concealment are you going to use?

This is an attrition-based approach to warfare. While attrition has it's place, on the sliding scale of attrition warfare<---->maneuver warfare, pure attrition is considered an inferior approach to warfighting, and should not be relied upon. ref: MCDP-1 Warfighting

Uhm, we place an huge value on the lives of our soldiers. There is no evidence that the CIS puts a high value, moral or other wise, on droid soldiers. Now clones you could probably make an argument that some people put value on them, but not all.

Hmm. It seems to me that part of the question is whether we view "modern doctrine" as a flexible abstract set of ideas about how to think about war, or as a specific means for fighting a war.

The abstract concepts like "identify the enemy's vulnerabilities and exploit them rather than trying to grind away at their strongest points and hoping their forces break before yours do" will still apply in some form, just as Sun Tzu is still studied by modern officers even though the practical details of how wars are fought have changed in every particular since his day.

But I can't imagine the application of those concepts not evolving over time. In premodern times, "exploit their vulnerability" could mean "capture their king" or "hit their big honking rectangle of infantry with a well-timed cavalry attack." Neither of those tactics is viable today, simply because we're no longer fighting warlord-monarchs in command of big honking rectangles of infantry. When the context of what wars are fought with and who's fighting them changes, the tactics have to change.

So it seems to me that Knife has the right of it. Star Wars is such a different technological and social context that the details are inevitably going to change.

Knife wrote:1) Orbital fire negates fire and maneuver.

Theoretically, so should nuclear weapons. Then again you may also want to make use of the area you're bombarding later and given the advanced technology in Star Wars ECM could cause you to blast a target kilometers away from where you intended.

2) Heavy ships with large fighter complements for air superiority/space superiority negates fire and maneuver.

Not if your enemy can deny you air superiority.

3) Very high yield energy weapons negates most 'normal' covered position unless you want to haul around actual armor. Han Solo's hand blaster was taking huge chunks out of the concrete like substance in Mos Eisley space port, and blaster weapons were shredding trees to splinters at Endor. What cover and concealment are you going to use?

So? Temporary cover is better than no cover and metal doesn't seem to have the same effect on steel as it does on wood and concrete.

Knife wrote: 1) Orbital fire negates fire and maneuver.
2) Heavy ships with large fighter complements for air superiority/space superiority negates fire and maneuver.

Orbital artillery and air support are just different mediums for fires delivery, and if anything it supports the adage that effective suppression is the key to maneuver. Not to mention that overwhelming orbital/air support is not always available for a number of reasons including theater shields, min. safe distances of ordnance, collateral damage, and the ECM environment as mentioned by General Schatten.

3) Very high yield energy weapons negates most 'normal' covered position unless you want to haul around actual armor. Han Solo's hand blaster was taking huge chunks out of the concrete like substance in Mos Eisley space port, and blaster weapons were shredding trees to splinters at Endor. What cover and concealment are you going to use?

Even short-lived cover is better than eating that first blaster bolt square in your chest. Unlike 40k Space Marines, Clonetroopers clearly aren't impervious to most small arms fire. As such, we should definitely see them utilizing micro-terrain at every opportunity instead of just standing with their feet firmly planted and blazing away.

Uhm, we place an huge value on the lives of our soldiers. There is no evidence that the CIS puts a high value, moral or other wise, on droid soldiers. Now clones you could probably make an argument that some people put value on them, but not all.

I was largely considering Clones and the organic troops of the CIS. But even from a resource perspective rather than a "humane" one, there is an incentive to not throw away your troops haphazardly. Given that the Separatists do not possess an overwhelming economic/material advantage over the Republic, victory by attrition becomes even more tenuous. We also know that the CIS is capable of producing droids with at least a modicum of tactical sense (Commando Droids), so there is no real excuse for not putting some decent programming in your line troops so they get blown up less, which means you expend less resources for each casualty you cause.

General Schatten wrote: Theoretically, so should nuclear weapons. Then again you may also want to make use of the area you're bombarding later and given the advanced technology in Star Wars ECM could cause you to blast a target kilometers away from where you intended.

Orbital bombardment happens quite a lot in the EU and at Hoth it was the first thing considered and rejected due to the theater shield. It is nothing like Nukes in that it happens a lot where nukes aren't.

Not if your enemy can deny you air superiority.

*sigh* If you have orbital superiority, you can trash enemy air superiority. It is almost a tiered system.

So? Temporary cover is better than no cover and metal doesn't seem to have the same effect on steel as it does on wood and concrete.

Tree's and depressions in the earth work for us in this time and space because they do stop bullets, if it won't stop a blaster bolt, it is useless and a feel good measure, nothing else.

All that put aside, it is nitpickery on my point of Star Wars combat isn't anything like Earth's modern combat, so while you can grade small unit tactics and general things, you can't dismiss things like war of attrition with droids, or formation combat or other things we would look at on Earth as insane or quaint.

Knife wrote:Orbital bombardment happens quite a lot in the EU and at Hoth it was the first thing considered and rejected due to the theater shield. It is nothing like Nukes in that it happens a lot where nukes aren't.

Orbital bombardment in the EU happens usually when the Empire (well known for their care about avoiding civilian casualties) blasts away at some rebel positions.

Let us examine the specific conditions of this situation:
1. The enemy has no way of returning fire in the same fashion
2. There is no care about the civilian casualties and collateral damage
3. The enemy does not now and will newer have the political will or means to use the same tactics.

The situation is quite similar to what happened when America Nuked Japan in 45. The know they can get away with it so they do it. If orbital bombardments are what you say, we would see a lot more stories about the rebels using it as ground support when ever they can.

The clone war was a different story altogether. It was a standard symmetrical conflict where nether side (baring some obviously evil characters and Sith) wanted to cause too much collateral damage. (Aliens, small planets with fuzzy creatures or 100 inhabitants don't count)

The political conditions were quite different after all. The Republic did care not to cause too much damage. The CIS in turn cared just enough not to mess up the important bits of what would become the Empire later. (Had this not been the case the CIS could have just bombed Corrosant, jedy council and all from orbit or even just crashed a cruiser on top of their heads. Since we see a cruiser crashing on the planet the later would work for sure.)

*sigh* If you have orbital superiority, you can trash enemy air superiority. It is almost a tiered system.

Not necessarily. We seen at Hoth that the Empire did not deploy any fighter craft to combat the snow speeders even thou they knew that they were attacking a rebel stronghold.

Given the STOL and outright VTOL capabilities of Star Wars craft a defender can hide his air force everywhere and anywhere.
You can't really take down someones air support without glassing every hiding space on the surface of the planet. Once you have repulsorlifts every planet becomes the new Afghanistan.

Purple wrote:Not necessarily. We seen at Hoth that the Empire did not deploy any fighter craft to combat the snow speeders even thou they knew that they were attacking a rebel stronghold.

Given the STOL and outright VTOL capabilities of Star Wars craft a defender can hide his air force everywhere and anywhere.
You can't really take down someones air support without glassing every hiding space on the surface of the planet. Once you have repulsorlifts every planet becomes the new Afghanistan.

This also occurs in the Ryloth arc in the Clone Wars series. Even though their space forces had been completely obliterated, the CIS was still able to launch a bombing campaign against the natives of Ryloth. Although the CIS bombers were later stopped, they were still able to cause massive civilian casualties before being stopped.