Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!

Captain Seafort

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Captain Seafort last won the day on September 22 2017

Captain Seafort had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

17 Good

About Captain Seafort

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This a response to Brian's new criteria video, specifically the section on (as the title suggests) ship-to-ship combat, and a couple of statements in particular. Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Even before we start to consider the fact that the term "capital ship" would be more appropriate, given the shift from the battleship to the aircraft carrier as the primary instrument of naval power, the following actions were fought between battleships and/or battlecruisers during WW2: Off Lofoten, 9 April 1940 - Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (32,000 tons, nine 11" guns) vs HMS Renown (36,000 tons, six 15" guns) Off Calabria, 9 July 1940 - Giulio Cesare (29,000 tons, ten 12.6" guns) vs HMS Warspite (31,000 tons, eight 15" guns). Denmark Strait, 24 May 1941 - Bismarck (42,000 tons, eight 15" guns) vs HMS Hood (47,000 tons, eight 15" guns) and HMS Prince of Wales (35,000 tons, ten 14" guns) Sinking of the Bismarck, 27 May 1941 - Bismarck (42,000 tons, eight 15" guns) vs HMS King George V (35,000 tons, ten 14" guns) and HMS Rodney (34,000 tons, nine 16" guns) Guadalcanal, 14-15 November 1942 - Kirishima (37,000 tons, eight 14" guns) vs USS South Dakota (35,000 tons, nine 16" guns) and USS Washington (35,000 tons, nine 16" guns) North Cape, 26 December 1943 - Scharnhorst (32,000 tons, nine 11" guns) vs HMS Duke of York (35,000 tons, ten 14" guns) Surigao Strait, 25 October 1944 - Yamashiro (29,000 tons, twelve 14" guns) vs USS West Virginia (32,000 tons, eight 16" guns), USS Maryland (32,000 tons, eight 16" guns), USS Mississippi (32,000 tons, twelve 14" guns), USS Tennessee (33,000 tons, twelve 14" guns), USS California (33,000 tons, twelve 14" guns), and USS Pennsylvania (32,000 tons, twelve 14" guns) Again, wrong. The last ship-to-ship action to have a decisive impact on a major war was the Battle of Burwood Bank, on 2 May 1982. By sinking ARA General Belgrano, HMS Conqueror induced the entire Argentine navy to retreat to its home waters, where it stayed for the duration of the Falklands War. Had it not done so, the risk of attack by the Belgrano and/or the carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo would have forced the British task force to remain well to the east of the Falkland Islands, preventing the landing of ground forces to liberate the islands. Likewise, during WW2 the critical battle in the western theatre was the Battle of the Atlantic - even 50 million Shermans would have been incapable of beating a single Tiger if the Shermans were all sat on the bottom of the ocean. At times, even with the advantage of US industrial capacity, the U-boats came close to winning the battle. It wasn't until the start of June 1943, only a year before D-Day, that losses had dropped sufficiently that the allies considered it safe to begin a major build-up of forces in the UK in preparation for the invasion of the continent. This demonstrates the reason that ship-to-ship combat is the third most important factor in an interstellar (or transoceanic) war, behind only industrial capacity and strategic mobility (Brian combines these two factors under the category "logistics", but I feel that they're sufficiently different in nature and individually important that they deserve to be treated separately). Ground forces, regardless of their qualities, are utterly useless until they get on the ground, and are utterly useless if they run out of supplies. In order to get on ground, and to be resupplied, they have to to be confident that the enemy's naval forces will not interfere, which requires friendly naval forces to be decisively superior in fighting power. If this prerequisite cannot be obtained through superior industrial capacity or strategic mobility, it must be obtained through individual superiority in ship-to-ship action.
  2. There's stronger evidence than that that AT-ATs may be shielded. They may exhibit shield flashes
  3. Captain Seafort

    4-way dogfight

    Then we go back to the asteroid calcs, knock a zero off the Falcon's resilience, and are still left with kiloton-ish TIE lasers, a couple of orders of magnitude more than the shot that slapped the Yangtze Kiang silly in Battle Lines
  4. Captain Seafort

    4-way dogfight

    Then how exactly do you explain the Falcon doing precisely that in ESB? A figure that implies TIE firepower roughly equivalent to the multi-GJ bare minimum demonstrated by X-wings when strafing the first Death Star. EDIT: Even if you only go by the asteroid vapourisation TL estimates, that still means the Falcon shrugged off hundreds of kilotons in that shot, which still implies kiloton-range TIE weapons .
  5. Captain Seafort

    4-way dogfight

    When you say "contradicted", do you mean that the Falcon cannot withstand megaton-range hits, or that TIEs do not pose a threat to the Falcon? Both of these are clearly demonstrated in the films I referenced.
  6. Captain Seafort

    4-way dogfight

    The satellite that shot down the Yangtzee Kiang went from dormant to high megawatt-range output in a few seconds, as did the one that destroyed the Rio Grande's probe. It didn't have time to build up a charge of more than low GJ range before firing. ESB establishes that the Falcon can survive low megaton-range hits. ANH establishes that TIEs are a threat to the Falcon after scoring dozens of hits. Ergo, TIE laser fire is almost certainly low-mid kiloton range. BS. The runabout probably has the firepower to destroy a Defender, but that's far from cut-and-dried, and the reverse is certainly true. I expect the battle would be won by whoever lands the first solid hit, and I expect that to be the Defender. While the Danube-class are manoeuvrable, they aren't anywhere near as good as TIE fighters. Not surprising, given that their role is closer to Lambda-class than a TIE.
  7. Captain Seafort

    4-way dogfight

    No they can't, any more than the Falcon can tangle with SW capships. Runabouts can survive incidental fire, and their weapons have been seen to be powerful enough to destroy a Jem'hadar fighter (not exactly the most powerful ships around) if, and only if, they have detailed targeting advice from a senior Vorta. Runabouts can be very badly damaged by low-GJ range weapons fire (from Battle Lines), and starfighter laser cannon are at least that powerful (from ANH). As I said in the other thread, even small numbers of bog-standard TIEs are a threat to the Falcon, which can withstand low megaton-range shots, so a Defender should be able to take on a runabout on at least even terms.
  8. The quote explicitly states that knocking out the shields is a prerequisite for fighters to stand a chance. If fighters could slip through the shields then knocking them out wouldn't have any effect on their effectiveness. It goes against CW and ST examples, but it is supported by TPM and OT-era examples from RO and ANH Then why were the Y-wings explicitly targeting openings in the shield? Why did Devastator drop shields to bring the T4 aboard? Why did Dodonna explicitly bring up the Death Star's permeable shields as a weakness? Why did Ackbar describe knocking out the Endor fleet's shields as a prerequisite for fighters to stand a chance? There was no mention of shields - only armour, and TLJ is one of the examples where the shields are permeable. There's a difference between refuting and ignoring. I'm doing the former.
  9. Captain Seafort

    50 TIE Fighters vs. 1 Oberth-class Starship

    There are also repeated shield flashes from two of the fighters hit by the Falcon's guns during the escape from the Death Star. I wouldn't even say with confidence that they're weaker than an X-wing's shields - there are examples of both types being hit and blowing up with no shields flashes at all.
  10. Which, as I've now said several times, implies impermeability of most shields, otherwise there would have been no need for Dodonna to explain that the Death Star's shields were permeable. Yes there is - I provided it above. In full, from Ackbar, Return of the Jedi paperback, page 178, immediately after Lando advised moving in to engage the Star Destroyers at close range: "Concentrate your fire on their power generators. If we can knock out their shields, our fighters might stand a chance against them." Read my answer above. Because, as Brian noted, the control ship was launching fighters at the time, ergo it would have had to lower shields to do so. Up to that point all the professional pilots had been complaining that shields were too strong - ergo they were impermeable, and Anakin, while out of control, slipped through the localised, lowering of the shields around the hangar entrance. Call it luck, call it a fluke, call it the Force, but it certainly wasn't consistent permeability of the entire shield.
  11. Captain Seafort

    50 TIE Fighters vs. 1 Oberth-class Starship

    A common, oft-repeated error, proved wrong by watching the engagements between the Falcon and various TIEs in ANH and ESB. Brian looked at this comprehensively in some of his earliest videos.
  12. Yes there is - in TPM the professional Naboo pilots were complaining about the Trade Fed's shields being too strong, and in RotJ we have an explicit statement that bringing down the shields was a prerequisite for the fighters to stand a chance. In ANH, Dodonna explicitly mentioned the permeability of DS1's shields, which he wouldn't have if permeable shields were SOP. Conclusion: while we have proof of shield permeability in some circumstances, we also have proof of absolute impermeability in others, and therefore we have to ask what's changed. Variations in tactical doctrine strike me as the most likely, given the repeated switches back and forth. Brian's theory of low-speed permeability, based on Anakin's explanation of ground-contact shield permeability, is not supported by the evidence (in TLJ for example) of shield penetration by high-speed attack runs compared to the very low speed T4 docking that required Devastator to drop shields.
  13. Captain Seafort

    50 TIE Fighters vs. 1 Oberth-class Starship

    An Oberth's defences are utter crap - Kruge's BoP destroyed the Grissom with one torpedo accidentally, and I see no reason whatsoever for a science vessel to have any sort of armour. It might not even have any weapons, as I'm not aware of any example of them being shown firing, although the presence of one at Wolf 359 may indicate otherwise. It does, of course, have the ability to choose whether or not to engage, due to having FTL. A TIE, on the other hand, definitely has shields (albeit probably fairly weak ones), and its lasers are, with sustained fire, capable of punching through the Falcon's shields (seen in the ANH engagement). As the Falcon is capable of surviving at least one multi-megaton TL hit (seen in ESB), and even capship PTs of several decades after the Kruge-Grissom encounter are of the same strength or less (from Pegasus and Rise), this leads me to conclude that even a flight of TIEs would be a threat to an Oberth, let alone the wing-strength group proposed. Scenario: This would, obviously, occur with the Imperial forces on the tactical defensive - any ship or group of ships carrying that many fighters would almost certainly have the firepower to blow away a defending Oberth with ease. The TIEs must therefore be guarding something, having either been left there by a ship that has since departed, or based locally, on the ground on in a space station. The most likely use of something as weak as an Oberth would be to deploy or extract special forces, or perhaps personnel from a base left behind in a general withdrawal. Conclusion: TIE fighter victory. Either they destroy the Oberth, or the Oberth runs away and leaves the TIEs in control of local space. It is highly unlikely that the Oberth would be able to destroy all the TIEs, as would be required prior to lowering shields to conduct transporter operations.
  14. The medical frigate is a hospital ship a fraction of the size of the Mon Cal cruisers. I wouldn't be surprised if it were vulnerable to fighter-scale weapons even firing against its shields. As for the larger ships, I can think of a few ways in which fighters could play a role against them even with impermeable shields - using weapons flashes on the shields to interfere with targeting, or forcing them to keep 360 degree coverage instead of focusing against the Star Destroyers.
  15. You assume incorrectly - I'm talking about the Star Destroyer's shields, when the Y-wings were explicitly ordered to aim for the opening in the shields created by capship bombardment. Is your argument, therefore, that all the professional pilots are incompetent idiots, since none of them flew through the shields, and were complaining that said shields were too strong for their weapons to penetrate. The fact that they were launching fighters at the time comprehensively counters the "permeable shield" theory in this example. It's not the first time we've seen that ships have to lower shields for others to launch or dock - you demonstrated this conclusively yourself with your analysis of the T4-Devastator battle, to the extent of identifying the moment the Devastator dropped shields, by showing when T4's shots stopped causing shield flashes and started causing armour flashes. Indeed, and General Dodonna specifically mentioned that characteristic of the shields in his briefing. If this characteristic was typical of shields, there would have been no need for him to do so. Meanwhile, we have Admiral Ackbar's explicit statement that "if we can knock out their [the Star Destroyers'] shields our fighters might stand a chance against them" (my emphasis). In these cases, fair enough, as I've already acknowledged. On the other hand, would you consider the clear demonstration of the E-D's bubble shields in, say, Best of Both Worlds, as evidence that the E-A had bubble shields in TUC?