Imperial damage control tecnhiques

[cmdrjones]

IN ROTJ we see several ISDs explode quite spectacularly during the battle of Endor, we also see the Executor take a nose dive after a hit to the bridge that kills the command crew.

We also have the hotly debated asteroid strike in ESB.... see here

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1&start=50

now, even if the asteroid strike = blown up ISD is only supported by lower level canon sources, we still have the executor and other ISD splodies to deal with.

What would most likely be the sequence of events leading up to an ISD blowing the EFF up? I ask this assuming that SW ships have far better damage control systems (personnel, droids, blast doors, redundancy etc) that ST ships which tend to blow up when you look at them cross eyed. Is is because of the types of weaponry involved? Design flaw?

In Epsiode III we have ships surviving idiotic levels of damage, falling out or orbit after breaking in half etc and STILL being more or less intact... Did the old republic have ships that were THAT much better? Did Palpatine go with the lowest bidder?
any responses will be helpful.

[Adam Reynolds]

This is a place where the terrestrial navy analogy falls apart. When you look at aquatic naval vessels, damage control is primarily about doing two things: putting out fires and preventing the ship from filling up with water. Since those are obviously in conflict, therein lies the difficulty. In space, the most effective way to put out fires is to expose them to vacuum, which won't cause the ship to sink. And given that there is no outside air in the first place, the risk of fire is quite limited when compared to a modern warship(unless entering atmosphere, as the Invisible Hand did).

In the case of Star Wars, damage control is presumably mostly about keeping ship systems operational during the intensity of combat. Keeping shields operational is a major concern due to the high level of firepower relative to the level of armor, especially over critical systems. The weapons are so powerful that if shielding fails(explicitly in the case of Executor, implicitly in the case of all other ISDs that explode), then the ship is all but lost. While ISDs also are armored, they lack enough armor over critical systems to survive a fleet engagement under such conditions. Their armor placement fits a pursuit role rather than a fleet engagement. As we see in ANH, there are not shield flashes when Leia's ship fires on Devastator. And as we see in ESB, Avenger does not have its shields up until the Falcon makes a run at the bridge. Presumably this is done to allow greater reactor power to be given to engines and weapons to more effectively allow pursuit. And the angle that Devestator uses against Leia's corvette also fits this issue.

Mon Cal cruisers were often stated to be more effective one on one than ISDs, because while they had little armor, they had heavier deflector shields with greater redundancies. And that was more valuable in a fleet engagement. Armor has its uses, but only to back up shielding rather than to replace it.

As for Coruscant versus Endor, one has to consider that despite the larger number of ships over Coruscant, less of them were dedicated warships. The CIS fleet was made up of a large number of smaller vessels, with its largest ships converted transports. And the Venators of the Republic fleet were designed with the compromise of being able to land in atmosphere, in addition to the structural weakness of having dual hanger bays. There is little reason to assume that the fleets over Coruscant could match the firepower of the fleets over Endor. While most Mon Cal crusiers were often stated to be conversions in the old EU, in all likelihood this was propaganda. There is no way a converted vessel could have won the engagement over Endor, especially considering that the same sources claimed those ships had better shielding than ISDs.

There is also the fact that it appears that starfighters had heavier weapons at Endor than at Coruscant. Few prequel era fighters are seen using missiles, and Jedi fighters in particular only use blasters, even when making attack runs on capital ships. Contrast this with the Rebel fighter force, in which every fighter carried missiles. This was likely a major factor that led to the Rebel victory. While the Empire had to rely more on capital ship fire to destroy enemy vessels, the Rebel fleet could rely on their fighters to back it up.

And the damage done to Invisible Hand versus Executor fails to consider the problem of losing bridge control at a critical moment. It wasn't the direct damage done to Executor, it was the fact that bridge control was lost and the ship accidentally flew into the Death Star.

Though in the general sense, it is likely that damage control actually was better at Coruscant than Endor, for exactly the same reason that US Navy damage control was better in the 1940s than in the 1980s. It was a peacetime versus a wartime military.

[cmdrjones]

This is a place where the terrestrial navy analogy falls apart. When you look at aquatic naval vessels, damage control is primarily about doing two things: putting out fires and preventing the ship from filling up with water. Since those are obviously in conflict, therein lies the difficulty. In space, the most effective way to put out fires is to expose them to vacuum, which won't cause the ship to sink. And given that there is no outside air in the first place, the risk of fire is quite limited when compared to a modern warship(unless entering atmosphere, as the Invisible Hand did).

In the case of Star Wars, damage control is presumably mostly about keeping ship systems operational during the intensity of combat. Keeping shields operational is a major concern due to the high level of firepower relative to the level of armor, especially over critical systems. The weapons are so powerful that if shielding fails(explicitly in the case of Executor, implicitly in the case of all other ISDs that explode), then the ship is all but lost. While ISDs also are armored, they lack enough armor over critical systems to survive a fleet engagement under such conditions. Their armor placement fits a pursuit role rather than a fleet engagement. As we see in ANH, there are not shield flashes when Leia's ship fires on Devastator. And as we see in ESB, Avenger does not have its shields up until the Falcon makes a run at the bridge. Presumably this is done to allow greater reactor power to be given to engines and weapons to more effectively allow pursuit. And the angle that Devestator uses against Leia's corvette also fits this issue.

Mon Cal cruisers were often stated to be more effective one on one than ISDs, because while they had little armor, they had heavier deflector shields with greater redundancies. And that was more valuable in a fleet engagement. Armor has its uses, but only to back up shielding rather than to replace it.

As for Coruscant versus Endor, one has to consider that despite the larger number of ships over Coruscant, less of them were dedicated warships. The CIS fleet was made up of a large number of smaller vessels, with its largest ships converted transports. And the Venators of the Republic fleet were designed with the compromise of being able to land in atmosphere, in addition to the structural weakness of having dual hanger bays. There is little reason to assume that the fleets over Coruscant could match the firepower of the fleets over Endor. While most Mon Cal crusiers were often stated to be conversions in the old EU, in all likelihood this was propaganda. There is no way a converted vessel could have won the engagement over Endor, especially considering that the same sources claimed those ships had better shielding than ISDs.

There is also the fact that it appears that starfighters had heavier weapons at Endor than at Coruscant. Few prequel era fighters are seen using missiles, and Jedi fighters in particular only use blasters, even when making attack runs on capital ships. Contrast this with the Rebel fighter force, in which every fighter carried missiles. This was likely a major factor that led to the Rebel victory. While the Empire had to rely more on capital ship fire to destroy enemy vessels, the Rebel fleet could rely on their fighters to back it up.

And the damage done to Invisible Hand versus Executor fails to consider the problem of losing bridge control at a critical moment. It wasn't the direct damage done to Executor, it was the fact that bridge control was lost and the ship accidentally flew into the Death Star.

Though in the general sense, it is likely that damage control actually was better at Coruscant than Endor, for exactly the same reason that US Navy damage control was better in the 1940s than in the 1980s. It was a peacetime versus a wartime military.

THis all makes a considerable amount of sense. The ISDs then are therefore 'glass cannons', but ONLY when faced with something that is their equal or greater in firepower (which would make anything under those conditions a glass cannon I suppose). Also, this implies that SW firepower far outstrips armor technology, so an ISD without reactor power, or without enough power to keep the shields up is a sitting duck.

Here's another problem, specifically with the executor, if it has all this redundancy, why didn't some secondary bridge take over when the primary was hit?
I know the death dive was due to uncontrolled burn on the engines combined with Death star gravity, but you'd think some 'battle bridge' equivalent junior officer would shout something like "Main bridge is out! All engines Full Burn at a right angle to the death star center!" Or something similar.

[Borgholio]

you'd think some 'battle bridge' equivalent junior officer would shout something like "Main bridge is out! All engines Full Burn at a right angle to the death star center!" Or something similar.

I'm not sure he would have had time. I'm reminded of the Titanic disaster. They simply couldn't get the ship to react fast enough to avoid the iceberg. With the Executor diving towards the Death Star, would anybody on the battle bridge have had time to realize the situation, give orders, and allow for time for those orders to be carried out?

[Elheru Aran]

you'd think some 'battle bridge' equivalent junior officer would shout something like "Main bridge is out! All engines Full Burn at a right angle to the death star center!" Or something similar.

I'm not sure he would have had time. I'm reminded of the Titanic disaster. They simply couldn't get the ship to react fast enough to avoid the iceberg. With the Executor diving towards the Death Star, would anybody on the battle bridge have had time to realize the situation, give orders, and allow for time for those orders to be carried out?

IIRC (it's been a few years-- shame on me, I know):

--Ackbar orders concentrating fire upon the... I can't remember if it's 'control ship' or 'lead ship', whatever. You see fighters attack the domes and they blow up.

--Some officer tells Admiral Piett that the shields have gone down. Piett orders increased fire in their frontal arc.

--A-wing is hit by flak and rams the Executor.

--Cuts to Ackbar watching the Executor flaming as the ship starts turning towards the DS.

--Executor rams the DS almost immediately and goes poof.

Even allowing for a few minutes between cuts, odds are that the battle bridge/secondary bridge/whatever simply did not have time to move such a massive craft. Presumably also the Executor was cruising a little *too* close to the Death Star, which makes sense if the Imperial fleet had been trying to hide behind the DS-- such a large ship, if it was farther away, would have been easier to spot.

[Lord Revan]

it's also possible that the Rebel fleet had been pushing the imperials closer to the death star in order to further limit the use of the Death star superlaser.

[cmdrjones]

it's also possible that the Rebel fleet had been pushing the imperials closer to the death star in order to further limit the use of the Death star superlaser.

This is as good an explanation as any.... THough if there WAS a battle bridge and said redundancy you'd think it would have been manned and ready BEFORE the battle started non?

[Elheru Aran]

it's also possible that the Rebel fleet had been pushing the imperials closer to the death star in order to further limit the use of the Death star superlaser.

This is as good an explanation as any.... THough if there WAS a battle bridge and said redundancy you'd think it would have been manned and ready BEFORE the battle started non?

You think you can U-turn a 15-km star destroyer in 2 minutes, go ahead and give it a go.

[cmdrjones]

it's also possible that the Rebel fleet had been pushing the imperials closer to the death star in order to further limit the use of the Death star superlaser.

This is as good an explanation as any.... THough if there WAS a battle bridge and said redundancy you'd think it would have been manned and ready BEFORE the battle started non?

You think you can U-turn a 15-km star destroyer in 2 minutes, go ahead and give it a go.

What about this puppy?!?!
http://fractalsponge.net/gallery/Assertor/index.html

[Eternal_Freedom]

It was stated in various EU sources (mostly the X-Wing books) that ISD's and up did have emergency bridges to take over the main bridge was damaged. But as others have pointed out, there clearly wasn't time for any meaningful actions. Especially since we see that Executor had taken additional serious damage to her engines (we see a plume of fire from her stern just before she impacts the DSII).

As for the other ISD's that we see go boom (I can only recall seeing one actually explode, in the background when Ackbar orders concentrated fire on the Executor) I always assumed that they'd lost shields and taken a heavy turbolaser hit somewhere vital, like the exposed reactor bulb on the underside.

I don't think you can call ISD's "glass cannons" though. I know the old EU isn't canon anymore we see plenty of examples of ISD's slugging it out with Rebel capital ships and other/captured ISD's. Unless an enemy lands a critical hit (as happened to the Reckoning in Isard's Revenge when a heavy concussion missile took out her entire bridge tower) they will slug it out until one ship either withdraws or can't fight any longer. Frankly I see nothing in the films to dispute this, since that one ISD at Endor could well have lost it shield's and taken a critical hit, as I said above. The ESB asteroid strike incident only shows us that communications are interrupted, there's no indication it took out the ship.

[Adam Reynolds]

In terms of the lack of a useful battle bridge, you have to consider the incredible degree of overconfidence shown by the Imperial fleet. The two highest ranking officers on Executor were both standing in front of a weakly protected bridge window. And the Imperial fleet failed to engage the Rebel fleet until it was right on top of them, allowing the smaller and thus more maneuverable vessels of the Rebel fleet to engage within the blind spots of heavier Imperial guns.

So even if it were properly manned, they probably never expected a situation like the one they were in. Especially considering that the acceleration they were under was likely one that they would never be able to feel given the inertial compensators that such a vessel would require. It thus makes sense that they would respond in a sluggish manner.

I don't think you can call ISD's "glass cannons" though. I know the old EU isn't canon anymore we see plenty of examples of ISD's slugging it out with Rebel capital ships and other/captured ISD's. Unless an enemy lands a critical hit (as happened to the Reckoning in Isard's Revenge when a heavy concussion missile took out her entire bridge tower) they will slug it out until one ship either withdraws or can't fight any longer. Frankly I see nothing in the films to dispute this, since that one ISD at Endor could well have lost it shield's and taken a critical hit, as I said above. The ESB asteroid strike incident only shows us that communications are interrupted, there's no indication it took out the ship.

Calling them glass cannons is slightly overstating the situation, but relative to the ships of the Clone Wars, they seem to have heavier firepower and not necessarily that much heavier shielding. While the Mon Cal cruisers seem to have done the opposite, with heavier shields and not much heavier weapons.

Another interesting factor is that the weapon fire seen over Coruscant is much thicker than that seen over Endor, implying that they used heavier weapons at Endor.

[Borgholio]

The bridge window was protected by extremely strong shields, so there was no reason to worry...especially since they fully expected the death star to take out most of the rebel fleet. Their tactics were dictated by the emperor. Had the fleet engaged the rebels initially, it would not have turned out as it did.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, it looked like the Imperials had a roughly equal number of ships to the Rebels, albeit more straight-up battleships (ISD's) and the Executor, plus of course the Death Star, while the Rebels had a few Mon Cals, some Corellian Corvettes and assorted other craft. Militarily, the Imperials definitely had the edge, so I imagine they didn't see a particular need to actually adopt superior strategy-- just blow apart the Rebel fleet and have done.

Unfortunately, actual numbers are pretty scanty. Wookieepedia has a decent list... but of course most of their stuff is Legendaries canon now, and I'll be damned if I go through the list and count up everything. So I'm going off mostly what I remember from the film (again, admittedly a few years' old recollection).

[Eternal_Freedom]

In terms of the lack of a useful battle bridge, you have to consider the incredible degree of overconfidence shown by the Imperial fleet. The two highest ranking officers on Executor were both standing in front of a weakly protected bridge window.

This is an unfair assessment I think, since Piett was the Admiral commanding the fleet (the costume goof with his rank insignia notwithstanding). So I would assume the other officer was Executor's Captain, whilst the XO/Ops Officer/Chief Engineer or whatever where down below manning the backup bridge.

Since she was being used as a flagship, having the Admiral and the Captain on the same bridge is more excusable than having the Captain and XO on the same bridge. Of course, as a flagship she should have a flag bridge or similar facilities for the Admiral. But since Piett had been ordered to avoid a fleet engagement and only form a blockade, it's reasonable to think that he felt he didn't need to use said flag facilities.

And of course as Borgholio pointed out, that window was supposed to be heavily shielded. In the old EU an ISD's bridge windows, being made of transparisteel, were able to withstand a few shots from fighter-grade lasers without breaking. So if it had been fighter laser fire hitting the bridge it wouldn't have been as bad. It just wasn't meant to cope with a heavy fighter slamming into it at high speed and then exploding.

Incidentally, as we're on the subject, in Isard's Revenge (an X-Wing novel) a Rebel Victory class destroyer (the Swift Liberty IIRC) was commanded by an Admiral from a "Combat Command Centre" described as being "deep within the ship." That may have been a Rebel name for the auxilliary bridge that she chose to use in battle, but it's interesting nonetheless. Hell, even Corellian Corvettes have auxilliary bridges, as seen in X-Wing: Wraith Squadron with the Night Caller.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, it looked like the Imperials had a roughly equal number of ships to the Rebels, albeit more straight-up battleships (ISD's) and the Executor, plus of course the Death Star, while the Rebels had a few Mon Cals, some Corellian Corvettes and assorted other craft. Militarily, the Imperials definitely had the edge, so I imagine they didn't see a particular need to actually adopt superior strategy-- just blow apart the Rebel fleet and have done.

Unfortunately, actual numbers are pretty scanty. Wookieepedia has a decent list... but of course most of their stuff is Legendaries canon now, and I'll be damned if I go through the list and count up everything. So I'm going off mostly what I remember from the film (again, admittedly a few years' old recollection).

In what sense is the ISD a battleship? I realize the classification of ISDs is a very old topic, but I'm curious as to what lead you to that conclusion.

If you take the name at face value, its a destroyer (though by that standard, we'd have to start saying turbo lasers are actual lasers).

If you go off The Clone Wars, the similar Venators are cruisers, which might fit with the ISDs being battleships since as I recall Venators were smaller but it still seems inconclusive.

And in the films, the ISD's primary roles are chasing down small ships, ferrying VIPs, and accompanying the much larger executor- in other words, a patrol/escort role, not a battleship role.

Though frankly, I question the wisdom of trying to apply Earth naval terminology to interstellar vessels at all.

I would agree, however, that the two fleets appear roughly comparable, except for the presence of the Death Star and Executor, which tips it heavily in favour of the Imperials.

[Lord Revan]

if you classify ISDs as battleships then what are the real moster sized ships like the Executor or The Mavolence?

[The Romulan Republic]

That too.

I guess you could invent a completely new classification for them.

[Patroklos]

Dreadnoughts. Or something we have been provided by an ex Imperial officer; command ships. Or just bigger battleships. The Nagato-class and Yamato-class were both BBs, one is twice the size of the other. The Iowa-class is much larger than the South Dakota class and are both classified the same, and ships of both were building at the same time.

I prefer to go with the Saxton excuse for why ISDs are sometimes referred to as the pinnacle of Imperial warship power in some sources, specifically that most of the Rebel protagonists are backwater yokels from systems where an ISD is indeed a battleship compared to anything they usually see. Indeed, when compared to the ships the Rebels can muster an ISD would be a battleship in their organization anywhere until long after Endor.

Think of how an British colonial Indian in the 1700s would look at a British frigate, regarding it as the deadliest thing on the water even though England had triple deckers back in home waters. Many he knows that or maybe he doesn't, all that matters is for all intents and purposes that frigate is the king of the sea to him.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You could simply use "battleship" in it's original meaning, as in "a line-of-battle ship," meaning any vessel built specifically to engage in fleet engagements. If we use that analogy, then the ISD is probably the equivalent of a 74 gun thir-rate, strong enough to stand in battle, cheap enough to be built in numbers but fast and capable enough to operate independently if needed. The Executor and other such command ships would be your 100+ gun first rates like HMS Victory or the Santissima Trinidad, which served exclusively as flagships for fleets and in fleet engagements.

[lPeregrine]

The easiest solution to the "is it a battleship" problem is to just toss out all the boring EU classes where some comic book artist didn't get the details of a star destroyer in the background exactly right and suddenly it's a new ship class. So star destroyers are the standard "battleship" class, the Executor is a limited-production "flagship" class, and there are various smaller ships for patrol/anti-piracy/etc. There's certainly no need to assume that the rebels are so stupid they don't even know what ships the Empire has.

[Simon_Jester]

Or, hell, there could be all sorts of quirky variants on the generic Star Destroyer template and intermediate-sized vessels, without there being lots of any one of those things, so that the ISD still becomes the 'standard' frontline combatant, the Executor-class the 'standard' flagship, and everything else is a specialist or a not-so-successful prototype of same.

[Batman]

I think what a lot of people have a problem with is the sheer size discrepancy between a regular ISD and an Executor. Nothing like that existed in real world modern warfare (unless you want to argue the ISD is the equivalent of a rowboat with a pair of archers in it) so we automatically assume there must be a family of ship classes in-between.

[lPeregrine]

I think what a lot of people have a problem with is the sheer size discrepancy between a regular ISD and an Executor. Nothing like that existed in real world modern warfare (unless you want to argue the ISD is the equivalent of a rowboat with a pair of archers in it) so we automatically assume there must be a family of ship classes in-between.

Of course there's even more of a size discrepancy between the Executor and the death star. It's amusing how the need to fill in the "missing" classes doesn't seem to inspire people to invent a bunch of 50-km triangles, 100-km triangles, etc.

[Patroklos]

Did you miss the Eclipse?

The other issue is that the ISD is quite literally refereed to as a destroyer. We then see an Executor with that before mentioned size gap over an ISD along with a real world notion of what a destroyer means and its not illogical to imagine intermediate vessels between them.

[Batman]

'Real world' destroyers ranged from the original torpedo boat destroyers through the WW2 subhunter destroyers to the late 20th century 'if we call them cruisers Congress won't finance them' destroyers. There is no such thing as 'the' destroyer mission.