82 replies to this topic

[sloosecannon]

Yes, but the rebels were extremely lucky with that. What basically happenedwas some Y-Wings got in a few shots on the bridge deflector shield generator, and the A-Wing that crashed into the bridge was hit by enemy turbolaser fire. In all other situations, that would be enough to destroy the fighter outright, but the thing managed to maintain structural stability, and made a one in a million crash landing into the bridge of the Executor.

Like i said, LOTS of luck was involved.

And the Executor had been the primary target for the entirety of the battle so its shields had been shot up like crazy. They y-wing strike managed to knock out the sensor domes and overload shield systems, boom.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[MasterOfShips]

Although the ancient humans used precursor technology it states that it was used to link their orbital defence guns, it never states that they were made out of it.

Actually, the direct quote is this.

"Prehistoric humans used unbending filaments to link their orbital defenses surrounding their capital Charum Hakkor and used them to help fend off the Forerunner onslaught for over fifty years."

Also, here's this quote about "orbital arches".

"Orbital arches were a type of orbital construction used by the Precursors on Charum Hakkor. Like all Precursor technology, they were virtually indestructible.^[1] On Charum Hakkor, prehistoric humans built cities onto the orbital arches, described by Bornstellar Makes Eternal Lasting as resembling 'ivy growing on great trees'."

Taking these quotes into account, as your namesake suggests the orbital arches must've stretched throughout Charum Hakkor's orbit. Presumably, with humans using unbending filaments to link these arches and their defense network together, collectively these structures must've been used as a fortification of sorts, due again to their indestructible nature.

[Bornstellaris]

Yeah I read that quote. The precursor technology would have made a strong superstructure but the orbital platforms themselves wouldn't have been as strong hence the forerunners being able to win.

I see a ancient human-forerunner war similiar to the human-covenant war. The Ancient humans would've put up a fight a fight but in the end superior numbers and knowledge of slipspace would've won them the war.

On a side note, forerunner weapons are not as weak as everyone makes them out to be. 4 beams from a single forerunner vessel shredded a halo, they went straight through the whole thing, land, superstructure and all. I admit human weapons were powerful, however I see no way they could have possibly won the war.

[sloosecannon]

Yeah I read that quote. The precursor technology would have made a strong superstructure but the orbital platforms themselves wouldn't have been as strong hence the forerunners being able to win.

I see a ancient human-forerunner war similiar to the human-covenant war. The Ancient humans would've put up a fight a fight but in the end superior numbers and knowledge of slipspace would've won them the war.

On a side note, forerunner weapons are not as weak as everyone makes them out to be. 4 beams from a single forerunner vessel shredded a halo, they went straight through the whole thing, land, superstructure and all. I admit human weapons were powerful, however I see no way they could have possibly won the war.

Brains... That and they were the chosen by the Precursors. In theory, they would be capable of doing more than the forerunners.

They were almost equal in technology - the only real advantage the Forerunners had was in slipspace tech. A defensive war would've proven quite effective in my opinion

[Bornstellaris]

Ones things for sure, it would have made an interesting war. I still believe the forerunners would win.

[Rovert10]

[nerd rage]
This is star wars and the galactic empire. Their ship crews were trained to fight the rebels in a certain way, IE long range engagement. When the rebels went point blank with them, the Imperial fleet was caught off guard, enabling the rebels to turn the tide of the battle slightly. Also, the rebels were extremely lucky when they took out the executor. That thing would have wiped out the rebel fleet otherwise.

Also, the imperial plan at the battle of endor was to have the death star open fire with its superlaser, destroying one rebel ship at a time. Once the rebel fleet closed with the Imperial fleet, friendly fire became an issue and the superlaser was not fired.

In laymans terms, the entire imperial plan was shot to hell by luck and good tactics.
[/nerd rage]

Which is still the same as sitting on their ass. Had they decided not to just "hold here" and actually made a full blown assualt rather than waited for the Death Star regardless if trained for Long Range or not, they would have probably won since as Lando says they wouldn't last long against those SDs up close. Palpatine fully knows that they were going to strike Endor. You'd think that the Empire would call in a bigger chunk of their fleet in waiting as a reserve hidden somewhere. Not only that they just wasted a ton of fighters when they made that initial run against the Rebel Fleet.

The Imperial Plan was not only shot to hell by well "1 in a million chance" luck (I agree with you fully there) and Rebel ingenuity but the Imperials were stupidly cocky and unable to grasp the full advantages they had.


Anyways, well it was a nice nerd run of speculation I suppose. I still hold on the notion that Ancient Humans would win eventually.

[Bornstellaris]

I don't think that Ancient Humanity could ever truely win. The forerunners had something like 3 million planets under their control, the ancient humans would never be able to find and destroy all the forerunners. Also lets say that each plant produces one large forerunner ship, that's 3 million ships that the forerunners have at their disposal.

[MasterOfShips]

Yeah I read that quote. The precursor technology would have made a strong superstructure but the orbital platforms themselves wouldn't have been as strong hence the forerunners being able to win.

How do you know that they weren't? The quote never directly states whether they did or not. But, Ancient Humanity had the capability to manipulate this material. So one can reasonably guess that they had the ability to build their own structures with it as well. Why wouldn't they use an "indestructible" material for their defenses?

I don't think that Ancient Humanity could ever truely win. The forerunners had something like 3 million planets under their control, the ancient humans would never be able to find and destroy all the forerunners. Also lets say that each plant produces one large forerunner ship, that's 3 million ships that the forerunners have at their disposal.

You're absolutely right about that. I agree that humanity could never have wiped out the entire Forerunner Empire. But you're missing the point about a defensive war. The goal is not to wipe out every single Forerunner planet. It's to make sure that they fail in wiping out yours. Again, the idea is to stay back, and let them suffer huge casualties while trying to take down your superior defenses. Once their supplies lines, morale, and troop numbers are weak, you hit them harder again and again. Keep repeating this tactic until you've broken their will to fight. Then you can negotiate a peace on your own terms.

Look at the American Revolution, The Maccabean Revolt, the Vietnam War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Time and time again, it has been shown that a dedicated resistance can prevail over a more advanced and numerically superior invading force by using the right tactics and making them suffer for every inch of territory that they gain.

Even with potentially 3 million ships (I tend to think that they actually had more), the Forerunners took a thousand years to wipe out a severely weakened humanity. Imagine what humanity could do if it was at full strength? How many more millennia of fighting could the Forerunners stomach? With a network of indestructible defenses and a full navy, humanity could've beaten back every Forerunner invasion of their home territory until the Forerunners had enough and quit. IMO, as long as humanity played it smart and kept a strictly defensive mindset, humanity would've prevailed over the Forerunners.

[Kommrad II]

I'm sorry but I have to comment....
The Germans were able to do what they did in their blitzkrieg across France for several reasons.
1. Allied plan of battle based off the traditional method of attack b Germany, this plan of battle would have likely worked if it were not for the next event..What allies? It was just the French in France when the blitzkrieg broke through, who were later back up by the British Expeditionary Force that was made famous by running away with its tail between its legs at Dunkirk. there was no 'allies' at that time, only an 'entente' of sorts.
2. A German light aircraft crashed inside allied territory after losing its way, this plane carried a copy of the entire German battle plan for the invasion.I dont...what? Yeah, that major who had to land(not a crash, mind you, he was forced down)did give the Belgians the current plans, but the dates mentioned in this plan came and went without any German attack, so people stopped caring. In the following edition of said plans, they looked pretty much just like the old ones. The only change in plans was Hitlers adoption of the Manstien Plan.
3. The crash caused Britain and France to pull more units away from the Maginot Line (which was seemingly impervious to attack from the front)Nope nope nope. If any units were moved(who would have been only French on the line as well) they would have been moved back to their original posts as the dates mentioned in the intercepted plans came and went without issue.
4 The German High Command realized that their planned attack was compromised and went with the only alternative attack through an area that even they thought was impassable to tanks... the Ardennes Again, no. Sure, many of the high command may not enjoyed the idea of sending tanks through the Ardennes but it wasn't the main avenue of attack. That would have been Belgium
5. The main advantage the Germans had in direct battle was the two way radio allowed tank u it's to coordinate on the tactical level thus a massive advantage... Other than that the Allies had the better tank... Again, the 'allies'. Anywho, the French and British decided to have their tank a few mile apart with one supporting a 'lucky' group of infantry. Even without the radio, the germans would have steamrolled over the pockets of tanks and infantry due to the sheer number of German tanks.So in short, the Germans beat the ever loving shit out of the French and British because the germans never stopped moving and knew how to fight a war better than the French and British at the time.

My AP history class/buff just curled up and died. Ive made edits to your list.

[Emberblaque]

Other than that the Allies had the better tanks...

"Goodness" is a difficult quality to define, and even after definition, the definition is probably arbitrary. Neither tank completely surpasses the other in all properties. Let's consider the Matilda II vs. the Panzer IV. They both entered service in 1939. Assume that Matilda IIs are armed with the Ordnance QF 2-pounder and that Panzer IVs are armed with the 7.5 cm KwK 37, and that both are using armor piercing ammunition.

Matilda II

Weight: 27 metric tons
Front hull armor thickness: 78 millimeters
Side hull armor thickness: 55 millimeters
Top hull armor thickness: 20 millimeters
Armament caliber: 40 millimeters
Armament muzzle velocity: 792 meters per second
Engine power: 180 horsepower
Maximum speed: 24 kilometers per hour
Power-to-weight ratio: 6.7 horsepower per metric ton

Panzer IV

Weight: 25 metric tons
Front hull armor thickness: 40 millimeters
Side hull armor thickness: 20 millimeters
Top hull armor thickness: 12 millimeters
Armament caliber: 75 millimeters
Armament muzzle velocity: 385 meters per second
Engine power: 296 horsepower
Maximum speed: 42 kilometers per hour
Power-to-weight ratio: 12 horsepower per metric ton

It's clear that the Panzer IV was lighter, and had the more powerful engine, and was therefore faster, while the Matlida II had superior armor and armament. A similar comparison can be made between the Matilda I and the Panzer III, which entered service in 1938 and 1939, respectively.

[m468]

My AP history class/buff just curled up and died. Ive made edits to your list.

To your first point during the "Sitzkrieg" British troops were deployed into France in fact that is when the BEF was sent.

Now to the second point it has been awhile sense I read about that so thank you for pointing that out.

The attack through Belgium was meant to be the main attack with smaller local attacks across the board again it was the standard style of German attack into the Low Countries then strait to France. However, when the Germans realized that their primary plan was compromised they used it to their advantage. They knew that to counter their offensive in Belgium the Allies (Britain and France...) would be forced to rush into Belgium to attempt to gain a shorter more defensible front. Thus an attack through the Ardennes would allow the German High Command to cut the majority of the BEF off from the French army. And to your point about the two way radio, it was in fact the radio that allowed German tank units to effectively engage. It was the radio that allowed individual tank commanders to report what they and their crew were seeing in battle and on reconnaissance, thus German Commanders from Battalion level to Division level had a "clear" picture of what and who their forces were engaging. This real time picture allowed them to use their tanks advantages against the weaknesses of British and French tanks.

Now to Ember

My fault should have said superior on an individual level... The tanks that Germany used during this battle were the PzIII and PzII the PzIV was very rare at this point in the war in fact they only began to see wide spread service around the time the the British began receiving the M4 Sherman in N. Africa. In many respects the tank v tank combat worked out similar to the M4 against the Panther in that the lighter and faster tank must shoot at the flanks of the heavier and slower tank, exactly what coordination via two way radio in all tanks allows.

Edit: If my wording is off sorry... I'm on some serious pain killers due to a buckled knee from a drunk driver...

[Unikraken]

"Goodness" is a difficult quality to define, and even after definition, the definition is probably arbitrary. Neither tank completely surpasses the other in all properties. Let's consider the Matilda II vs. the Panzer IV. They both entered service in 1939. Assume that Matilda IIs are armed with the Ordnance QF 2-pounder and that Panzer IVs are armed with the 7.5 cm KwK 37, and that both are using armor piercing ammunition.

That kind of speed difference can be significant.

[Emberblaque]

That kind of speed difference can be significant.

I hope I didn't indicate otherwise, I would argue that it was the key to German victory. That difference was what allowed the German tanks to outflank the British and French tanks and target their vulnerable sides, rather than their well-protected fronts, which were nigh impenetrable to the lower velocity guns used by the Germans (as momentarily discussed by m468), as well as carve a swath between France and the Low Countries, isolating the British Expeditionary Force and a portion of the French Army.

[Defender0]

I hope I didn't indicate otherwise, I would argue that it was the key to German victory.

That speed is what allowed the german strategy of blitzkrieg to be so successful.

[Emberblaque]

That speed is what allowed the german strategy of blitzkrieg to be so successful.

You're essentially repeating what I just said. If you're trying to bring attention to the psychological aspects of their strategy ("shock and awe," as it were), I think that's been mentioned enough. The tactical advantage it provided against Allied armor and the strategic advantage it provided by isolating the Allied forces at little to no cost to the German military is mentioned far less often, and in my opinion, far more important. There's even considerable disagreement among scholars over the existence of blitzkrieg as a military strategy.

[m468]

Blitzkrieg can be described very easily using a quote from Admiral Halsey, "Hit hard, hit fast, hit often!" Basically you hit the enemy so hard and so fast that they do not know what to do on the strategic and tactical level. There are two main examples often referenced The Battle of France in 1940 is one of them.

[Defender0]

Which is still the same as sitting on their ass. Had they decided not to just "hold here" and actually made a full blown assualt rather than waited for the Death Star regardless if trained for Long Range or not, they would have probably won since as Lando says they wouldn't last long against those SDs up close. Palpatine fully knows that they were going to strike Endor. You'd think that the Empire would call in a bigger chunk of their fleet in waiting as a reserve hidden somewhere. Not only that they just wasted a ton of fighters when they made that initial run against the Rebel Fleet.

The Imperial Plan was not only shot to hell by well "1 in a million chance" luck (I agree with you fully there) and Rebel ingenuity but the Imperials were stupidly cocky and unable to grasp the full advantages they had.


Anyways, well it was a nice nerd run of speculation I suppose. I still hold on the notion that Ancient Humans would win eventually.

In all honesty, how much do you actually know about star wars?

[Unikraken]

I hope I didn't indicate otherwise, I would argue that it was the key to German victory. That difference was what allowed the German tanks to outflank the British and French tanks and target their vulnerable sides, rather than their well-protected fronts, which were nigh impenetrable to the lower velocity guns used by the Germans (as momentarily discussed by m468), as well as carve a swath between France and the Low Countries, isolating the British Expeditionary Force and a portion of the French Army.

You didn't. I was mainly pointing it out for others, in case the tanks looked a little one sided.

[m468]

You didn't. I was mainly pointing it out for others, in case the tanks looked a little one sided.

Yah, your speed comment was welcome most people don't realize that with out speed a tank is useless.

[Emberblaque]

Blitzkrieg can be described very easily using a quote from Admiral Halsey, "Hit hard, hit fast, hit often!" Basically you hit the enemy so hard and so fast that they do not know what to do on the strategic and tactical level. There are two main examples often referenced The Battle of France in 1940 is one of them.

What I'm saying is that people may have created the concept of Blitzkrieg after the fact. From what I understand Hitler never actually intended to start the war that early, and Blitzkrieg was a term created by American journalists to describe the nature of the warfare conducted by Germany in France in the early part of the war. It's been argued that they didn't adopt it as a military doctrine, but rather that they conducted those early battles in that manner merely as a response to the circumstances.

You didn't. I was mainly pointing it out for others, in case the tanks looked a little one sided.

Yeah I guess a lot of people think thicker armor + better gun = best tank.