What are the Armaments of an ISD II

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-01-04 06:59pm

Vympel wrote: It's the barrels, not the turret, that's important. It doesn't matter how big the turret mechanism is itself, what matters is the size of the barrel- i.e. how big a blast comes out. A perfectly reasonable explanation is that the increased size of the ISD1 barrels means you need a big turret ring to take the greater recoil- which we know from Slave Ship to be in the gigaton range.

The barrels only contain galven coils for focusing the bolt. They have nothing to do with generating the blast itself. The size of a bolt or barrel could also be indicative of the fact the bolt is not very coherent (or, as Saxton has said:

Qualification: In TESB we see that AT-AT guns have variable power settings (small shots for eliminating troops, "maximum firepower" for destroying structures like the power generator). We don't know what setting was used to attack Skywalker in Dark Empire; it might be the lower setting. Furthermore, we don't know whether the effective diameter of a bolt changes depending on the power level (for the shot against the power generator, the bolts were brighter, longer and greater in duration, but not necessarily wider).

Actually it has not been determined whether or not the effectual part of a blaster bolt has any thickness at all. It is possible that all bolts are microscopically thin, whether they come from a pistol or a Death Star. The apparent visible width may be due to nothing more than the glare spread on the observer's retina and/or movie film.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/misc.html#combat

You're also neglecting the matter of the equipment required to CREATE the bolt. You can't fit those into the barrel, I might add.

Third, you're still neglecting the detail of recharge time relative to the power of a bolt. One can trade off increased time to "Charge" up a bolt to a higher output, even if your components are smaller.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-05 04:00am

IceHawk-151 wrote:

Yesterday's War Snydrome? You must be joking. Emperor Palpatine has nothing to fear in the galaxy. He controlled both sides in the Clone Wars and thusly had no true worries. There is no reason for him to build a fleet meant to defend against Heavy Capitalships when his Empire is the only force in the galaxy that has Heavy Vessels.
And the apperance of each individual does not speak for itself. As the famous quote goes, you cannot judge a book by it's cover.

A turret is a turret. It is empirical evidence. As for Emperor Palpatine, would you like to demonstrate the part where he revealed to Kuat Drive Yards the nature of the Clone War, or that he himself and not Imperial Starfleet officers formulated the requirements for the ISD?

Smaller targets would also be more manuverable, and easily capable of flying UNDERNEATH the Star Destroyer in order to stay out of range of the Heavy Weapons. The HTL Batteries are set in such a way that the Destroyer's own orientation decided what can be attacked. In order for the HTL Cannons to be brought to bear the ISD must be atleast as manuverable as it adversarie.
And as far as the size goes one could also stipulate that the smaller barrells each require less power to operate and thusly allow for a higher fire rate, making each Quad Turret capble of putting out a large amount of firepower in a small amount of time.

Smaller targets doesn't necessarily mean fighters. It just means smaller than a ship in the same size class as the ISD.

"Not that it matters, but what EU source is that?"

And the reason that I pointed this out is that even in the EU ISD Mark II's, the type of vessel the Chimaera is believed to be, are designed to take on heavy vessels. In this battle sequence the ISD was having trouble harming the smaller vessels in the pirate force because they were to manuverable and moving to fast.

There are no torpedo tubes visible on the ISD2 model, nor are they visible on the ISD1 model. The ISD1 and 2 are similar enough that the burden should be on you to show that only the ISD2 has such tubes.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-05 04:05am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
The barrels only contain galven coils for focusing the bolt. They have nothing to do with generating the blast itself. The size of a bolt or barrel could also be indicative of the fact the bolt is not very coherent (or, as Saxton has said:

The SWICS shows that the turret/ assembly extends for a good deal below the surface of the hull. Hence any 'recessed turret' claims are irrelevant.

Third, you're still neglecting the detail of recharge time relative to the power of a bolt. One can trade off increased time to "Charge" up a bolt to a higher output, even if your components are smaller.

I never said the ISD2 quads don't have a higher rate of fire/ pound for pound may be more efficient. I just prefer the ISD1 turrets for their raw power, and ability to shoot forward (first two, as well as the axial defense turrets) as well as full broadside (along with the brim notch guns) and behind (last two).

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-05 04:14am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Where the hell do you get off calling them subjective, particularily since you're the one lackin in evidence here?

Subjective is subjective. The opinions of other characters are hardly empirical evidence.

I've already indicated that both the observed details of Ozzel's behaviour (even if we take Vader out of the picture regarding the probe droid, there is the fact he deliberately refused to follow "their best lead", assuming instead that it wasn't relevant. The dumbass didnt even send scout ships! Remember they did that in ANH?)

He's gonna give the order to send scoutships in the two seconds before Piett got Vader in?

And even worse there is the fact he dropped out of hyperspace within easy detection range of the Rebels, rather than dropping out farther away and conducting long range bombardments (as Vader wanted, and as was stated in several sources - the novelization for one.)

He felt surprise was wiser. Was it so unreasonable?

Even more, there are a number of sources one can cite (the SW.com website, BTM, The Star Wars Encyclopedia, WEG's Galaxy guide 3) for proof of his ineptness.

Cite them.

These are not "subjective interpretations" - these are demonstrable facts.

For that matter, when did we ever have "concrete specifications" on the warships? They're little more than aggregate details pieced from various sources, and in some respects are still subject to contention. They're far less objective than Ozzel's performance!

The firepower of a warship and actual models are less subjective than what a murderous Sith Lord thinks?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-05 09:27am

It's the barrels, not the turret, that's important.

Errr, what makes you say that? As official evidence goes, the barrels are filled with focusing components, they do not generate the power, or the shot itself, they focus it.

It doesn't matter how big the turret mechanism is itself, what matters is the size of the barrel- i.e. how big a blast comes out

Err, again no, the weapon system generating the blast is pivotal, and you don't want the blast to be big, you want it to be small and thin, as thin and compact as possible, physical size has very little to with an energy weapons functions.

A perfectly reasonable explanation is that the increased size of the ISD1 barrels means you need a big turret ring to take the greater recoil- which we know from Slave Ship to be in the gigaton range

That spoke of laser-cannons BTW, just a nitpick, and a turret like the ISD1 ought to place greater strain on the part that keeps the turret attached to the hull.

Actuall the ISD2 turrets have superior arc of fire than the ISD1 turrets, with the exception of forward fire. The can point straight up no problem, the ISD1's can't, but the first two on either side can fire dead forward.

And backwards fire, ofcourse the ISD2's accuracy is still 5 times worse, as opposed to the ISD1's multiple firing angles of medium/heavy weapons and better accuracy, and the ISD1's Heavy IC's.

I've never heard that before- do you have a screen cap?

Yes, I do, infact it's a clip, here:
http://hisshadow.123hostnow.com/misc/me ... _chase.avi

It starts at frame 471, it is clearly visible in frame 475 and hits at frame 477 and produces flash that blanks out the screen for a frame.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-05 09:30am

Look at this way, what is the ISD2 good for? For massed broadsides, it sacrifices Heavy Ion Cannons, medium weapons and shield strenght for a more powerfull broadside, that seems to be it's primary function, to waste capital ships.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-05 10:29am

His Divine Shadow wrote:Look at this way, what is the ISD2 good for? For massed broadsides, it sacrifices Heavy Ion Cannons, medium weapons and shield strenght for a more powerfull broadside, that seems to be it's primary function, to waste capital ships.

Ahhh alright you've convinced me. But I still prefer the ISD1 for it's more balanced firepower

As to the ancillary point about turbolasers- I always thought that barrel size must be proportional to the power produced- otherwise we'd see massive turrets and tiny barrels, which isn't the case

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-05 10:34am

Vympel wrote:As to the ancillary point about turbolasers- I always thought that barrel size must be proportional to the power produced- otherwise we'd see massive turrets and tiny barrels, which isn't the case

Oh barrels are important, the barrels are pivotal in focusing the bolt and keeping it coherent, longer barrel = more galven coils = better coherence = longer range

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-05 11:42am

Look, could this be a missile/torpedo launcher? Vaugely looks like that:

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-05 11:45am

His Divine Shadow wrote:Look, could this be a missile/torpedo launcher? Vaugely looks like that:

It'd be more likely if the holes were circular- but as it is (I've seen the ISD2 model personally, in Sydney during the exhibiton that's currently on) there are so many holes on the ISD2 model that you could easily posit the existence of such missile tubes.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-05 12:31pm

Missile tubes are already know to exist on the ISD II as they get used in Spector of the Past. Though I believe the cluster fired had 12 missiles.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-01-05 01:44pm

Vympel wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:Look, could this be a missile/torpedo launcher? Vaugely looks like that:

It'd be more likely if the holes were circular- but as it is (I've seen the ISD2 model personally, in Sydney during the exhibiton that's currently on) there are so many holes on the ISD2 model that you could easily posit the existence of such missile tubes.

You've seen the actual model??? Kewl.
They look like launchers. Those tubes are like what, 15-20 meters in diameter?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-05 09:06pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:
You've seen the actual model??? Kewl.
They look like launchers. Those tubes are like what, 15-20 meters in diameter?

It's frigging massive. You'd be amazed at the stuff they shoved in the brim trenches though ... there seems to be a propeller/engine type thing on one side IIRC.

Let's just say that each of those holes has a cluster of warhead tubes, yeah

Darth PhysBod · Post by **Darth PhysBod** » 2003-01-06 06:08am

Why would an ISDII have inferieor firepower?

ISDI

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/star_des ... /isd05.JPG

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/star_des ... d_mg09.JPG

ISDII

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/star_des ... oyer17.JPG

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/star_des ... oyer18.JPG

The main difference is the ISDI turrets are bulkier (the ship would have to angle down more than an ISDII to bring more batteries to bear on a forward target) but they are not much larger in diameter:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbarbi ... r14isd.jpg

Here they are ~11% larger (49 pixels to 44) than the globes which are ~39m in diameter (from SWTC) hence ~43m.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbrooklyn/Isd07.jpg

The ISDII globes are smaller, ~35m in diameter, the turrets are ~12% larger(65 pixels to 58 pixels) hence ~39m

Therefore from isd_mg09.JPG (turret width 181 pixels, barrel width at end 6 pixels) the ISDI Barrels are 1.4m in diameter

The Barrels on the ISDII are actually longer than those on the ISDI by a metre or so (hence longer range) and they are hardly smaller:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbrooklyn/Isd09.jpg

Here turret width is 135 pixels (2nd from left), barrel width is 4 pixles, hence barrel diameter is 1.2m in diameter.

Now account for the ISDII having 64 1200mm guns and the ISDI only having 12 1400mm guns, clearly the ISDII has superior (longer ranged) firepower both broadside and forward.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-01-06 06:13am

I split the discussion about Ozzel and the Death Squadron since this thread here is about ISD armament.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-06 06:20am

Evil S'tan wrote:Why would an ISDII have inferieor firepower?

ISDI

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/star_des ... /isd05.JPG

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/star_des ... d_mg09.JPG

ISDII

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/star_des ... oyer17.JPG

http://www.starshipbuilder.com/star_des ... oyer18.JPG

The main difference is the ISDI turrets are bulkier (the ship would have to angle down more than an ISDII to bring more batteries to bear on a forward target) but they are not much larger in diameter:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbarbi ... r14isd.jpg

Here they are ~11% larger (49 pixels to 44) than the globes which are ~39m in diameter (from SWTC) hence ~43m.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbrooklyn/Isd07.jpg

The ISDII globes are smaller, ~35m in diameter, the turrets are ~12% larger(65 pixels to 58 pixels) hence ~39m

Therefore from isd_mg09.JPG (turret width 181 pixels, barrel width at end 6 pixels) the ISDI Barrels are 1.4m in diameter

The Barrels on the ISDII are actually longer than those on the ISDI by a metre or so (hence longer range) and they are hardly smaller:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbrooklyn/Isd09.jpg

Here turret width is 135 pixels (2nd from left), barrel width is 4 pixles, hence barrel diameter is 1.2m in diameter.

Now account for the ISDII having 64 1200mm guns and the ISDI only having 12 1400mm guns, clearly the ISDII has superior (longer ranged) firepower both broadside and forward.

Good stuff. As I said, I'm already convinced, except that the ISDII doesn't have superior firepower from forward- the guns physcially cannot fire forward, or backwards, at any angle.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-01-06 06:53am

And that's exactly why both classes should work together.

Darth PhysBod · Post by **Darth PhysBod** » 2003-01-06 06:59am

Vympel wrote: Good stuff. As I said, I'm already convinced, except that the ISDII doesn't have superior firepower from forward- the guns physcially cannot fire forward, or backwards, at any angle.

Ah ok sorry, but I dont understand why they[ISDII guns] would not be able to fire forward?

The mounts appear to have space to traverse and they are lower than the turrets on the ISDI thus requiring the ship to angle down less than an ISDI to fire the rearmost batteries.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-06 07:52am

Evil S'tan wrote:
Vympel wrote: Good stuff. As I said, I'm already convinced, except that the ISDII doesn't have superior firepower from forward- the guns physcially cannot fire forward, or backwards, at any angle.
Ah ok sorry, but I dont understand why they[ISDII guns] would not be able to fire forward?

In the pictures you posted, with the guns in their 'rest' position (as we see in those pictures) any traverse to either side would be met by the 'wall' surrounding each turret. The guns have to rise up first, meaning that to fire forward, the ISD2 has to tilt slightly. Not a huge problem though.

Like many, I do think the classes are complementary. I doubt the ISD2 even replaced the ISD1 in production, though there's no evidence either way.

Darth PhysBod · Post by **Darth PhysBod** » 2003-01-06 11:04am

Vympel wrote:
In the pictures you posted, with the guns in their 'rest' position (as we see in those pictures) any traverse to either side would be met by the 'wall' surrounding each turret. The guns have to rise up first, meaning that to fire forward, the ISD2 has to tilt slightly. Not a huge problem though.

Like many, I do think the classes are complementary. I doubt the ISD2 even replaced the ISD1 in production, though there's no evidence either way.

Yeah those pictures do give that impression, however have you seen/own the star wars technical journal?, it has a broadside photograph of an ISDII orientated in the same plane as the brim trench. It appears the gun barrels could just fire over the lip/wall without elevation.

It also shows that the batteries are mounted on a slight downward gradient pointing towards the bow, thus allowing them to fire over batteries in front.

In my own opinion the ISDII was meant to supplement and eventually replace the ISDI (there were none at the battle of Endor). The orginal ISDI model was modified to look more like the ISDII (array on top of the tower, engine deflector vanes) between ANH and ESB, this may imply a refit to keep pace with the newest warcraft being produced.

Remember the orginal design was rushed in to service to provide the primary foot-hold of the Emperor's rule, its entirely possible, if not probable that there were design flaws resulting from such a rushed production ("At a rate which forced all normal safety precautions to be discared" according to p89 of the TJ) which are corrected in the ISDII fleet.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-01-06 11:28am

The orginal ISDI model was modified to look more like the ISDII (array on top of the tower, engine deflector vanes) between ANH and ESB, this may imply a refit to keep pace with the newest warcraft being produced.

The only modification was cutting off said X-shaped array, which was said to enhance tractor beam targetting, so it may have been a temporary refit unique to Devastator for chasing the blockade runner.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-06 11:48am

Cpt_Frank wrote: The only modification was cutting off said X-shaped array, which was said to enhance tractor beam targetting, so it may have been a temporary refit unique to Devastator for chasing the blockade runner.

Enhance tractor beam targeting? I always figured it was an early model ISD1 feature that was changed via reft for commonality with the ISD2s.

Producing a one-off upgrade to a single ship is pretty unlikely.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-01-06 11:58am

Vympel wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote: The only modification was cutting off said X-shaped array, which was said to enhance tractor beam targetting, so it may have been a temporary refit unique to Devastator for chasing the blockade runner.
Enhance tractor beam targeting? I always figured it was an early model ISD1 feature that was changed via reft for commonality with the ISD2s.

Producing a one-off upgrade to a single ship is pretty unlikely.

Well that point's dead anyway since the other ImpStars in ANH feature it, too.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-01-06 12:00pm

But those missile launchers, how big are they?