ST Military Tactics In The ST

There are kids movies and ‘kids’ movies.

When I was a kid I loved certain cartoons but can’t watch them as an adult. They were made only for young children. On the other hand Batman the animated series was made for kids primarily but also with an eye on appealing to a larger older audience.

Same with Pixar. All ages can enjoy them. Same with Star wars.
I’m told Outlander is made primarily for women, but i have a number of make friends who love it.

 

Legitimacy of real-world military tactics as it applies to a fairytale fantasy story might be dismissive. It's just, you know, accurate, it doesn't apply.

 

The same argument has been repeated more than once by now, so it seems we've ended up in a loop. I will try for a last time before giving up: we do not want real world military tactics to be applied, we just want to see an inner consistency within the fantastic universe, and for many of us TLJ lacks it. It has been explained quite extensively by godisawesome and Glitterstimm, I don't have much to add but it is a bit frustrating to see that their opinions have been completely ignored.

 

I think that's the point though, the singling out of TLJ. Anyone could name any number of logic jumps & inconsistencies among all of the other movies, Clone Wars, Rebels, comics, novels, whatever. And the two examples people seem to focus on so much in TLJ, the hyperspace jump and the fighter/turret sequence, do stand up to a basic sort of logic & context.

Should that starship have just launched a crapload of TIEs to take down Poe? Yeah. The same thing also happens with the first Death Star in ANH, because it has to, the good guys have to make it out.

The hyperspace jump? Nothing saying it couldn't be done in the other movies. It's just not smart or warranted or economical, not even getting into the ethical issues of ordering people to suicide themselves as a matter of orders-from-on-high.

 

I suggest you read the full thread to see why you are wrong.

TLJ is inconsistent on a number of levels with the saga as a whole.

 

It's not, but whatever. Nobody's gonna be persuading anyone here, evidently.

 

Isn't that going a bit too far to say that someone can't even say they think an opinion is wrong now?

Especially when that person has provided previous reasons why they think that opinion is wrong.

I just feel it's a bit... controlling. Overly prescriptive, dictatorial even...

 

But is not everything objective? Are not facts subjective?

As Pilot said to Christ "What is truth?"
I see people arguing facts every day outside these forums.
I think as long as you don't resort to personal insults and are respectful then I see no wrong (put intended) in stating said belief.

Anyway, I'll try my best in future not to speak so plainly. I'll try to be a little more unctuous in going foward.

 

What do you gals (and guys) propose would happen if pre TLJ, a ship entered hyperspace with coordinates that went through another solid object? Our only clue is in Han Solo's line in ANH. "Traveling through Hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculation we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?" What if you apply this logic to plotting a course through hyperspace with coordinates that would take you through a solid object? Pretend TL didn't happen. What would happen if you entered hyperspace through another ship? Maybe the problem isn't the Last Jedi but the rules of hyperspace in SW in the first place. Wouldn't it tear a massive rip through another ship going by the rules established in 1977's Star Wars?

 

The line by Han is a convolution of expository dialogue for the viewer and characterization. The part about "bounce too close to a supernova" is for anyone keeping score an exaggeration as far as astrophysical probability. The part about "fly right through a star" can be calibrated for exaggeration by noting that Lucas had the Death Star drop out of hyperspace on one side of gas giant Yavin, with Yavin IV on the other side, necessitating that the Death Star orbit the gas giant. Persons who require to tear down the OT to obtaining levels can always whatabout that Lucas should have had the DS drop out of hyperspace at some other oblique angle to get a clear shot at Yavin IV, and therefore the whole thing is a contrivance in service to dramatic tension. That's fine.

The idea that orbital mechanics can play a part in the timing of an action is a hard sci-fi leaning conceit. As a rule, Star Wars is uniformly and universally dismissed as devoid of anything resembling real life constraints. So the presence of it here, front and center, where it matters desperately, should, despite the universal dismissal, serve as a cue that large astronomical bodies following orbital paths in planes will, at some time or another, intrude upon a ship's intended path. As well, in Abrams' world, where there is no limit to any form of anything, and all things are possible without critical review, the Falcon could have gone to light speed after just rearing its head out of docking bay 94. Rogue One doubled down on this heresy and it will eventually be orthodoxy. But Lucas did not have the Falcon jump to hyperspace from Tatooine's atmosphere, did not have the X-Wings and cargo transports jump to hyperspace from the atmosphere of Hoth, nor did the Falcon attempt to do so even though we later learn its hyperdrive was broken, nor with Luke's X-Wing, nor did the Falcon or X-Wing jump to hyperspace from Tatooine's atmosphere in ROTJ, nor did Lucas have the Falcon drop out of hyperspace inside the atmosphere of Yavin IV, nor did Lucas have Luke's X-Wing drop out of hyperspace inside the atmosphere of Dagobah. Lucas does not provide data on the entry of the Falcon into Bespin's atmosphere or the departure of Luke's X-Wing from Dagobah. To anyone exercising the least amount of pattern recognition, without a prior agenda that there cannot possibly be any kind of consistency in the OT entries, that must be deferred to or respected, one might come to an hypothesis that the data conspires to paint a picture of gravity wells around massive objects like planets.

If one can tolerate the operation of pattern emergence or central tendency, and also combine that data with the demonstrated constraint of the orbital mechanics at the end of SW77, and the data from Han, keeping an eye on what he exaggerates and does not necessarily exaggerate, one can construct an hypothesis that astronomical masses are to be avoided to all extents possible when navigating into, through or out of hyperspace.

The effect of astronomical masses upon hyperspace travel, I submit, is demonstrated beyond reasonable conjecture. The attendant question to what does god need with a starship is, how much damage can a Falcon do to the innards of a star? None.

The effect of non-astronomical masses upon hyperspace travel is not *demonstrated. This is what you actually pointed at.

The depiction of tandem jumps into and out of hyperspace in ROTJ does not show that ships obviously cross paths. You do not see an X-Wing pop out of hyperspace in front of a large cruiser, for instance, with the understanding that it must have just an instant ago been in hyperspace in the 3D location that the cruiser now occupies. Look close and they all have their own unique, non-converging, parallel paths. When Shuttle Tydirium leaves the rebel fleet, it makes way from Home One, turns, and jumps to hyperspace in between ships. One might conjecture that if there is a gravity well / gravity shadow central tendency in prior OT, then, the fleet that is immediately nearby does not constitute sufficient shadow that the Shuttle Tydirium has to get clear of it.

The tandem jumps of ROTJ is a basis for supposition that ships in or out of hyperspace ought not cross the path of another ship that is in or out of hyperspace, and that the intersection of a ship in hyperspace with a ship out of hyperspace can be as devastating as a collision of two ships in normal space.

This is an ok starting point for the defense of the Holdo Maneuver as being within the rule set laid down in the OT as far as what data is available for how ships interact. The intuition of ROTJ scenes showing tandem jumps actually favors the Holdo Maneuver. The intuition of RO with Devastator's arrival does not. RO has several small ships waltz into hyperspace through the hyperspace path of the Devastator that is itself coming out of hyperspace. (Footnote: One can try to make arguments from very small but visible angular differences in trajectories that no ships ever crossed paths, or, no ship's cross section ever intersected another ship's cross-section. This would be in favor of Holdo Maneuver.) This is similar to the intuition of the ROTJ scene where the Shuttle Tydirium jumps to hyperspace very near to large cruisers that are not also jumping to hyperspace, and is also jumping across their lines of travel. If they have a mass shadow of substance, it is not enough that Tydirium has to be an planetary orbital distance away from.

Ignoring mass arguments, and addressing just the ability: To act upon the intuition of ROTJ that favors the Holdo Maneuver, and declare / assert that the Holdo Maneuver was never practical, or efficient, or good enough, or thought of, or too objectionable on moral grounds, prior to the epoch of the ST, is to break the premise of SW77 that there were no sufficiently practical, or sufficiently efficient, or sufficiently good enough, or sufficiently thought of methods of destruction prior to the arduous task of specially designing a Death Star that could be sufficiently practical, or sufficiently efficient, or sufficiently good enough, or sufficiently thought of a method of destruction. The premise of SW77 places constraints on how far to interpret data from ROTJ. If an X-Wing flew through hyperspace through a rebel cruiser by accident, and it was destroyed spectacularly as in TLJ, Admiral Ackbar would observe, 'Hm, that ship could not repel a relativistic impact of that magnitude. Let's empty out one of our many cruisers - I have an idea.' Any such a simple and statistically inevitable learning moment would have occurred well before the PT, and would have grandfather-killed any premise for the need of a Death Star. This means one cannot ignore mass arguments.

Going back to the future, and not ignoring mass arguments, that means that there exists some threshold of mass below which ships do not necessarily suffer catastrophic damage if they pass through the hyperspace pathway of another ship. If they collide in normal space, the effects are disastrous as expected. That threshold of mass has to be smaller than the smallest Death Star, else, they would not have been built, because they could have been neutralized by some large ship or large-ship-mass asteroid doing a hyperspace ram. If all it took to neutralize the Death Star, permanently cripple it, not necessarily vaporize it, was the single Mon Cal cruiser from RO, there wouldn't be a need for a floppy disk of hope. The Rebels of RO's Yavin IV surely could have replaced a Mon Cal cruiser. If the Death Star was too large to damage via a hyperspace ram, but smaller vessels like Star Destroyers and Super Star Destroyers could be damaged by hyperspace ram, the desperate, last stand moments to do it presented itself many times over the OT and the PT. Escaping from Hoth, for one, Battle of Endor for another.

A defender of the Holdo Maneuver has to perform special pleading. One way, for an absolute mass type of argument, is to assert that the technique only works below a mass threshold that is somewhere 1. greater than Supremacy and 2. lower than the smallest Death Star, but above a mass threshold 3. greater than Devastator. Ships went right through Devastator, so its mass was not sufficient to possess a fragility-inducing gravity well, and neither were the (smaller) ships that passed through it. This is concordant with Shuttle Tydirium jumping to hyperspace very near large capital ships. Supremacy was massive, but not so massive as to be immune to the collision from the Raddus.

We do not know the size of the Raddus in relation to the Devastator. An argument on raw mass thresholds would need to know it. To volunteer to be agreeable with all data in all Disney as well as OT and PT, (which in no ways solves the Holdo Maneuver problem), would be to surmise that the Raddus was more massive than the Devastator. IF (capital) the Raddus was larger than the Devastator, THEN the Raddus can cross the lowest mass threshold necessary to possess a fragility-inducing gravity well. An X-wing better not try to fly through it, and it itself better not try to fly through anything else, whether that's an X-Wing or a Supremacy or a Rey escape pod.

An argument on mass ratios can proceed up to a point: The ships that jumped to hyperspace through the Devastator were of such and such size. The largest of them (Nebulon B, maybe?) sets an upper bound of how close the two vessels can be in mass without their gravity wells becoming mutually fragility-inducing. This argument then requires that the Raddus : Supremacy ratio was larger than the (I forget - Nebulon B?): Devastator ratio. It also requires that the Empire intentionally built the Death Star massive enough that the Death Star outmassed any vessel or object that could be made large enough to satisfy the Raddus : Supremacy ratio. Going from Luke, Obi-Wan and Wedges' shock at: that small moon, no it's a space station, look at the size of that thing, it is reasonable to try to defend Holdo Maneuver by saying that the Empire went for 256 bit encryption in terms of raw mass. A defender of Holdo Maneuver then might assert that the Death Star was too large to take down by means of hyperspace ram, because there simply were no vessels large enough, and attaching a hyperdrive to an asteroid was somehow impossible. Asserting such a low-tech approach was impossible strains the ears, but they can make the claim. They can also recruit Admiral Motti's "Dangerous to your starfleet, Commander, not to this battlestation."

In either form of argument, raw mass threshold or mass ratio, the defender of the Holdo Maneuver cannot dust their hands and proclaim that their work is done. Han's statement in ROTJ that 'there are a lot of command ships' means that those ships are thoroughly vulnerable to this kind of asymmetric attack. The defender of the Holdo Maneuver now has to assert that the Rebellion was not capable of finding an asteroid that satisfies a Raddus-mass or a Supremacy : Raddus mass ratio and attach a hyperdrive, even with all of their 200lb astromech droids that know how to conduct a fighter through hyperspace, and neutralize these command ships the way Raddus neutralized Supremacy. They need only be severely crippled, in the way that Supremacy certainly was not vaporized.

 

From Han’s words in ANH I assumed that meant that ships in hyperspace couldn’t pass through solid objects like planets, asteroids, stars etc...

I thought that was what the navi-computer was for, plotting safe causes around these objects.

And Zahn and other writers have always written about the necessity of clearing gravity wells and planetary bodies before making the jump to hyperspace. Other Sci-fi follows the similar rules like Star Trek.

However, I remember a Clone Wars episode where a ship made the jump to light-speed from within a planet’s atmosphere. And then in TFA Han jumps the Falcon from within the larger ship.

So at this point i have to assume that the old/conventional way of understanding hyperspace travel is no longer being adhered to.

EDIT: That being said, Zahn is still using interdictors and gravity wells in his new canon novels further muddying the waters...

 

I don't think there is a contradiction. It's likely that in order to do those unusual things, you have to turn off safety overrides, as doing them significantly increases the risk of getting your self killed. Like most modern jet fighters have G-limiters, which can be overriden by the pilot. And many modern cars have safety features that actually cannot be overridden (like ABS brakes).

 

I would love to see an enemy try to attach a hypderdrive to an asteroid. Or use droid crewed ships.

It's possible this maneuver was either never tried because the possible losses would not pay off if it didn't work shipwise, or was tried and wasn't successful. It's possible this is a million to one shot at working and this time it did. It's possible no one ever tried it. The things we don't know about Star Wars massively outweigh the things we do, and the suppositions we can make around snippets of dialogue we have that do address these kinds of things don't make a cogent enough argument that we know EXACTLY how this all works.

I'm interested to see how this changes the game of ship to ship warfare in Star Wars. How do planets combat this, how do ships combat this, could there be "slow zones" like in the Expanse where ships can only go so fast?

Any addition to the canon is gonna start to stretch the rules of what we knew was possible. I welcome this because it opens up the playing field to new possibilities, and Star Wars needs to be able to introduce these kinds of moments of grandeur. It was appropriate for the moment, a writ-large dramatic example of how powerful calculated sacrifice can be.

 

We had a pretty long discussion abput the LS jump starting from here

The main idea is that the Raddus hits the target while it is still accelerating and hasn't reached yet the full lightspeed. The maneuver is very difficult and this is why it was never used before.

 

I disagree.

I doubt it will change anything, especially in the movies. It’s not worth the effort of tackling when it can just be ignored entirely as if it never happened. It’s exactly what RJ did; he ignored the complication and didn’t bother with even a single line to explain it.

This is undermined as the FO continue the assault as if nothing happened.

You keep repeating this but it has no basis.

It’s not difficult at all. It’s not portrayed as presenting any difficulty. Holdo pulls it off with a casual effort that doesn’t even require any concentration. She even sits back in resignation, her work done, well before the jump. It’s as simple as pointing a ship and pulling a lever.

Both Poe and the FO (“no”) knows what she’s doing before she does it.

 

Indeed I have no basis, I just decided to artificially build an explanation which works well for me.
In my head canon, Holdo makes it looks like it's easy because she is a genius, more or less like Federer makes tennis look easy. Poe knows that she is brilliant. Hux instead cannot imagine that she is actually doing it, because he knows how difficult it is, and only at the end he realizes that she might be experienced enough, but it's too late.

 

Military tactics criticism isn't being singled out to SW. The same or similar criticism of military tactics I saw used against TLJ have recently been used against GoT season 8. Sometimes the criticism comes down to the use of style over substance. In both cases I read criticism claiming they went for what looked cool rather than what made sense.

Ie - Holdo's hyperdrive run and GoT cavalry being sent out to die both making great wallpapers but make some think "Ok that looked cool...but..wait a minute why the *bleep* did they do that?!"

 

I will say this... anyone who wants to criticize movies for demonstrating unrealistic military strategy and tactics is going to be in for a pretty bad time. They are movies, not documentaries.

 

Once again, no one is critiquing the movie for not being realistic, but merely for contradicting the established military doctrine of the saga itself.

 

I give up.
The military tactics employed in TLJ are not contiguous with previous films for the multiple reasons stated here in this very thread.

Please take those points head on.

 

People already did, there are a few pages of it at this point.