Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#11

Post by vundercind »

sdrothrock wrote: post #8

I'm a little confused by the characterization of the rebellion as a continuation of the Old Republic fast carrier philosophy as, as far as I can recall in the current canon, there is no emphasis on carriers at all but rather on individual fighters that are independent of carriers due to their hyperdrives (which, along with shields, have been the primary distinguishing factors between the rebellion and Imperial starfi…

In the original trilogy, we don’t see a Rebel fleet until Empire (only at the very end), and it’s mostly light gunships (apparently) but it’s got a lot of fighters flying around, and they must be servicing those and housing the pilots somewhere.

We don’t see the rebel fleet in action until Jedi, and it does seem to be carrier-heavy.

As for the independently-operating fighters: they have to land somewhere, the pilots can’t just live in them and they need to fuel, receive maintenance, and re-arm. That’s either planetary (or equivalent) bases, or carriers, much like pacific WWII air operations were a mix of island airstrips and carriers (lots, and lots, of carriers).

That’s all for the original trilogy. What we have in addition, however, is a limited look at the inter-trilogy insurgencies and nascent rebel alliance, in a variety of movies and TV shows (e.g. Rebels). Those do seem fairly heavy on carriers, from what we get to see, plus light gunships.

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#12

Post by jowea »

sdrothrock wrote: post #8

I'm a little confused by the characterization of the rebellion as a continuation of the Old Republic fast carrier philosophy as, as far as I can recall in the current canon, there is no emphasis on carriers at all but rather on individual fighters that are independent of carriers due to their hyperdrives (which, along with shields, have been the primary distinguishing factors between the rebellion and Imperial starfi…

I think it makes sense as a continuation, as opposed to mere maintaining the doctrine. Independent fighters is on the same side of a spectrum between focus on fighters and battleships that fast carriers are. The fighter models themselves are related.

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#13

Post by sdrothrock »

vundercind wrote: post #11
sdrothrock wrote: post #8

I'm a little confused by the characterization of the rebellion as a continuation of the Old Republic fast carrier philosophy as, as far as I can recall in the current canon, there is no emphasis on carriers at all but rather on individual fighters that are independent of carriers due to their hyperdrives (which, along with shields, have been the primary distinguishing factors between the rebellion and Imperial starfi…

In the original trilogy, we don’t see a Rebel fleet until Empire (only at the very end), and it’s mostly light gunships (apparently) but it’s got a lot of fighters flying around, and they must be servicing those and housing the pilots somewhere . We don’t see the rebel fleet in action until Jedi, and it does seem to be carrier-heavy. As for the independently-operating fighters: they have to land somewhere, the pilots…

I agree with the bases -- we do see that multiple times, but we don't really see as much scrambling from carriers in the same way that we see them scrambling from planetary/lunar bases, which is what makes me hesitate about characterizing this as a fast carrier DOCTRINE.

I definitely remember gunships and troop transports, but my memory is just failing me when I try to think of carriers. I guess this is left over in the legends canon now, but much of the rebellion's fleet having been repurposed from civilian transports/cruise liners also serves as a good explanation as to why they wouldn't have many carriers as well.

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#14

Post by vundercind »

fbdab103 wrote: post #6

And this creates a bit of an oddity, because in the Clone Wars, the Republic fleet is essentially built around fast carriers – the Venators – and their fighters, whereas it is the CIS fleet which has specialized gunboats (along with the slower Lucrehulks that function as carriers), but by the time we get to the Empire, the doctrine has switched: the ISD is clearly a gun platform first and foremost, which carries its…

Oh wow, I bailed on the EU well before that stuff, didn’t realize how close it ended up getting to the larger plot of the last couple Frank Herbert Dune books.

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#15

Post by vundercind »

sdrothrock wrote: post #13
vundercind wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the original trilogy, we don’t see a Rebel fleet until Empire (only at the very end), and it’s mostly light gunships (apparently) but it’s got a lot of fighters flying around, and they must be servicing those and housing the pilots somewhere . We don’t see the rebel fleet in action until Jedi, and it does seem to be carrier-heavy. As for the independently-operating fighters: they have to land somewhere, the pilots…

I agree with the bases -- we do see that multiple times, but we don't really see as much scrambling from carriers in the same way that we see them scrambling from planetary/lunar bases, which is what makes me hesitate about characterizing this as a fast carrier DOCTRINE. I definitely remember gunships and troop transports, but my memory is just failing me when I try to think of carriers. I guess this is left over in…

The big Mon Calamari cruisers, the closest thing we see them field to ships the size of Star Destroyers, and plainly the backbone of the fleet they deploy in Jedi, seem (though our evidence is limited) to have a lot more space dedicated to hangar bays than the Destroyers do, and not to have the kind of firepower needed to stand up to Star Destroyers in a straight fight—I think casting them as something akin to gun-armed fleet carriers of WWII, like the Royal Navy’s Illustrious Class, isn’t too wild an idea.

[edit] though, I do think that line of argument’s a bit weak. I could see going either way on the question of whether the Mon Cals slot better into the “fast carrier” paradigm or are better regarded as filling the role of heavy cruisers or battlecruisers. Not a lot of Star Wars ship designs slot quite so clearly into a fast carrier designation as the Republic’s primary Clone Wars warships.

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#16

Post by roughly »

eru wrote: post #4
roughly wrote: post #2

I love that this dude exists and does what he does. I don’t have the attention span to read 20 pages on Star Wars Imperial Military Doctrine, but I appreciate that it exists.

'The pedant' can be quite wordy in general, but keep in mind that most of the scroll bar on that page is filled up by the comments.

Yeah, I got the page count by opening the print dialogue - initial estimate was _196 pages_, and all but 20 of that is comments. His readers have certainly adopted the house style.

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#17

Post by zwayhowder »

robertclaus wrote: post #9

Maybe just my nostalgia for old star wars lore, but I found this to be a surprisingly pleasant read. It felt like a conversation with old friends at 3 in the morning.

I grew up playing 1/72nd tabletop wargames with my dad and his friends - Napoleonic to WW2 usually. Often with Star Wars/Trek or Babylon 5 on the TV.

This was our 3am conversations.

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#18

Post by vundercind »

robertclaus wrote: post #9

Maybe just my nostalgia for old star wars lore, but I found this to be a surprisingly pleasant read. It felt like a conversation with old friends at 3 in the morning.

When fiction’s grounded like this, even if much of it is fantastical, you can have fun filling in gaps this way. It’s fertile ground for BSing about. Stuff kinda makes sense, just as a consequence of the media taking inspiration from the real and the familiar, and from the writers trying not to do anything too silly in ways that would strain credulity to the point that they break immersion.

If you write your fiction like a couple of 6-year-olds making up stories with toys in a sandbox, where there’s far less grounding in real world events and context, and plot beats or world-building elements are more likely to occur solely for the script-writer’s convenience than because they seem plausible and appropriate… well. You get what the author alludes to at the tail end of the piece.

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#19

Post by lchengify »

If you have time, I highly recommend reading other articles in Bret's blog. His write-up of how the roman legions got paid was my favorite read for a few weeks [1]. The detail of articles like this are right up there with the History of Rome podcast.

[1] https://acoup.blog/2023/06/16/collections-how-to-raise-a-rom...

Re: The Star Destroyer and Imperial Military Doctrine

#20

Post by XorNot »

sdrothrock wrote: post #13
vundercind wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the original trilogy, we don’t see a Rebel fleet until Empire (only at the very end), and it’s mostly light gunships (apparently) but it’s got a lot of fighters flying around, and they must be servicing those and housing the pilots somewhere . We don’t see the rebel fleet in action until Jedi, and it does seem to be carrier-heavy. As for the independently-operating fighters: they have to land somewhere, the pilots…

I agree with the bases -- we do see that multiple times, but we don't really see as much scrambling from carriers in the same way that we see them scrambling from planetary/lunar bases, which is what makes me hesitate about characterizing this as a fast carrier DOCTRINE. I definitely remember gunships and troop transports, but my memory is just failing me when I try to think of carriers. I guess this is left over in…

You could infer we're seeing the results of the Rebels being funded for insurgency operations by their benefactors. Without large carrier ships, while relatively expensive hyperdrives on fighters might not be cost-effective, they'd also be the only survivable assets the Rebellion could field. A squad of X-wings is perfect for a hit and run strike mission because it can actually pull off the mission. You could've supplied the Rebels with ten times as many Tie fighters and they'd be completely unable to use them since they wouldn't have large carriers able to move them around (also whether or not they're shielded is AFAIK one of those "not really explained" things in the movies - we never really clearly see much of a survivability difference between a Tie and X-Wing once someone has a lock, other then X-wings usually have heroes in them).
Post reply on HN