Question about the Earth-Minbari war.

[Kevin]

::sighs:: Movies and cinema have really destroyed the truth of how planes and fighter pilots work in real missions so much that it's absolutely ridiculous.

Let me attempt to clarify a bit, being a close friend and being related to a number of fighter pilots.

Holding a formation and holding a line IS how you approach combat scenarios, ESPECIALLY when you're defending a target in air or in space, such as a bomber, or, in the case of the Battle of the Line, a *planet*. As a formation you can tackle targets effectively and efficently and DEFEND your large ships, preventing the enemies ships from breaking through while your heavy ships fire it out. Will more pilots die that way then if they were flying all over the place? Certainly, but you have to defend your bigger ships, and the best way to do that is keeping to a formation that's tight enough that as a squadron you can pick up any enemies you encounter with ease. Yes you will have enemies circling around you trying to pick you off, but if you break the line then the things in front of you, the big ships, the ones that can really hurt you, will destroy ALL your chances... and if they manage to break through your line, they'll tear it apart.

In the Battle of the Line, the Minbari completely overwhelmed the Line pilots, and quickly broke through their formations and defenses and caused complete panic and surprise, causing surviving pilots to panic completely and just try to manuever away from getting killed, destroying the line. The Minbari proceded to completely run through it and trample over the Earth fleet.

This was done pretty well dead-on, and of course, as always, recieved quite a bit of praise from real vetreans who know how real tactics work in aerial combat scenarios. But then B5 was always dead-on with the real workings on the military, which often cause people had problems with because they were used to the terrible depiction given by other Sci-Fi. Just glad they stayed away from the trend and held closer to traditions of the actual military, including using correct strategies as opposed to what looks more "dramatic" and has more action.

[CRONAN]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

The question becomes - how do you apply these tactics to outer space. Would everything work the same way?

Escorting a bomber or troop transport in an atmosphere (both of which are defenseless against enemy fighters) is not the same as escorting a capitol ship in space (the Line was blockading the planet; capitol ships formed the backbone of the line, the fighters were supporting their capitol ships, not Earth directly). Also you would have a greater freedom of movement. How would that affect formations and tactics used? Granted your explanation of how the Battle of the Line played out makes sense.

I'm begining to feel way out of my element here.......

For confirmation, I think we'll all just have to wait until our society has advanced to the point where we can begin killing each other in outer space.

[grumbler]

Re: Here we go again......

Originally posted by CRONAN
Grumbler, the object of the Human side in the Battle of the Line was NOT to commit suicide; it was to keep the Minbari Fleet occupied as long as possible in order to buy time for the evacuation of Earth. Every *second* they kept the enemy occupied would save 1000s of lives.

Not sure how to respond to strawman arguments, so i guess I will respond to this by ignoring it.

First off: if you give riddles instead of orders on the battlefield your army will get killed off trying to figure them out; orders must be concise, clear and to the point.

Exactly what "stay in formation" was - a clear and concise order, to the point.

Only by coordinating their attacks and USING EFFECTIVE TACTICS would the humans stand a chance at accomplishing their mission (dying unnecessarily doesnt qualify).

But the enemy was so overwhelmingly powerful that Sinclair doesn't get a chance to issue any orders - he is stunned by the speed of his squadron's destruction.

Again I stress: fighers are dependant on their maneuverability to survive; staying in clustered formations during is combat (as seen in ''And a Sky Full of Stars'') NOT EFFECTIVE. In the words of Captain John Sheridan, the fighters need to ''break and attack.'' One tend to think would think staying alive longer would be better for morale.

I seem to recall the exact same formations you discard as worthless in ITB being very effective in SD. You can stress what you want to, but having been a Navy Air Intercept Controller I can tell you that sending everyone off to "break andf attack" is NOT EFFECTIVE.

[grumbler]

Re: A debate what joy

Originally posted by CRONAN
Where does the formation end and the maneuvering begin? Does destracting an enemy fighter with your own so a wingman can move in from behind and take it out constitute a formation or merely two seperate fighters cooperating? If the latter, then formations are not necessarily required for two fighters to cooperate effectively in combat.

I believe this is, at any rate, the most effective strategy for the human fighters in that conflict. Yes a one on one battle is not effective in this case (Mitchell!); the best strategy is one of misdirection and trickery to counter the Minbari fighters superior maneuverability (among other things). This requires speed, skill, and cooperation; not the clustered formation we see in ''A Sky Full of Stars.''

I think you are misreading what was happening. The Minbari fighters were few, designed as a distraction to scout out the human fleet and perhaps break up the earth formations if they could. The Alpha wing pilots were waiting for the main enemy fleet to show up - they were not interested so much in the handful of Minbari fighters that were buzzing around - perhaps because Alpha Leader knew that Bravo squadron had been ordered to deal with enemy fighters or something.

Once the enemy fleet showed up, it was in such numbers and of such power that Sinclair essentially "froze up" for a few moments - and it took only those few moments for the Minbari to wipe out the squadron. He never said "stay in formation" after the Minbari arrived, he simply ordered Mitchell to break off his attack.

Part of his guilt over the Line may be due to the fact that he essentially failed to lead the squadron once he saw the Minbari fleet, but this has nothing to do with whether formation tactics or solo tactics would be the best option for combatting an enemy fleet using fighters. In every battle I can think of in B5, fighters were operating in coordinated groups.

[CRONAN]

''IÆm just a plain, old genius-level archaeologist with four degrees and a - ''

I see. So basically what youre saying is its not enough to kill the horse. You have to beat the living [email protected]#$ out of it.

Ok fine, I was wrong.

There, now someone plz change the topic fast.

[Davco92]

Change the topic? OK - what (if anything) do you think the Vorlons thought about the Earth-Minbari war? We can assume that they knew that it needed to end before Earth was destroyed, but did they know that it would end prior to the extinction of the human race? Did they simply influence events and get lucky or did they know in advance exactly how it would play out. IMO this hinges (theoretically) on how much Sinclair/Valen told them in the past. What do you think?

[CRONAN]

Well from what I remember, an ancient holy figure among the vorlons decreed at some point that the vorlons should cease direct intereference in the affairs of the younger races (I couldnt find the text online so I cant say why). Only a few of the Vorlons (Kosh and Ulkesh, maybe others I dont know) are set apart from the rest of their race to watch over them. For the most part they observe, sometimes manipulating events as indirectly as possible, as seen in B5: ItB (''the truth points to itself'').

I suspect any desire to interfere directly is overided by their reverance to this decree. OR the fear of death - (as seen in Interludes and Examinations).

It seems that the Vorlons will only violate this mandate if the circumstances are so extreme as to pose a threat to the stabilty of the universe as witnessed in ''Deathwalker'' when they prevent the younger races' access to immortality. So there are exceptions to this rule.

[grumbler]

Cronan, I would be interested to find out where that idea about the ancient Vorlon decree came from, because it is something I have never heard before.

As for whether the Vorlons "knew" the EA would survive, a good question, that depends on how "flexible" the past is. As we know from WWE, the past must be catered to if the past is to be retained - in other words, just knowing something happened wasn't good enough - they still had to go and do it. Similarly, the Vorlons had to "act" to create the past of Sinclair, and they did so.

As for the Vorlons being cryptic in ItB and everywhere else in the series, I never have regarded this as being a deliberate attempt at minimizing communication. I think that what it represents is that Vorlons find it difficult to translate their thoughts into terms the other races can understand. The one truly notable exception to this is when Kosh talks to Sheridan as he is being killed. From the Technomage series, it seems that this sudden "verboseness" was a direct result of the enlightenment of Kosh as to what it truly meant to be mortal. To accept the idea of his own death, Kosh had to change the way he thought about himself and thus was able to think more like one of the "younger races" for whom death was a constant factor.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[CRONAN]

Actually their was one other instance where we see Kosh utilize a higher vocabulary in the episode ''Dust to Dust when he speaks through the image of G'kar's father (yes this is an assumption - but jms comes pretty close to spelling it out).

Sheridan was asleep while Kosh spoke to him in Interludes (also in ''All Alone in the Night'') and G'kars mind wasnt functioning on all four cylinders either, so perhaps its not a question of language skills, perhaps the Vorlons can only project into other beings mind when their minds are ''quiet enough.'' Or maybe its a poor vocabulary AND closed off minds. I hate having to speculate about this.


Quote (from All Alone):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheridan - Why are you here?

Kosh - We were never away. For the first time your mind is quite enough to here me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How naturally instinctive is it for a Vorlon to be manipulativve? We see Kosh giving a prophecy, then appearing to Gkar and Sheridan as their respective fathers.

Perhaps in communicating to the younger races, they arent dumming down our vocabulary, but theirs; they cant help but be cryptic. Why? To withhold information from those who do not understand? Is their language cryptic in and of itself? A test to see if those who do ''understand'' can fully comprehend the intent of their word games? Second rate translaters?

The ''Understanding is a three edged sword'' lline seems to imply their holding back. Perhaps the younger races did something that violated the vorlons trust in them at some point?

I distincty remember jms saying something to the effect that the Vorlons had become somewhat obsessed in their vendetta against the Shadows (Quote Sinclair: ''You forgot the first rule of the fanatic. When you become obsessed with the enemy you become the enemy.) If so, then perhaps the some of the Vorlons acted less out of humitarian reasons and more out of their hatred for the Shadows. (I've only seen the first three seasons so far, and a few from seasons 4 and 5, so I have yet to see the full context of the shadow war.)

I have a sudden urge to shout at jms WHO ARE THE VORLONS? UNACCEAPTABLE ANSWER WHO ARE THE VORLONS ZZZZTTTT IF YOU REPEAT AN UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER.......

Delenn mentions in ''In the Shadow of Z'hadum'' that the last time the ''First Ones'' walked openly among the younger races was 10000 years ago. This was also the last time the First Ones stood united against the Shadows in a great war.

Okay so why did the Vorlons decide to cease their openess at that point? Was it in relation to the war? The departure of all the other First Ones? Or some other reason?

I'll see what I can do about finding that text. I cant recall where exactly I read it so it might just be a rumor. Dont hold your breath....

[grumbler]

Originally posted by CRONAN
Actually their was one other instance where we see Kosh utilize a higher vocabulary in the episode ''Dust to Dust when he speaks through the image of G'kar's father (yes this is an assumption - but jms comes pretty close to spelling it out).

Agreed, but even then he spoke almost purely allegorically. In essence, he was taking G'Kar's own words and ideas and feeding them back to him. He wasn't saying much on his own at all.

Sheridan was asleep while Kosh spoke to him in Interludes (also in ''All Alone in the Night'') and G'kars mind wasnt functioning on all four cylinders either, so perhaps its not a question of language skills, perhaps the Vorlons can only project into other beings mind when their minds are ''quiet enough.'' Or maybe its a poor vocabulary AND closed off minds. I hate having to speculate about this.

An interesting idea - that the Vorlons are more "vocal" when speaking mind-to-mind than verbally. In AAitN, Kosh still only managed to speak in symbols, though. Perhaps this is a clue that Vorlons cannot, or are not willing to, "slow down" their speech/thoughts enough to actually use words for much, except when they really, really want to (as in when they are about to die and it is important to get the final message out clearly).

How naturally instinctive is it for a Vorlon to be manipulativve? We see Kosh giving a prophecy, then appearing to Gkar and Sheridan as their respective fathers.

A good point. Raised before, but still telling.

Perhaps in communicating to the younger races, they arent dumming down our vocabulary, but theirs; they cant help but be cryptic.

This is what I was trying to get across, but much better said. I think you have hit on it exactly: that the Vorlons don't THINK in words per se, and so translating into words is hard and seldom worth the effort.

I distincty remember jms saying something to the effect that the Vorlons had become somewhat obsessed in their vendetta against the Shadows (Quote Sinclair: ''You forgot the first rule of the fanatic. When you become obsessed with the enemy you become the enemy.) If so, then perhaps the some of the Vorlons acted less out of humitarian reasons and more out of their hatred for the Shadows. (I've only seen the first three seasons so far, and a few from seasons 4 and 5, so I have yet to see the full context of the shadow war.)

I think you are exactly correct, and that in fact is, according to JMS, one of the "morals" of the story - and why he enjoyed telling the story of Byron, who faced exactly this temptation.

I have a sudden urge to shout at jms WHO ARE THE VORLONS? UNACCEAPTABLE ANSWER WHO ARE THE VORLONS ZZZZTTTT IF YOU REPEAT AN UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER.......

Oh, gods, no! What makes the story so great is that we don't ever get any of these answers. To explain a mystery is to remove the mystery, and the result is seldom "magical" - exept in a few cases involving the Hubble Space Telescope!

Delenn mentions in ''In the Shadow of Z'hadum'' that the last time the ''First Ones'' walked openly among the younger races was 10000 years ago. This was also the last time the First Ones stood united against the Shadows in a great war.

Okay so why did the Vorlons decide to cease their openess at that point? Was it in relation to the war? The departure of all the other First Ones? Or some other reason?

It seems clear from the conversations with Lorien and Justin that the Vorlons and Shadows stayed behind as part of some kind of arrangement, in which they would "shepherd" the younger races, as they had been shepherded themselves. This doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the Shadows being the universal enemy 10,000 years ago and then again 1,000 years ago, but I regard this as being evidence of the evolution of JMS's thinking, rather than a planned part of the arc from the start. So, if this is true, then the retirement of the Vorons into myth was related to the retirement beyond the bulk of the first Ones beyond the rim: they were no longer to be primary actors (leaving that for the younger races), just the shepherds working behind the scenes - as were the Shadows.

As it turns out, neither side could restrain themselves from abandoning the role of Guide on the Side to in favor of the role of Sage on the Stage.

[CRONAN]

Taking G'kars own ideas and feeding them back to him? Was he feeding hate with more hate then? Not saying much on his own at all?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are a dying people Gkar. So are the Centauri. Obsessed with eachothers death until death is all we can see and death is all we deserve.

But the centauri started it-

And will you continue? Until there are no more Narn and no more Centauri?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To a point I think Gkar had become too obsessed with Centauri (as seen when he tries to whack the both the emperor and Londo in ''The Coming of the Shadows''). Acts of hatred only lead to more hate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''It no longer matters who started it Gkar. It only matters who is suffering''

Kosh ''If we are a dying people than let us die with honor by helping the others as no one else can''

Gkar ''I dont understand''

Kosh ''Because you have let them distract you, blind you with hate. You cannot see the battle for what it is. We are fighting to save one another. We must realize that we are not alone. We rise and fall together.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly Gkar is being told something he has not yet arrived at on his own.

I think Kosh was twisting G'kars own logic and showing him how futile his hatred really was. Simply killing Centauri wasnt the bottom line, but preventing more suffering and death from taking place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''You have an opportunity here and now to choose, to become something greater, nobler, and more difficult than you have been before. The universe does not offer such chances often Gkar''

''But why now. Why not earlier? All this time... Where have you been?''

''I have always been here.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isnt the first time Gkar has been told this message. Its the first time his mind was open enough to listen to it. The meaning of that line makes perfect sense here (I think).

[Kevin]

Originally posted by CRONAN
Well from what I remember, an ancient holy figure among the vorlons decreed at some point that the vorlons should cease direct intereference in the affairs of the younger races (I couldnt find the text online so I cant say why). Only a few of the Vorlons (Kosh and Ulkesh, maybe others I dont know) are set apart from the rest of their race to watch over them. For the most part they observe, sometimes manipulating events as indirectly as possible, as seen in B5: ItB (''the truth points to itself'').

I suspect any desire to interfere directly is overided by their reverance to this decree. OR the fear of death - (as seen in Interludes and Examinations).

It seems that the Vorlons will only violate this mandate if the circumstances are so extreme as to pose a threat to the stabilty of the universe as witnessed in ''Deathwalker'' when they prevent the younger races' access to immortality. So there are exceptions to this rule.

All of the above is complete speculation and has never been said by JMS or anyone else for that matter. While the latter posts have brought about some great speculation, some of which I agree with personally (Vorlons not thinking in wars in paticular), just wanna point out that JMS has never really given a reason as to why Vorlons act the way they do, other then they just seem to like to be a pain in the butt As for the rest, tis a mystery, and has always been so. But it's not one I want revelead anytime soon.

[grumbler]

Cronan, my point is that, except for the bit about "some must be sacrificed if all are to be saved" everything that G'Kar hears from his father is something he has figured out already, if not put precisely in this order.

He knows that the cycle of hatred can be broken, because Emperor Turhan has shown him this.

He knows that there is a greater darkness, whose victory will doom everyone, and whose defeat will save everyone, because he has read G'Qan and been to Z'Ha'Dum.

G'Kar was not enthusiastic about the new war with the Centauri, because he knew the war was not serving the interests of either the Narn or the Centauri.

Kosh wasn't in the business of telling people anything other than what they already knew. Remember how he decided to help Sheridan learn to fight the Shadows? By teaching Sheridan about himself.

The Vorlons seem to offer very little information. They just repackage known information (sometimes unconciously known information) in ways that make the others see it in a new light. Kosh breaks that doctrine right at the end, because he is dying.

[CRONAN]

As we see in ''The Coming of the Shadows'', any faith he might of had in the Centauri was shattered after a quarter of million narns died in the shadow attack.

Quote Gkar: I reached out my hand.... He knew and he betrayed me...

At this point Gkar only gets worse, not better.

We see later in ''Convictions'', he would much rather see Londo dead than alive, even at the expense of his own life.

Does this sound like the actions a narn hell bent on saving his people or revenge?

Correct Gkar lacked a ''better understanding'' of himself BK (before Kosh). The question is would he arrived to the same conclusions about himself without help?

Well as we see with Londo this proves to be true, but at this point the revelation has come far, far too late.

If Kosh hadnt had that talk with Gkar, i doubt later events would have played out in exactly the same way. Gkars actions would have been more motivated out of his hatred for the Centauri than anything else.

Would he have placed the fate universe above that of his own hatred? Londo certainly didnt in ''Interludes and Examinations'' (''All I want now is revenge. Let the rest of the galaxy burn I dont care any more'') Would Gkar have ordered his men to replace the Nightwatch in''Point of No Return''? Would he have later risked losing the remnants of the Narn Fleet in the Shadow War? Would he have been in the same position to save Sheridans life in the distant future in ''WWE''?

The answer to all of these questions is, I think, no. Gkars hatred had blinded him to the real issues. At the moment Kosh made contact with Gkars mind, Gkar was more or less reeling, still taking it all in, he hadnt had the time to reorganize his thoughts yet. If Kosh hadnt been there to help with the reorganization, the consequences would have been bad. Very very bad.

[grumbler]

Cronan, good points all, but MY point was that the Vorlons only seem to be "articulate" (with the exception of the scene when Kosh is dying - and even then Kosh takes on a familiar form and uses the familiar words and ideas) when they are feeding back to the others what they already know.

In other words, the Vorlons say little on their own - they just seem to say familiar things in unfamiliar ways. Which feeds the idea that they don't think in words, like the others do.