![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
talkswithwindA question I had on a job-application a long while ago. Really. It was a joke question to be sure. But they made the mistake of adding "show your work" to it.
Which I did.
It came to three pages. I really should have said, "This came to 3 pages. If you want to see the whole thing, ask."
The short-version:
A lot of the internet fights about this topic like to focus on the Carrier (SD) vs Battleship (Enterprise) aspect of this. We all know how that ended up during WWII: Carriers won hands down. Lots of mobile combat platforms with guns, versus a single large combat platform with a few really big guns. Nibbled to death by ducks.
However, this overlooks a key difference in the SD vs Enterprise debate: technology. You see, the Star Destroyer is built on extrapolated early 1970's technology, where computers are tape-fed, manpower matters quite a lot to the operation of weapons systems, and interfaces are restricted to 8-bit holo displays with keyed inputs. The Enterprise (the Next Generation one was specified) is based on extrapolated late 1980's technology where computers can generate UIs, accept voice commands, do complex analysis on simple queries, and command of weapons systems is done through the computer from the bridge. The resourcing impact here is quite clear; the SD is a carrier with thousands of crew aboard to maintain the carrier's weapons systems and operations, plus the crew needed to operate their flight wing, where the Enterprise has several hundred aboard and relies on computer automation for much of the work.
This difference gives the battleship (the Enterprise) a chance. A good one.
The TIE fighter is a tin can wrapped around a turbolaser with no independent shields, it doesn't take much to take them out of the fight. Which is why the SD carries a lot of them.
The main guns on the SD are upscaled turbo lasers, designed for point defense against opposing TIE swarms and the knife-fight of close-quarters-combat with another SD. From the documentation (movies) We know that they don't carry enough firepower to destroy each other with point-defense quickly.
The offensive doctrine of the SD based fleet is to have the fighter swarms duke it out to open the way for bombers. The bombers carry larger torpedoes which have more punch than turbolasers and can disable an SD if enough hit. SD fleets aren't supposed to interpenetrate, but that happens from time to time.
Then, the Enterprise.
This is a ship equipped for independent operation, leveraging a high level of automation and computer support. Unlike the SD, it does have big guns: phasers. The phaser's power is derived from the combined yield of many emitters, a technique shown on the Death Star, but much smaller scale. Emitters can be damaged, but that just reduces the punch of the big gun not eliminates it. The yield of photon torpedoes is also higher than the torpedoes used by the 1970's derived SDs, though the Enterprise carries fewer of them.
The offensive doctrine of the Enterprise is to face other battleships like itself. Opposing fleets flying shuttle swarms learn quickly that phasers can emit in multiple directions at the same time, thanks to fancy computers.
As we learned in WWII, when carriers get in the range of the BFGs on a Battleship, the carriers tend to suffer pretty badly. That's why they get taken out by the fighter swarm before it gets to that. Well, in reality they get held at distance by screening vessels (destroyers) while the air wing tries to torpedo the shit out of the Battleship before it can smash through the tin cans in its way and start hammering on their landing-strip.
Note that the SD battle doctrine doesn't employ destroyers or an equivalent vessel.
An SD attacking the Enterprise would open with a TIE swarm, as its doctrine requires. If it had good intel on the capabilities of the Enterprise, it would launch nearly all of its fighter wing and concentrate on a single hemisphere of battle. The intent being to overwhelm the computer-driven target-control on the Enterprise.
The response on the Enterprise side would be to reconfigure the phaser array for independent fire by each emitter on a different target. The weakness of the TIE fighter being what it is, one emitter would be enough to take one out of a fight. Focusing too much on a single weak unit causes overkill and wastes energy. By focusing the engagement on one hemisphere, the emitters on the far side of the engagement have a longer firing cycle and reduce their firing rate. Photon torpedoes are useless in this stage of the engagement.
The TIE fighters focus on weakening the Enterprise shields enough for bomber runs, per battle-doctrine. Meanwhile, the Enterprise is potting large numbers of TIE fighters through computer-driven tracking. Losses in the fighter-wing would be tremendous. At this point, interesting things begin to happen.
If the TIE screen thins out enough with the shields still intact, the SD really should refuse further engagement. It can't stand up to the big guns, and the photon torpedo load. It if turns to engage because there can be only one, it will get shot to shit by the full power phasers and torpedoes before it can enter its full engagement range. Which, I must add, is much closer than the Enterprise due to human driven targeting.
If the TIE screen manages to get the shields down, but is largely destroyed, the SD can move in for the kill. Point defense weapons would used to finish the Enterprise off. Though, it would experience catastrophic damage from the torpedoes during its approach and engagement.
If the TIE bombers manage to get the shields down, targeting by the remaining TIE swarm can take out the remaining weapons systems of the Enterprise and defang it.
Which is more likely? No one knows in war, but the edge goes to the SD.
However, there is a bigger question. The win conditions of the SD involve a very high death count. For each killed Federation naval rating, probably ten Imperial personnel died. The lack of automation on the SD means such crew are highly trained, especially in the fighter wings: maintaining unit-discipline while everyone you know is getting shot to shit takes lots of training, and draftees don't have the motivation. The question to ask right now is:
When the smoking wreckage of the winning ship gets back to dock, which is easier to bring back to operational effectiveness? That is what will win the war. The edge there goes to the Federation.
Which I did.
It came to three pages. I really should have said, "This came to 3 pages. If you want to see the whole thing, ask."
The short-version:
The Star Destroyer would usually prevail, largely through TIE-FIghter spamming overwhelming the targeting solutions available to the Enterprise, allowing the fighter screen to weaken the shields enough for the SD itself to finish it off. However, the Enterprise platform is a far more maintainable solution in a sustained campaign and wins the logistics fight.
A lot of the internet fights about this topic like to focus on the Carrier (SD) vs Battleship (Enterprise) aspect of this. We all know how that ended up during WWII: Carriers won hands down. Lots of mobile combat platforms with guns, versus a single large combat platform with a few really big guns. Nibbled to death by ducks.
However, this overlooks a key difference in the SD vs Enterprise debate: technology. You see, the Star Destroyer is built on extrapolated early 1970's technology, where computers are tape-fed, manpower matters quite a lot to the operation of weapons systems, and interfaces are restricted to 8-bit holo displays with keyed inputs. The Enterprise (the Next Generation one was specified) is based on extrapolated late 1980's technology where computers can generate UIs, accept voice commands, do complex analysis on simple queries, and command of weapons systems is done through the computer from the bridge. The resourcing impact here is quite clear; the SD is a carrier with thousands of crew aboard to maintain the carrier's weapons systems and operations, plus the crew needed to operate their flight wing, where the Enterprise has several hundred aboard and relies on computer automation for much of the work.
This difference gives the battleship (the Enterprise) a chance. A good one.
The TIE fighter is a tin can wrapped around a turbolaser with no independent shields, it doesn't take much to take them out of the fight. Which is why the SD carries a lot of them.
The main guns on the SD are upscaled turbo lasers, designed for point defense against opposing TIE swarms and the knife-fight of close-quarters-combat with another SD. From the documentation (movies) We know that they don't carry enough firepower to destroy each other with point-defense quickly.
The offensive doctrine of the SD based fleet is to have the fighter swarms duke it out to open the way for bombers. The bombers carry larger torpedoes which have more punch than turbolasers and can disable an SD if enough hit. SD fleets aren't supposed to interpenetrate, but that happens from time to time.
Then, the Enterprise.
This is a ship equipped for independent operation, leveraging a high level of automation and computer support. Unlike the SD, it does have big guns: phasers. The phaser's power is derived from the combined yield of many emitters, a technique shown on the Death Star, but much smaller scale. Emitters can be damaged, but that just reduces the punch of the big gun not eliminates it. The yield of photon torpedoes is also higher than the torpedoes used by the 1970's derived SDs, though the Enterprise carries fewer of them.
The offensive doctrine of the Enterprise is to face other battleships like itself. Opposing fleets flying shuttle swarms learn quickly that phasers can emit in multiple directions at the same time, thanks to fancy computers.
As we learned in WWII, when carriers get in the range of the BFGs on a Battleship, the carriers tend to suffer pretty badly. That's why they get taken out by the fighter swarm before it gets to that. Well, in reality they get held at distance by screening vessels (destroyers) while the air wing tries to torpedo the shit out of the Battleship before it can smash through the tin cans in its way and start hammering on their landing-strip.
Note that the SD battle doctrine doesn't employ destroyers or an equivalent vessel.
An SD attacking the Enterprise would open with a TIE swarm, as its doctrine requires. If it had good intel on the capabilities of the Enterprise, it would launch nearly all of its fighter wing and concentrate on a single hemisphere of battle. The intent being to overwhelm the computer-driven target-control on the Enterprise.
The response on the Enterprise side would be to reconfigure the phaser array for independent fire by each emitter on a different target. The weakness of the TIE fighter being what it is, one emitter would be enough to take one out of a fight. Focusing too much on a single weak unit causes overkill and wastes energy. By focusing the engagement on one hemisphere, the emitters on the far side of the engagement have a longer firing cycle and reduce their firing rate. Photon torpedoes are useless in this stage of the engagement.
The TIE fighters focus on weakening the Enterprise shields enough for bomber runs, per battle-doctrine. Meanwhile, the Enterprise is potting large numbers of TIE fighters through computer-driven tracking. Losses in the fighter-wing would be tremendous. At this point, interesting things begin to happen.
If the TIE screen thins out enough with the shields still intact, the SD really should refuse further engagement. It can't stand up to the big guns, and the photon torpedo load. It if turns to engage because there can be only one, it will get shot to shit by the full power phasers and torpedoes before it can enter its full engagement range. Which, I must add, is much closer than the Enterprise due to human driven targeting.
If the TIE screen manages to get the shields down, but is largely destroyed, the SD can move in for the kill. Point defense weapons would used to finish the Enterprise off. Though, it would experience catastrophic damage from the torpedoes during its approach and engagement.
If the TIE bombers manage to get the shields down, targeting by the remaining TIE swarm can take out the remaining weapons systems of the Enterprise and defang it.
Which is more likely? No one knows in war, but the edge goes to the SD.
However, there is a bigger question. The win conditions of the SD involve a very high death count. For each killed Federation naval rating, probably ten Imperial personnel died. The lack of automation on the SD means such crew are highly trained, especially in the fighter wings: maintaining unit-discipline while everyone you know is getting shot to shit takes lots of training, and draftees don't have the motivation. The question to ask right now is:
When the smoking wreckage of the winning ship gets back to dock, which is easier to bring back to operational effectiveness? That is what will win the war. The edge there goes to the Federation.
