Jump to content
D.Erasmus

In Flight Report Reactions

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, LordCola said:

Actually I think they need to do that even more than the empire did. One problem after Endor was that the New Republic did not have enough forces to secure worlds they "liberated" from the Empire. The result was a power vacuum on many, many world that was mostly filled by pirates and gangsters. (Many world were worse of after their "liberation" than before) So the New RepubSlic has a lot of patroling over civilian world to do.

I don't really know enough about the inter-film stories to get into that, seems odd that pirates etc had more resources than local system administrations.  Did the Empire allow that deliberately for some reason?  You'd also think big battleships, triangular or otherwise, would make poor planetary police craft though, and a lack of forces to secure worlds would suggest they need to be even more careful about how they spend their limited resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

seems odd that pirates etc had more resources than local system administrations.

There was no local system administration. The Empire ran all those world. You chase away the Empire and the worlds are left with no administrative bodys and especially with no force or equipment / resources to enforce any law. Now that you have no policeing, pirates and gangsters can come from anywhere and just take over control.

 

16 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

You'd also think big battleships, triangular or otherwise, would make poor planetary police craft though,

Not sure on that one since that was more or less the main purpose the ISD was build for.

Edited by LordCola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, LordCola said:

Not sure on that one since that was more or less the main purpose the ISD was build for.

And it did so... through spreading terror.  For 19 years.  Making it not just a battleship, but a symbol.

Edited by The Jabbawookie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mazz0 said:

No, I'm just disagreeing with you.  Seeing formerly enemy ships now in your colours can invoke a visceral reaction too.  I'm not sure how important any of that is though - how often are ordinary people causally going to see these ships?

Your Colours?

That's the problem with Star Destroyers.  They almost all look the **** same, because according to legends, there's jus tnot enough paint in any other colour for them! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LordCola said:

There was no local system administration. The Empire ran all those world.

There was lots of local administration, it's a big part of the Rebels cartoon.  Its leadership was Imperial because the Empire was in charge, but removing the empire doesn't mean all that administrative infrastructure and personal leaves too, that would be assuming a huge amount of loyalty to the Empire.   Where does this pirate fleet come from anyway - did the Empire allow it to exist, or is it built very quickly after the Empire falls?

16 minutes ago, LordCola said:

Not sure on that one since that was more or less the main purpose the ISD was build for.

I thought one of the main arguments against keeping the IDSs was "the rebels don't have the same purpose for their ships that the Empire did"?  If it turns out they do and those ships are well suited for new republic purposes then getting rid of them is even sillier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

There was lots of local administration, it's a big part of the Rebels cartoon.  Its leadership was Imperial because the Empire was in charge, but removing the empire doesn't mean all that administrative infrastructure and personal leaves too, that would be assuming a huge amount of loyalty to the Empire.   Where does this pirate fleet come from anyway - did the Empire allow it to exist, or is it built very quickly after the Empire falls?

I did not quite make it through Aftermath but I do remember there is a part where a guy travels to the seat of the New Republic Senat just to complain about the exact thing I described. The New Republic came and "liberated" them from the Empire. Once the Empire was gone the New Republic too recalled their forces there too and now the world is controlled by crime and the people of the world would rather have the empire back. A fate many other worlds shared. This is canonically a fact.

 

9 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

I thought one of the main arguments against keeping the IDSs was "the rebels don't have the same purpose for their ships that the Empire did"?  If it turns out they do and those ships are well suited for new republic purposes then getting rid of them is even sillier.

Oh, they did share objectives. One of the primary purposes of an ISD was to protect the Empire against pirates and the likes. But at the same time ISD where also there to subjugate the civilian population. They are a symbol of oppression. I believe the New Republic has chosen to a different path than the whole subjugation thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

I thought one of the main arguments against keeping the IDSs was "the rebels don't have the same purpose for their ships that the Empire did"?  If it turns out they do and those ships are well suited for new republic purposes then getting rid of them is even sillier.

Let me put it this way: more of the galaxy’s denizens have seen an Imperial Star Destroyer than the Rebel emblem.  In combining the two, you aren’t purifying the sight of a Star Destroyer, you are dragging your own symbol through the mud.  And even if changing the meaning of the ISD was your intention, (the economic angle sure clouds that) it’s just not the New Republic Navy’s decision whether that symbol is acceptable.  That call belongs to the Wookiees, the Alderaanians, and countless other species and worlds who have lived through the worst the Empire has to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Let me put it this way: more of the galaxy’s denizens have seen an Imperial Star Destroyer than the Rebel emblem.  In combining the two, you aren’t purifying the sight of a Star Destroyer, you are dragging your own symbol through the mud.  And even if changing the meaning of the ISD was your intention, (the economic angle sure clouds that) it’s just not the New Republic Navy’s decision whether that symbol is acceptable.  That call belongs to the Wookiees, the Alderaanians, and countless other species and worlds who have lived through the worst the Empire has to offer.

I just can't buy that at all.   To start with how many ordinary people are going to have seen any kind of big military ships?  It would be a strong argument against keeping storm trooper armour, but for ships less on that ground.  Maybe people've seen them on new reports, in which case they'll also be familiar with the new republic colours, as I'm pretty sure that would be big news.  It's a technologically advances civilization, information will travel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LordCola said:

I did not quite make it through Aftermath but I do remember there is a part where a guy travels to the seat of the New Republic Senat just to complain about the exact thing I described. The New Republic came and "liberated" them from the Empire. Once the Empire was gone the New Republic too recalled their forces there too and now the world is controlled by crime and the people of the world would rather have the empire back. A fate many other worlds shared. This is canonically a fact.

 

Oh, they did share objectives. One of the primary purposes of an ISD was to protect the Empire against pirates and the likes. But at the same time ISD where also there to subjugate the civilian population. They are a symbol of oppression. I believe the New Republic has chosen to a different path than the whole subjugation thing. 

That makes sense.  But at this point, when this man approaches the Republic to complain, is he going to say "please send ships to deal with the pirates and crime lords, unless they're star destroyers in which case forget about it"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mazz0 said:

I just can't buy that at all.   To start with how many ordinary people are going to have seen any kind of big military ships?  It would be a strong argument against keeping storm trooper armour, but for ships less on that ground.  Maybe people've seen them on new reports, in which case they'll also be familiar with the new republic colours, as I'm pretty sure that would be big news.  It's a technologically advances civilization, information will travel. 

We see Star Destroyers in low orbit over Corellia and Jedha in the films alone, indicating the Empire makes a point of waving them around over occupied worlds.  Why else would you spend energy keeping a mile-long warship so close to the surface?

What it boils down to is this: we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion, and a very incomplete understanding of the situation.  It is highly unlikely the New Republic didn't at least consider keeping Imperial vessels; ultimately, they decided against it.  I can see numerous reasons why they might do so; even if you do not agree with those reasons, either the decision was based off reasons you don't know of or made by characters living in that galaxy who disagreed with you.

Ergo, any claim that they should have done this doesn't hold weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Jabbawookie said:

either the decision was based off reasons you don't know of or made by characters living in that galaxy who disagreed with you.

Ergo, any claim that they should have done this doesn't hold weight.

Or it was a poor bit of writing, that's possible too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mazz0 said:

Or it was a poor bit of writing, that's possible too.

I suppose a third option is that the decision is irrational.  Which doesn't make the writing poor.  It then becomes very hard to say the New Republic's actions were irrational when A. we don't know much of the picture, and B. we've been debating this on the internet for most of the morning, which in and of itself makes this controversial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I suppose a third option is that the decision is irrational.  Which doesn't make the writing poor.  It then becomes very hard to say the New Republic's actions were irrational when A. we don't know much of the picture, and B. we've been debating this on the internet for most of the morning, which in and of itself makes this controversial.

That's true.  And to be fair there are lots of rather questionable decisions made in Star Wars.

Edited by mazz0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

That makes sense.  But at this point, when this man approaches the Republic to complain, is he going to say "please send ships to deal with the pirates and crime lords, unless they're star destroyers in which case forget about it"?

The ISD is a symbol of oppression.  The Republic using them would be dicey.  The people fear the sight of these.  It's not a reassuring thing.  Imagine the rumors spreading around when ISDs come out of hyperspace into orbit around a world that was recently freed of the Empire.  ISDs were effective, but also a symbol of terror.

It would be like telling Rebel forces to start policing worlds in Stormtrooper uniforms.  It would be like flying the Imperial banner over a planet because they didn't have any of the new Republic flags yet.  You don't use the enemies stuff out of convenience, especially if you are trying to portray a different image to the people.

Stripping them for parts? Yes.  Using a few in deep space or in places that people won't see them, sure.  Just taking and using all Imperial equipment even if people are afraid of it? Not a good idea.

You can see similar issues play out in human history.  Should we use Nazi medical research or is that immoral and unethical?  People of a war torn country being just as scared of their liberators as from the occupiers because they just traded one group of people with guns for another.  Often times logic and well reasoned arguments lose out to emotion and passion.

People feared ISDs, stormtroopers, ATATs, and ATSTs.  The Republic decided not to use these things as they didn't want to scare people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I weird in wanting to take njbulter's design which Mel's is printing, and cutting off the front section and using the official model's front section, hehe...

 

The description in the book very much asserts that the Starhawk basically looks like a huge hatchet blade in the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, kmanweiss said:

The ISD is a symbol of oppression.  The Republic using them would be dicey.  The people fear the sight of these.  It's not a reassuring thing.  Imagine the rumors spreading around when ISDs come out of hyperspace into orbit around a world that was recently freed of the Empire.  ISDs were effective, but also a symbol of terror.

It would be like telling Rebel forces to start policing worlds in Stormtrooper uniforms.  It would be like flying the Imperial banner over a planet because they didn't have any of the new Republic flags yet.  You don't use the enemies stuff out of convenience, especially if you are trying to portray a different image to the people.

Stripping them for parts? Yes.  Using a few in deep space or in places that people won't see them, sure.  Just taking and using all Imperial equipment even if people are afraid of it? Not a good idea.

You can see similar issues play out in human history.  Should we use Nazi medical research or is that immoral and unethical?  People of a war torn country being just as scared of their liberators as from the occupiers because they just traded one group of people with guns for another.  Often times logic and well reasoned arguments lose out to emotion and passion.

People feared ISDs, stormtroopers, ATATs, and ATSTs.  The Republic decided not to use these things as they didn't want to scare people.

Tell me more about how this works in human history (I don't know much about it).  I would assume that following rebellions and revolutions that the victors do indeed use the seized equipment of the former oppressors.  Does that not happen?  What about in France after the revolution, America after independence, more recently Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, etc?  Did the winners not use seized equipment?  Not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know.  I always though using seized ships was standard practice though (it certainly is in computer games).

Edited by mazz0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

Tell me more about how this works in human history (I don't know much about it).  I would assume that following rebellions and revolutions that the victors do indeed use the seized equipment of the former oppressors.  Does that not happen?  What about in France after the revolution, America after independence, more recently Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, etc?  Did the winners not use seized equipment?  Not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know.  I always though us UI got seized ships was standard practice though (it certainly is in computer games).

Yeah, the victors seize the enemy's ships and include them in their fleet.

Sometimes just as test targets, sometimes as regular warships joining the line of battle.

Indeed, the Allies were EXTREMELY PEEVED OFF at Germany after World War 1, when the fleet they had been arguing over how to distribute amongst all the victorious powers was instead scuttled by the German skeleton crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

You can see similar issues play out in human history.  Should we use Nazi medical research or is that immoral and unethical?  

The Americans in particular used nazi nuclear scientists to further their own stockpile of nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ISD Avenger said:

The Americans in particular used nazi nuclear scientists to further their own stockpile of nukes.

I think I remember reading somewhere that the allies also refused to modify their helmets in WW2 to cover further down the head and neck solely to avoid looking like the german soldiers even after such a design was proven to provide more protection. Also didnt the germans not want to use the T-34 even though the Russian tank provided better armor and weapons than the Panzer 4? Sure that last one was more about it being a "worse" design because it wasn't designed by the germans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LordCola said:

In the Q&A someone asked for an App for Legion and the answer was that maintaining that X-wing App is very expensive so they won't make an App for Legion. So if Legion is not getting an App Armada is definitely not getting one.

I nearly spit my drink reading this. It is very expensive maintaining a list builder app with some point values? How many FTE software developer does that legitimately take?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mazz0 said:

Tell me more about how this works in human history (I don't know much about it).  I would assume that following rebellions and revolutions that the victors do indeed use the seized equipment of the former oppressors.  Does that not happen?  What about in France after the revolution, America after independence, more recently Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, etc?  Did the winners not use seized equipment?  Not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know.  I always though using seized ships was standard practice though (it certainly is in computer games).

Not generally, and especially not after WW2. At least in the U.S. Military, seized equipment has to be processed, cataloged, then destroyed. The only time we keep equipment is in rare circumstances. Example would be my father, who served in Iraq both times. The second time, after the invasion the Iraqi Army (officially the Iraqi Ground Forces) had a hard time trying to do a rebranding. They went through something like 6 names they ultimately didn't go with for various reasons. Most of them being that the acronym would have been the same as an old name or people they didn't want to be equated to... (like Israel)... For the longest time they also refused to use United States Armored vehicles or Armor (tanks) as many citizens - while not actively fighting us - were still not happy we were there. They also stormed multiple warehouses and found weapons stockpiles they had to destroy. HOWEVER, one time they found an old french Hotchkiss M1922 LMG... they called the French embassy and it was taken to France to be put on display in a war museum.

There is also small places like, Chile, that back in the day... they updated their military by hiring Prussian military officers to train their officers. This has remained in effect for the Chilean Army and if you google it you'll see their wonderful, WW2 style dress uniforms. Pre-1945 Most thought that Germany made the best military equipment and soldiers (even with the defeat of WW1 due to various circumstances). So dozens of small countries bought MILLIONS of Mausers, Arty, ect. On the flip side of the Chilean army thing... after WW1, they remained a neutral country (IF I RECALL CORRECTLY @GiledPallaeon might be able to correct me if I'm wrong) and thus were generally allowed to maintain their uniform after the war.

But for the most part, no. You don't keep the stuff you claim unless it is generally accepted from the populace. After the Senate was reinstated it was likely put to a vote and then shot down. I'm sure Naval commanders would have loved to use the ISD, they were likely told to scrap the entire line much like the Empire scrapped the Venator. This could have also been along the same line as the Empires silly naming system to get around the Senate. The New Republic Navy might have said, "Okay, we'll scrap them... but can we build our own ships? We'll make sure it doesn't cost TOO much..." and got away with using the ISD parts that way.

 

Edited by Ling27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To expand upon this, we do see some consolidation of rebel cells that were against the Empire, with cells of resistance that had been fighting since during the Clone War. Often, these cells had to renounce any war-crimes they might have committed and also dedicate themselves to fighting to restore the republic. Example being Cassian from Rogue One. In this instance, and in other instances like using blasters from the Empire, its not a big deal that the Rebels were using this equipment. In other instances such as with Rebel Home, or Lucrehulk Prime, they were using what they needed to use as an insurgency to operate.

After the battle of Endor, the Alliance to Restore the Republic fulfilled its mandate, and re-organized into the New Galactic Republic... This would also included the reconstitution of the Senate and a civilian government, as well as likely any laws that the New Republic was bringing forward from the Old Republic. Civilian governments generally mean oversight committees and budgets... ect. Something many Rebel Cells likely didn't experience before hand, though we do see that the core Headquarters and Headquarters Companies (HHC) fleets were more of an organized military and were likely already following pre-Clone War republic doctrine.

 

However this is all speculation based on historical evidence of when nations go through this sort of thing, as well as what I can imply from reading the various movie-novels, the Aftermath series, and reading up on various instances of what I can understand the goals of the Rebel Alliance/New Republic from Rebels and Resistance.

Edited by Ling27
Red is speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ling27 said:

Not generally, and especially not after WW2. At least in the U.S. Military, seized equipment has to be processed, cataloged, then destroyed. The only time we keep equipment is in rare circumstances. Example would be my father, who served in Iraq both times. The second time, after the invasion the Iraqi Army (officially the Iraqi Ground Forces) had a hard time trying to do a rebranding. They went through something like 6 names they ultimately didn't go with for various reasons. Most of them being that the acronym would have been the same as an old name or people they didn't want to be equated to... (like Israel)... For the longest time they also refused to use United States Armored vehicles or Armor (tanks) as many citizens - while not actively fighting us - were still not happy we were there. They also stormed multiple warehouses and found weapons stockpiles they had to destroy. HOWEVER, one time they found an old french Hotchkiss M1922 LMG... they called the French embassy and it was taken to France to be put on display in a war museum.

There is also small places like, Chile, that back in the day... they updated their military by hiring Prussian military officers to train their officers. This has remained in effect for the Chilean Army and if you google it you'll see their wonderful, WW2 style dress uniforms. Pre-1945 Most thought that Germany made the best military equipment and soldiers (even with the defeat of WW1 due to various circumstances). So dozens of small countries bought MILLIONS of Mausers, Arty, ect. On the flip side of the Chilean army thing... after WW1, they remained a neutral country (IF I RECALL CORRECTLY @GiledPallaeon might be able to correct me if I'm wrong) and thus were generally allowed to maintain their uniform after the war.

But for the most part, no. You don't keep the stuff you claim unless it is generally accepted from the populace. After the Senate was reinstated it was likely put to a vote and then shot down. I'm sure Naval commanders would have loved to use the ISD, they were likely told to scrap the entire line much like the Empire scrapped the Venator. This could have also been along the same line as the Empires silly naming system to get around the Senate. The New Republic Navy might have said, "Okay, we'll scrap them... but can we build our own ships? We'll make sure it doesn't cost TOO much..." and got away with using the ISD parts that way.

 

You wouldn’t really expect the US to need to keep its opponents equipment I suppose - it’s in a league of its own militarily, it doesn’t need the equipment of smaller, poorer nations it invades.  I’m surprised about Iraq though.  Are you saying after the invasion the new Iraqi regime scrapped all of the old regimes equipment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

You wouldn’t really expect the US to need to keep its opponents equipment I suppose - it’s in a league of its own militarily, it doesn’t need the equipment of smaller, poorer nations it invades.  I’m surprised about Iraq though.  Are you saying after the invasion the new Iraqi regime scrapped all of the old regimes equipment?

During various other wars the US has fought in, and including various units time in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers will take equipment based on need. A patrol being ambushed and told extraction is 15-20 miles away after burning through ammo in a fire fight might take weapons from the enemy, as an example. You only have 300 rounds normally, and you'd be suprised how quickly you burn through ammo.

As for the IGF. They didnt scrap everything, but to my understanding almost all their old Armor (tanks) that didnt get shot to **** during the invasion were phased out. Mostly because they were OLD cold war soviet tanks. Tanks that required the turret to be turned by hand, elevation was laid, by hand, and they were a nightmare to get running. Also, before the current Iraqi regime, tbey had five bullets for training.

Five.

We fire HUNDREDS in a day. There is a reason entire regiments of the Iraqi army surrendered during the invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...