Books The Essential Guide to Warfare by Jason Fry and a pseudonymous Scotsman

Great quotes, they reminded me of something else about the Battle of Yavin that I always wondered about the reasoning behind:

Two things about this have raised my curiosity for some time: Why would re-distributing Death Star Gunners by alphabetical order have any (if any) real impact upon the outcome of the Battle of Yavin, given that the Death Star had the same type of guns throughout the station; the other concern being the fact that the Databank seems to falsely attribute blame for this to General Tagge based upon a mis-reading of the following passage from Galaxy Guide 1:

as the quote indicates, one of Tagge's subordinates was responsible for the apparently fateful gunnery crew re-distribution, rather than Tagge himself. Still, it seems unlikely that the crews would have any difficulty adjusting to the new duty-stations and fellow crewers, given the uniformity of gun defenses on the Death Star. Perhaps the Essential Warfare Guide will give an answer as to whether or not the arrangement of gunnery-crews has any impact upon the outcome of battles in general (and on the Battle of Yavin in particular), and if it does will properly attribute blame to Tagge's anonymous subordinate (likely the Death Star's Station Defenses Officer going by the Death Star Technical Companion) and not to General Tagge.

 

If I were to take a guess, the "subordinate" that was most likely to have rearranged the gunnery crews in alphabetical order would have been none other than Admiral Motti. High General Tagge might have been at a higher paygrade than the admiral, but the Naval gunnery crews would have fell under Motti's jurisdiction and not under Tagge and the Imperial Army. Since we clearly saw that Motti was not as level-headed as Tagge was, Motti would have been such the person to move around the gunnery crews as he randomly saw fit.

 

It would make sense only if Motti was Tagge's subordinate, which he wasn't. While Tagge was the senior Imperial Army representative aboard the Death Star, he was also in charge of the defenses of the Death Star, as GG1:ANH clearly states: "The grand tactician in charge of the Death Star's defense was General Tagge." (pg 52). Because the Death Star Gunners were not part of the Imperial Navy, but rather assigned directly to the Death Star, there would have been no conflict of authority between Tagge and Motti regarding the Gunners, even though many of the Gunners had previously been among the best Star Destroyer gunners in the Navy. Granted, such an issue almost certainly would have created a rivalry between the two leaders over who had authority over the Gunners, which in turn might have led to some 'overzealous officer UNDER General Tagge' to re-assign the gunners alphabetically in order to be able to boast of their improved efficiency. Regardless of why, it was a subordinate of Tagge who was responsible for the re-assignment, rather than Motti or Tagge himself.

 

That doesn't make any sort of sense. Just because some gunnery crew gets assigned to a Death Star doesn't mean they're no longer part of the Navy. What business does Army officers have in telling naval crews what to do anyway? Even if it's somehow plausible, however unlikely, that the Army gets tasked with managing the naval gunnery crews of the Death Star, we still are left with two contradictory sources that cancel each other out if taken literally.

Since I'm in no way a believer that all C-Canon should be treated equally, my suggestion is to simply throw away both the TOS databank and Galaxy Guide version of events in favor of common sense, and have Motti and the naval officers in charge of the naval gunnery crews.

 

Hmmm..... on second thought, it might have been possible for the Army to take command of defense batteries on the Death Star with the argument that it is practically a small moon, and that the Army has experience manning defense turrets on planets and moons. In that is indeed the case, then I would be far more willing to have the Galaxy Guide version of events canonized and not the TOS Databank version.

 

I don't see how naval terms like "destroyer" is a vague term, especially since it is grouped with "container vessel", "tanker", "cruiser" and "battleship", in the very same paragraph! They're all perfectly viable terms used on ships in real-life and I don't see why the constant fan-obsession with Star Destroyer inhibits any use of a real-life naval term!

I really couldn't care less if ships had "Star" or not in their name, as long as they're descriptive. "Battlecruiser" and "dreadnought" means they're a battlecruiser and a dreadnought. Their exact specifications are up to future authors to flesh out.

For now, we know that large Republic/Imperial ships were termed Star Destroyers, Star Cruisers, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts. ROTS:ICS and CCS specifically refer to a Republic Star Battlecruiser in the section on the Invisible Hand and the fate of Pammant, the Empire uses Star Dreadnought as part of the Executor's class-name, even changing it back to this in official documents after first putting up a fake profile (Super-class Star Destroyer, as per Starship Battles Preview 1). ITWT and SW:CL point out the difference between Star Destroyers and Super Star Destroyers is their size and gives two examples when they state that Rebel personnel use the latter phrase (SSD) as slang for warships larger than SDs, with Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnoughts as two named types of warships. The Executor-class even serving as an example of the latter type of SSD in the very same paragraph.

That shows these ship types are referred to in an official capacity as Cruiser, Battlecruiser and Dreadnought. Yes, with a Star prefix, but other than that, there's no comparison to a name for a whole design line or for peripheral alien designs or general terms for warships.

If you want to showcase a word that is just used colloquially or in manufacturer-speak, "Star Destroyer" would be a better case. For any ship not classified with that, it is just another case of military slang, something used both in real-life and in SW.

 

I would argue that point. In TIE Fighter, yes you play as the Empire, but all you're doing is upholding the law and defending the Empire's interest. If Maarek Stele is a villain, he's rather a noble one. You never once see the following:

These missions don't happen in TIE Fighter. Sure you invade a sector, forcibly take technology, but you're never BDZing, never killing civilians (unless you want to waste the ammo), never doing anything as bad as the Empire does in the films or other source material.

 

True, but it would've been fun if that had been the case. Of course I always thought your typical Imperial Serviceman was like your typical Imperial citezen; there were horrendous "human" rights violations, but they were done by a very small few in a galaxy spanning military and society. Most Imperials probably rarley if ever saw combat (before ROTJ) and most were probably normal people trying to make a living and uphold the law like Steele.

As to the Navy gunners being under Army command on the Death Star; why not? If the Army was in charge of the "ground" defences, the gunners were just temporarily assigned TDY, they were still in the Navy but under Army command. I've know pilots that were assigned to support the Marines in the medevac role, so you had Army pilots under Marine commanders, same thing as Navy gunners being assigned under Army command.

 

What happened to Dodonna's: "The battlestation is heavily armored and has greater firepower than half the starfleet, but its defences are designed for a capital assault. A small fighter should be able to penetrate the empire's defense-net." or some such (I'm going from memory here).

or

"Lord Vader, we count at least thirty of them, of two types. They are so small and quick the fixed guns cannot follow them accurately. They continuously evade the predictors."

Not to mention, that according to the ANH-novel it is Motti, who is responsible for the DS-defenses.

 

SW uses plenty of terms for ships that while might be descriptive enough for real life purposes, are quite vague when applied to SW. Take "interceptor" for example; in real life, dedicated interceptors are distinct from standard air superiority planes in that they sacrifice maneuverability for speed in order to catch bombers. That's not the case in SW, where "interceptor" is merely an alternate word for a high-performance space superiority starfighter that otherwise keeps the same mission profile as other space superiority craft. At any rate, I don't think you've mentioned yet what precisely distinguishes a SW destroyer from a SW cruiser (which can describe anything from a Carrack to an Imperator)..... or a SW frigate for that matter. If you can't give me an adequate answer, then there is simply no reason to keep treating random paragraphs as authoritative classifications for the purposes of the EGtW.

I've read the ANH-novel recently, and it in fact does attribue the initial slow response of the Death Star's gunnery crews to Admiral Motti's oversight, suggesting that he had ultimate responsibility for them and not Tagge:

PS: Can someone tell me why the Death Star would need a satellite to coordinate defenses? I never understood the logic of that particular X-Wing mission.

 

Um, you do realize that in a navy with ships that spans thousands of years of service as well as changes in naval doctrines, it's going to be inevitable that different ship designs which have the same designation end up being part of the same military?

The CW Republic makes do with a hodge-podge of designs going from pre-war corvettes, frigates, "light" and "heavy" cruisers, (which were the heaviest ships in the official Republic forces in those peace-time centuries) to the Venator and other modern Star Destroyer designs, as well as pre-modern Republic Invincible-class Dreadnaught heavy cruisers, to heavy warship designs originally meant for Core sector defense forces and not widespread sale (AOTC:ICS, ROTS:ICS).

That some may end up having different designations with the isolated military developments of the prewar centuries is inevitable, yet you didn't even touch upon my references, which do simply call them by those names, no hint of it being a company decision only. Given they are in Republic service, we can only go by what they are called while in said service. Again, Republic Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts are different enough to warrant separate designations, which are in turn separate from Republic Star Destroyers.

As for a destroyer/cruiser difference, the AOTC:ICS provides one. The Trade Federation's destroyers are lighter craft compared with its cruisers and battleships, all three of which use the same Core Ship model as command centers. Destroyers are used for escort and blockade runner-catching, like the Star Destroyers. The Star Destroyers in turn being smaller than SSDs like Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnoughts.
The main point of divergence, which might explain why Star Destroyers are treated more as cruisers than destroyers, seems to lie in their capability to perform independently, making long voyages far from support, lead fleets and carry massive guns. Observed destroyers seem more inclined to be dependent on travelling in groups with other ships and not operating far from support.

 

Then explain why a Carrack cruiser is lighter than a Munificent frigate; two ships that were introduced at around the same time? How long will it take you to realize that an accurate classification system can't be formed on the basis of spare descriptions of ships that we know almost absolutely nothing about, but rather by an objective and empirical approach that takes a detailed look into what roles each ship preforms?

Other ships such as Munificent frigates and Dreadnaught cruisers have also been used as escorts and planetary defense/blockade ships. No niche for a destroyer in SW combat here.

The exact same thing can be said about SW frigates. See, the reason a "destroyer" category was create for real navies was the need for a specialized ship to destroy torpedo boats. No such analogue exists in SW space combat because there is no room for a torpedo boat analogue. Practically all well-described SW ships that are called "destroyers" can also reasonably be called "cruisers". Furthermore, all of the well-described SW "destroyers" out there serve as ships-of-the-line, while there are many types of "cruisers" that are not really all that well suited for front-line combat. Hence, why I came up with the term "Cruiser Destroyer" a few posts back for upper-tier cruisers like the Venators and Providences that are built specifically to destroy other warships (and a star system here and there ), while calling less-combat worthy vessels "Pursuit Cruisers" (a term which has basis in the Marvel comics). I feel my approach has more basis in how SW space combat has actually evolved over time (ie. no torpedo boat analogues for a "destroyer" class between a "frigate" and a "cruiser" to have ever existed in space warfare).

You have failed to provide me with a defintion of a SW "destroyer" that is distinct from that of a SW "frigate" or SW "cruiser". Until you can, can you refrain from simply listing the same DK passages ad nauseum?

 

You mean the same novel that had the roles of Tagge and Motti (and Romodi) somewhat reversed during the Conference Room meeting? The ANH novel merely states that Motti's tacticians had never thought to run scenarios against a starfighter attack, without specifically saying that Motti was in charge of the Death Star's defenses. Meanwhile, there is a direct quote from the WEG material that Tagge was in charge of the defenses for the Death Star. Because of the incongruity of having an Army High General holding responsibility for what would logically (maybe not, battle station ops could be different) be a role better suited for a naval officer, there was certainly some reasoning behind it, and perhaps what Armchair_Admiral said in an above post about Tagge getting the job because the Death Star is more akin to a planetary body than a battlestation certainly has merit, though another explanation simply could be that Motti held responsibility for offensive operations and Tagge had control of defensive operations, as the Galaxy Guide and the Official Databank both seem to concur on.

 

Hmmm..... you do have a legitimate point there. The novel doesn't say outright that Admiral Motti was in charge of the defense batteries; only that he and the boys in the backroom came up with a flawed threat assessment that the gunnery crews were instructed to anticipate. Perhaps Motti came up with the assessment, delivered it to Grand Moff Tarkin, and then Tarkin ordered General Tagge to have the gunners prepared as recommended by the assessment.

A bit simplistic view: Motti would still have operational control over the Death Star's TIE Fighters. None of the sources indicate that Tagge had command over the TIEs too.

~~~~~

Not to backtrack too much, but I believe there is another Imperial general who ought to retconned into a Grand General..... perhaps more than the other candidates so far: Ulric Tagge. Frankly I don't know what's more confusing; General Ulric Tagge having his own cruiser (which has such a severe case of Chaos Architecture that it's impossible to tell if his ship is an ISD or a more powerful battlecruiser), or Ulric the renowned fleet commander having an army-style rank. Could it be possible that Ulric was a naval admiral whom Palpatine commissioned as a Grand General for the hell of it?

 

Ok, wise-guy, so according to you, there's no difference because, you say there's no difference and when one is pointed out you say, "no"? Gee, where have I heard that before on these boards?

Ok, how about this, SOTG SE actually points out there is a Destroyer-class which the Star Destroyers are not strictly analogous to. It's in the section on Super Star Destroyers, one which points out the average Star Destroyer is usually rated a star cruiser while the SSDs are usually rated a star dreadnaught (which might hint at the Imperial classification POV, as the Rebels grouped Imperial Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts into the SSD category). The same text also says Star Destroyer is always capitalized, unlike star frigate and star cruiser, none of which has been true in publishing so far.

As for no torpedo boats to chase? Well, isn't chasing down blockade runners or marauding pirate craft doing the same task as rl destroyers chasing submarines and torpedo boats? Real-life destroyers started out as light warships that escorted other ships in the fleet, and mainly engaged enemy torpedo boats and other fast craft when they approached friendlies. Same with TF destroyers and the Star Destroyers. The profile on the Venator in ROTS:ICS even says it's a medium-weight warship that's fast enough to chase blockade runners and is also used as escort for Republic battleships. The main difference from other destroyers, is it's also said to be large enough to lead naval task forces, has room to serve as a carrier and is also used as a transport for land units. Basically all the different tasks the Imperial-class does decades later. SOTG SE even adds that unlike the earlier Venator, the Imperial can go further on its own without a dedicated supply chain, so it's even more befitting a cruiser role than the previous design.

As for another real-life analog, I mentioned earlier that TF destroyers and Imperial Star Destroyers were lighter than their contemporary cruisers and Star Cruisers as well as their battleships and Star Dreadnoughts, respectively. That's another real-life analogy, as so far, most destroyer classes have been the same in the real world, only surpassing the weight and firepower of light cruisers from 70 years ago. The ones they are attempting to make by using a cruiser hull, have so far not actually gotten off the ground, and are not likely to be produced beyond 2 or 3 ships, tops. Even a previous planned destroyer, ended up being reclassified a cruiser with its increased combat capability and ended up being heavier than the destroyer hull it was based on.
It's doubtful a huge shift in doctrine will occur any day soon and destroyers will surpass the modern cruisers in size in the same navy.

As for the Carrack vs. Munificent, didn't I just say over and over again that individual navies had their own forces and didn't have to correspond to the Republic peacetime navy? What that Carrack and Dreadnaught classes were, is completely irrelevant to the forces and make-up of a sector force that isn't part of the Judicial Forces. Didn't I also say that over thousands of years, the Navy might accumulate designs from different eras that had different strategies and design trends? Oh, yes I did.

The Banking Clan had these large frigates to serve as fleet combatants and support ships for their businesses, even forming their own independent information network parallel to the HoloNet. The Carrack light cruiser was primarily an escort for larger ships and a skirmisher, while the Dreadnaught heavy cruiser patrolled the space lanes and escorted convoys. Larger designs were not part of the peacetime navy and were only made by the wealthy Core sectors that could afford them for their own protection. It isn't until the CW that their services are needed across the galaxy as part of a centralized wartime Navy. Which left the Carrack and Dreadnaught to be used by individual Security Forces and not be a main part of the Republic Navy.

[q

 

That's enough. This thread is for discussion of the Essential Guide to Warfare, not rehashing Fleet Junkies arguments.

 

It's for an important aspect of SW warfare, isn't that what this thread is for?

Of course, I doubt it will be even a fraction of a page.

That's going to be hard, considering there's potential for a lot of different fleet tactics and designs over the millennia. I hope it's not just namedropping without any explanations.

There's bound to be a lot of pictures for old unseen as well as new stuff. The Atlas didn't disappoint.

 

You just never give up, do you?

So now you have the audacity to cite a source where the term "destroyer" is nowhere to be found in the table that's supposed to explain the ship classification system: http://yfrog.com/j653054453j

Meanwhile there are known instances in the canon where the use of "_________-class" actually refers to a more specific description. In TESB, we have an Imperial officer refering to Luke's fighter as X-Wing-class. Numerous times in the Marvel series, Imperial cruisers are described as "Star Destroyer" class. Finally we have Han Solo in Marvel's Wheel-arc describing Commander Strom's cruiser as "Pursuit-class"; not the full "Star Destroyer" class. Since the term "destroyer" is absent in the main ship class listing that's supoosed to, you know.... describe the main classes of ships, the only workable explanation is that "Destroyer-class" actually refers to a type of cruiser and/or frigate, just like how "Pursuit-class" is a known type of cruiser.

Honestly, I fail to see why we should waste any more time on this issue. I mean, the canon won't implode just because "destroyer" is retconned into a subclass..... will it?

EDIT: Yeah, this looks like a good place to end the debate.

 

What can I say, WOTC are inconsistent?

As for the rest of your post, I'm not allowed to make more posts about the subject, so I've edited the larger post above while it's still available for editing.

 

Well, I don?t know what WEG-source you?ve used, but according to WEGs own DSTC the gunners of the DeathStar were selected from the fleet. On the DS the gunners were part of stations-operations, which itself is said to be a part of the fleet - so Motti would have been the one in charge.

AND EVEN if it had been Tagge, who was responsible for the way gunners were distributed - this still doesn?t explain how that would have made a difference, since the defences of the DS were designed against capital ships and starfighters were too small and nimble for the cannons to hit them. A point that was clearly stated by General Dodonna during the pilot-briefing and Commander Praj, when he reported to Darth Vader.

 

I'm going to say something now that'll probably be more controversial than any warship-related discussion. Please, Mr. Fry, add a paragraph saying that although uncommon, there were female Stormtroopers in the Empire. I base this on the original intent of George Lucas, going back to an interview he did in the late 70s, iirc.

There is a picture of a female Coruscant Guard in the Roleplaying Game Revised Core Rulebook, with the underlying text describing elite soldiers, including Elite Stormtroopers (which the CG are) and also several sources describing female cadets in the various Imperial Academies (Dark Forces: SFTE, Carida: Heavy Duty etc.). All cadets, iirc, had to undergo Stormtrooper training as basis education before choosing which military branch to specialize in. So this isn't really a concept out of the blue, and given the size of the Empire, there's gotta be some systems where things were a bit more laid back and less judgemental.

I know decades of WEG goes against this principle for the Empire as a whole, but I feel it's more to the core of the Empire's ideal rather than it simply being sexist, anyone could be a loyal servant/shocktrooper in the Empire's service.

 

hey,

i have one question!

is the post of the illustrator already occupied?

i have a very good man, he can create all the ship graphics

his name is perhaps someone known

fractalsponge

Here are some of his wonderful work

http://fractalsponge.net/

greatings ketan

 

Hmm, I read somewhere he was the artist who did the Acme Archives SpecPlate. Would be nice if he did a technical illustration somewhere, his gallery's stunning.