More thoughts on ships in Star Wars.
What can we glean from the following:
ISD: 1.6 kilometers long, 60 turbolasers, 60 ion cannons, 72 star fighters, ~10,000 troops, 37,000 crew.
That's not a ship; it is a mobile command base the size of a small city. Much like Asimov's Foundation series, it emphasizes command and control and minimizes the power and relevance of the individual; notice the TIE fighters are after thoughts, not truly capable of harassing a capital ship.
This is a ship for an Empire that maintains a captive population. This is a ship to subdue a world, not to fight an equivalent foe.
Correlian Corvette: 150 meters long, 2 turbolasers, 2 laser cannons, no star fighters, able to carry "hundreds" of pax, crew of 165.
In relationships to an ISD, this is a fast-attack APC, capable of bringing in personnel and material to a hazardous location. Makes sense to pair with X-wings and other similar fighters, which have their own hyperdrive.
The Falcon: 2 crew, laser cannons, torpedoes, able to ferry a dozen people.
That's a smuggler ship, in a world more dangerous than that of Malcon Reynolds.
X-wing: 1 crew + Droid, laser cannons, torpedoes, no cargo and no pax.
Tie Fighter: 1 crew, no droid, laser cannons, no cargo, no pax.
X-wings are versatile space-superiority fighters; tie fighters are single purpose scouts capable of harassing ships like the Corvette, but not an ISD. While an X-wing has a hyperdrive, a TIE fighter does not.
The capability of the X-wing versus the TIE fighter tells us a lot about the philosophical differences between the Empire and the Rebellion; the Empire has command and control, while the Rebellion empowers individuals.
Speaking of command and control: Star Destroyers (battleship / carrier / flag ship role) are helmed by a Captain. This (should) suggest that smaller vessels are commanded by lower-ranked individuals. Perhaps Cruisers are helmed by a Commander, Frigates by a LCDR, and something as small as a Corvette by merely a full LT.
Within the Rebel Alliance, we know the Tantive IV (Leia's consular ship) was helmed by Captain Antillies. We don't know if he was a full Captain, or if this was an honorary rank, such as Captain Solo. While ships fielded by the rebellion grow within the original trilogy -- from Corvette to Frigate to Ackbar's flagship Home One -- the Corvette is the largest rebellion vessel in A New Hope, and serving the heir apparent of the House of Organa is a high-profile assignment.
It seems likely the Tantive IV is the pride of the Alderaanian fleet, and acts as a comparison point of rebellion versus Empire. If so, they truly were a comparitively peaceful people with no weapons, committing themselves to peace in the face of the horrors of the Empire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how TIEs move faster, have better maneuverability, and no shields. It's consistent with how they're used. X-Wings are for people. TIEs are swarms you send at an enemy.
ReplyDeleteYep! TIE fighters are designed to minimize the power of any one person, while an X-wing magnifies it.
ReplyDeleteVirtually all imperial technology is the same way; the natural group of stormtroopers is the parade, TIE fighters is the swarm, and Admiral's is the conference room.
At no point is a single individual meant to stand out or perform well; the exceptions being either Vader, the Emperor himself or, for a few brief moments, Tarkin.
In Empire we absolutely see this in action as Vader executes officers showing too much initiative.
The Empire is all about force projection. They don't tend to go in for efficiency or specialized use, it's about making a bigger gun to hold on you. You send a corvette they send a FUCKING BATTLESHIP. You send a frigate STILL A FUCKING BATTLESHIP. Multiple frigates? MORE FUCKING BATTLESHIPS. Your own battleship? FUCK YOU WE HAVE A MOON THAT WILL KILL YOUR PLANET. (or perhaps merely "AN EVEN LARGER BATTLESHIP THAT LAUNCHES BATTLESHIPS AS IT"S FIGHTERS!")
ReplyDeleteI may be exaggerating slightly.
but maybe not.
And of course: We're going to call our BATTLESHIPS just "Destroyers", because we want to go ahead and imply that we have even larger BATTLESHIPS offscreen somewhere.
ReplyDeleteAnd we'll actually HAVE ONE in the next movie. WTF.
You might be looking at the wrong naval paradigm. Obviously much of Star Wars was inspired by WWII, but naval combat actually feels more like age-of-sail. In WWII, boarding actions didn't really happen. A single torpedo or bomb could easily sink a ship outright, and a typical ship would not survive direct hits from a battleship very well.
ReplyDeleteBut before the perfection of the explosive shell, ships-of-the-line fought each other using solid shot. Early explosive shells would simply bounce off a wooden hull harmlessly; even if the fuse continued to work the shell would just explode uselessly floating somewhere on the water. (After the explosive shell was perfected, it would imbed in the thick wooden hull of a battle ship and blow huge holes in the hull...it quickly spelled the end of the pure wood armor battle ship.)
So, ships-of-the-line would use solid shot, the only thing that could penetrate the thick wood armor hulls of battle ships. The problem? The only things damaged by solid shot are people/things directly in its path. So, there were oodles and oodles of guns to try and shoot oodles and oodles of holes in the enemy ship and this would result in a lot of holes and not much decisive damage.
In other words, in the age of sail, opposing ships could blast away at each other with hundreds and hundreds of hits but still both be floating. To ensure a decisive conclusion, a boarding action was a reasonable and common strategy. There could even be marines who were specifically trained for boarding actions.
What do we see in Star Wars? We see a battle between a Star Destroyer and a Corvette. Obviously, the Star Destroyer is much larger and it plainly outclasses the Corvette many times over. But despite showering the Corvette with firepower the Corvette still seems to be "afloat". The Imperial forces board the Corvette directly rather than just blast away and demand surrender over wireless comms.
I think we can deduce that "age of sail" is a better parallel than WWII naval combat.
Given this paradigm, it's not strange at all for a Star Destroyer to have a ton of Stormtroopers aboard.