StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hello people!

There is any reason for the ship bridges in stardestroyers be so vulnerable?
In the end of the trilogy, at the battle near Endor, the "Executor" is the target of all the Rebel Fleet, and despite of that, it seems that is armor and shielding are resisting pretty well, but the dome of the shields of the bridge is destroyed and: kaboom! 1 rebel fighter crashing in the bridge is enough to destroy all the comand center (in the bridge) of the "Executor", condemning the ship to destruction.

How this can happen? Extreme bad design?

Its true that i read, in a thread in this forum (not remember wich, sorry) that the executor had a secondary bridge.
But once again, another case of bad design? The functions of the central bridge should be tranfered instantanly (it was an emergency, and the ship system should be prepared to that) to the secondary bridge and that didnt happen...

And the "bonus" (for the Rebels) of the Death Satr II gravity atracted the Executor to her, and destroying the ship at the impact, isnt enough, at least for me to excuse the fatal design flaw in the "Executor" and other imperial ships.

The bridge shouldnt be inside the ship, with camera and sensors sytems to see what is hapening in the exterior? Or at least, protected by armored shuters or more efective emergency circuits that tranfer the comand to another bridge?

Those domes were not shield generators, they were sensor pods. The fighters could only attack or ram the Executor because it's shields had been knocked out by heavy bombardment by the Rebel capital ships.

However, it would make far more sense for the bridge to be buried inside the ship beneath heavy armor.

It may be that if the ship loses power, the officers can assess the situation outside with their own two eyes; after all, jamming does play a large role in SW space warfare, so perhaps simply looking out of the window may be considered a better way of making sure what's out there. Of course, this theory isn't perfect, but it's one that I wouldn't think would be out of place in SW.

Couldn't having observers distributed throughout the ship be a solution? After all, if a vessel is underneath the Executor it can't really see them from the bridge.

I remember reading in some Star Wars book that the Chiss had modified Star Destroyers with the Bridge buried inside the hull, so it's not unheard of in the SWverse.

Alternately, maybe it's simply a matter of pride/naval tradition.

The Vortex Empire wrote:Those domes were not shield generators, they were sensor pods.

While the domes aren't shield generators themselves, they are critical to the operation of the ship's dorsal shields. Both Iron Fist and Razor's Kiss either lost their dorsal shields or had them severely weakened after the bridge domes were destroyed (X-Wing: Iron Fist). I believe it's been suggested more than once that they're projectors, perhaps linked in series. Result: it was the bombardment that allowed the A-Wings to strike, but it was that attack that permanently disabled the bridge shields.

Inside the Worlds of SW shows shield projectors located on the sensor domes of the Executor, so it is the case that damaging them (besides losing sensor capabilities) will affect the ship's shields.

I would suspect it's a design legacy from the earlier Clone War era ships. It may even of been intentional to inflate casualty figures. Which is what Palpy is looking for to present the CIS as a looming monster that causes the senate to grant him further powers.

But we had frontal bridges in the era of KOTOR, didn't we?

Um-them losing whatever section those shield generators are responsible for keeps if they're destroyed should be a given, no? No generator-no shield.
And while I can't think of a real reason TO put the bridge of a Star Destroyer where it is, I can't think of a reason NOT to either. Let's face it, we're talking about a universe that hat high TT/low PT firepower on the destroyer/light cruiser level (your average ISD) so IF they have the oomph to get through your shields where you park your bridge isn't going to matter much in the long run.
And no, you do NOT immediately and completely transfer command to the secondary bridge in a matter of moments. There's the delay from people NOTICING the bridge is gone, the 'OMV how could this happen' time, and the people ON the beta bridge reestablishing command.
Immediate and automatic transfer of bridge functions is something you set of if you EXPECT your bridge to be blown to pieces with no warning. Not when you can be reasonably certain you'll have some warning while the enemy wears down your defenses, and will have a moment or two to adjust when you HAVE to switch to the backup bridge. The time from 'A-Wing kamikaze kills the bridge' to 'Executor crashes' was what, 20 seconds?

so IF they have the oomph to get through your shields where you park your bridge isn't going to matter much in the long run.

Except it does, we have seen the Invisible Hand get a pounding with its shields down and although the hull took heavy damage shots didn’t destroy the entire ship or penetrate into the hull that far. If the Venator had been going for a kill shot and fired at the bridge/tower assembly it would have killed General Grievous and Count Dooku, having the bridge deep inside the armoured hull offers much more survivability to senior officers and the functioning of the ship. Again this is shown when the Spider General gets killed by a couple of missiles to the bridge in the Clone Wars cartoon costing the separatists an entire battle and fleet because he was sat outside the armour of the hull without shields, a fate he would have suvived if he had only been sat twenty meters away inside the armour belt.

It may even of been intentional to inflate casualty figures

Your seriously suggesting Palpatine was able to directly influence ship design across an entire galaxy to make ships much more vulnerable on both sides of a conflict without any of the billions of engineers, designers and ship builders being suspicious?

Darth Tanner wrote:Your seriously suggesting Palpatine was able to directly influence ship design across an entire galaxy to make ships much more vulnerable on both sides of a conflict without any of the billions of engineers, designers and ship builders being suspicious?

We seriously accept that he was a powerful Sith who worked daily for decades with or around the Jedi and they never suspected a thing. We seriously accept he was able to manipulate the Trade Federation into openly attacking a peaceful member of the Republic. We seriously accept that he turned the most powerful force user of the Jedi to his side and no one ever suspected anything. We seriously accept that that person was someone the Jedi should of been watching real closely. We seriously accept he was able to form an army that was totally obedient and disposable and that he engineered the exact moment the Republic would accept it. We seriously accept he masterminded a galaxy spanning war controlling both sides for many years.

What part of my suggestion seems implausible again? Palpy bamboozles the entire fucking Republic into being his bitch. What makes the design team of the ships he ultimately orders are any different? This is a guy who in addition to massive funds and more political clout than you can imagine has evil mind control powers. He has minions, some of them with evil mind control powers to make sure everything is going to plan.

The Republic ships would of been bright day-glo pink if Palpy was an 8 year old girl at heart. George really missed a big toy opportunity there.

'Barbie Star Destroyer!' $29.99 from Mattel.

dworkin wrote:What part of my suggestion seems implausible again? Palpy bamboozles the entire fucking Republic into being his bitch. What makes the design team of the ships he ultimately orders are any different? This is a guy who in addition to massive funds and more political clout than you can imagine has evil mind control powers. He has minions, some of them with evil mind control powers to make sure everything is going to plan.

Won't wash. He would have to exert a control over these corporations all out of proportion to what he could possibly gain by it. Not only that, but Palpatine was a good manipulator. Good manipulators don't make more ripples than they feel they need.

The fact that the battle happened at point-blank in the first place doesn't help. At a light-second/light-minute ranges, good luck hitting a bridge module precisely, which is what the Rebels had to do to overwhelm the local bridge shields and take a shot at a critical component. Luckily for Ackbar and company, Executor and her fleet were tied to blocking action by the Emperor for a DS2 demonstration, and thus couldn't maneuver dramatically, or open the range, or, you know, just destroy the entire Rebel fleet by themselves...

I think the current retcon is that the domes (in addition to primary function as sensors), also mounted local bridge shield generators.

As for exposed bridges being a design legacy, that legacy goes far into the past. Centurion- and Interdictor-class ships during Revan's time all had conspicuous tower bridges, and the Inexpugnable-class had bridge windows as well, suggesting it wasn't buried in the hull.

This has been discussed before, and frankly this brain bug (that SW ship bridges are "exposed" and "unsafe") is absurd.

1. Point to a single real world design where a ship's bridge or CIC is deep within the armored bowels of a ship. Why is that, do you all suppose? Perhaps because any weapon that will get past a ship's defenses will also, most likely destroy or disable the ship, such that hiding a bridge deep within a ship is unnecessary. And the benefits of having a bridge in a high, central, and exposed location, outweigh the possible drawbacks.

2. Assuming that a SW ship's bridge is located deep within the bowels of the ship, how will that actually increase the ship's survivability? Bridges cannot be targeted until the shields are down, and by the time the shields are down the ship is all but dead anyway. What the hell difference does it make if the bridge might survive an extra 30 seconds if it were located deep within the ship?

3. The example of Executor is constantly (and frequently incorrectly) used as an example of poor ship design because its destruction led to loss of control and it plunged into the Death Star before control could be regained. Two questions:
a) Why didn't any Rebel starships immediately target and destroy the bridge as soon as they detected the shields were down?
b) Are you supposing that the A-Wing purposely kamikazed into Executor's bridge? Or was it a one in a million chance that resulted in Executor's destruction?

And the benefits of having a bridge in a high, central, and exposed location, outweigh the possible drawbacks.

What advantage when engagements are not done within visible range as a matter of course. Don’t most naval ships have their bridges exposed because a pair of binoculars might be needed or to oversee carrier operations how is that relevant to Star Wars?

Star Wars has many examples of ships and in some cases entire battles being decided by the decapitation of the senior officers by a strike to the bridge, as in my earlier example of the spider general being killed and his entire fleet subsequently being defeated by a few missiles to his vulnerable bridge, which would not have happened if he had his bridge inside the ship.

how will that actually increase the ship's survivability?

We clearly see in RotS that Star Wars armour is sufficient to take a direct pounding from capital ship grade weapons without the immediate destruction of the ship. Except when the bridge and command structure is destroyed as in the Executor/Spider General. This is not the case for modern ships where any hit to a ship by modern weapons can be expected to cause major damage and possible internal explosions.

Why didn't any Rebel starships immediately target and destroy the bridge as soon as they detected the shields were down?

Maybe they were planning on doing just that, the A wing hit mere seconds after the shield collapsed while doing an attack run up the front of the executor, maybe it had planned using missiles before losing control and ramming himself into the target instead. We also see the rebel heavy ships moving in very close from the bridge perspective shots prior to the ram, maybe they were moving closer to get a good shot at the bridge.

Also they may well have not know the shield went down, the jamming was strong enough to mask the Death Stars shield and there’s nothing to show it was lowered so it could well have been blocking any readings of the Executors shield status.

I don't see how you questioning whether the A wing purposefully rammed the bridge or not negates the fact that a dreadnaught was destroyed by a less powerful rebel fleet through a decapitation strike on the bridge which would have been avoided by placing the bridge deep inside the armour of the ship.

Srelex wrote:Alternately, maybe it's simply a matter of pride/naval tradition.

This idea of Srlex makes, at least to me, perfect sense.
The problem of this tradition is that can be extremely dangerous, if the shield are down and the enemy hit the ship bridge.

Has Darth Tanner explains here:

Darth Tanner wrote: Star Wars has many examples of ships and in some cases entire battles being decided by the decapitation of the senior officers by a strike to the bridge, as in my earlier example of the spider general being killed and his entire fleet subsequently being defeated by a few missiles to his vulnerable bridge, which would not have happened if he had his bridge inside the ship.

And i dont think that, when the shields go down on the ship, means "certain death".
The armor plating of imperial or rebel ships in SW is strong enough to resist some blasts from an enemy, even with shields down, giving time to the ship make some defensive/ofensive manouever, or simply flee.

Another thing, quite unexplainable - for me at least - is an capital ship like "Executor" dont had an system that stabilize automaticaly the position of the ship and, at the same time, transfer all commands to the secondary bridge (i dont know the place of this bridge), where another crew is permanently ready.

Darth Tanner wrote:

And the benefits of having a bridge in a high, central, and exposed location, outweigh the possible drawbacks.

What advantage when engagements are not done within visible range as a matter of course. Don’t most naval ships have their bridges exposed because a pair of binoculars might be needed or to oversee carrier operations how is that relevant to Star Wars?

Star Wars has many examples of ships and in some cases entire battles being decided by the decapitation of the senior officers by a strike to the bridge, as in my earlier example of the spider general being killed and his entire fleet subsequently being defeated by a few missiles to his vulnerable bridge, which would not have happened if he had his bridge inside the ship.

Spider general? What are you talking about?

And how do you know that there isn't a command and control benefit to having the bridge on top of the ship? Perhaps SW governments have conducted studies that show that command staff are 50% more effective when they can see the stars? "Tradition" and "stupidity" aren't the only possible explanations for the location of SW ship bridges. If engagement after engagement ended with pinpoint strikes against capital ship bridges, after a few thousand years they would probably have changed the design. Given that bridges are still exposed, perhaps the occasions when we've seen bridges struck are the absurdly improbable exception to the rule.

Darth Tanner wrote:

how will that actually increase the ship's survivability?

We clearly see in RotS that Star Wars armour is sufficient to take a direct pounding from capital ship grade weapons without the immediate destruction of the ship. Except when the bridge and command structure is destroyed as in the Executor/Spider General. This is not the case for modern ships where any hit to a ship by modern weapons can be expected to cause major damage and possible internal explosions.

As I recall, while those shots didn't cause the ships to blow up, they did put them out of commission, with one all but crashing on Coruscant.

Darth Tanner wrote:

Why didn't any Rebel starships immediately target and destroy the bridge as soon as they detected the shields were down?

Maybe they were planning on doing just that, the A wing hit mere seconds after the shield collapsed while doing an attack run up the front of the executor, maybe it had planned using missiles before losing control and ramming himself into the target instead. We also see the rebel heavy ships moving in very close from the bridge perspective shots prior to the ram, maybe they were moving closer to get a good shot at the bridge.

I've read the novelization... nobody was planning to hit the bridge. Your hypotheses and made up shit are not impressive.

Darth Tanner wrote:Also they may well have not know the shield went down, the jamming was strong enough to mask the Death Stars shield and there’s nothing to show it was lowered so it could well have been blocking any readings of the Executors shield status.

I don't see how you questioning whether the A wing purposefully rammed the bridge or not negates the fact that a dreadnaught was destroyed by a less powerful rebel fleet through a decapitation strike on the bridge which would have been avoided by placing the bridge deep inside the armour of the ship.

The fact is, the entire concept of "targeting the bridge" and "exposed bridges are a bad design" has never been demonstrably proven. And the failure of the Rebels to target the bridge suggests that it is not an effective tactic. This may be for a variety of reasons.

* Perhaps the targeting isn't sufficient to pinpoint strike a ship's bridge, even an point blank range.
* Perhaps in 99.9999999% of cases destruction of the ship's bridge has little to no effect on combat effectiveness.
* Perhaps there is a cultural aversion to eliminating the command and control structure of a ship

In the real world, specifically targeting a ship's bridge doesn't happen in most combat scenarios. Perhaps a sneak attack by a patrol boat against an unsuspecting warship would first target the bridge, but most strikes in combat against bridges have been lucky hits. Mostly this is due to the difficulty involved in successfully hitting such a small target, and if you miss, you might miss the target altogether.

Finally, if this were such an effective "tactic," then when isn't it used all of the time, and why don't SW ships defend against it by changing their designs? They've had several thousand years to adapt to the "tactic," after all.

This entire thread reminds me of the ST "warp strafing" tactic, which has never been demonstrated to be effective, and yet got blown entirely out of proportion during the VS threads. SW ship designers are not morons... if destroying bridges was a viable tactic, they would be protecting the bridges.

Darth Tanner wrote:
We clearly see in RotS that Star Wars armour is sufficient to take a direct pounding from capital ship grade weapons without the immediate destruction of the ship. Except when the bridge and command structure is destroyed as in the Executor/Spider General. This is not the case for modern ships where any hit to a ship by modern weapons can be expected to cause major damage and possible internal explosions.

If you refer to RotS in the battle over Coruscant, those where small man crewed light guns, in other instances, large dedicated and powerful weapons are more than enough to fuck up a warship with a shot or four. Heavy armor on an ISD did jack and shit to stop Hoth's Ion Cannon from totally fucking it up. It wreaked havoc all over and the ship started to drift immediately. In RotJ, during the battle of Endor, as Akbar was ordering all guns on the SSD, a ISD was one shot by a huge red turbo-laser bolt and exploded. Now the shields might have been down, but there was no visible damage so we can only conclude that powerful enough weapons on capital ships hold enough power to slag a vessel armor or not.

Spider general? What are you talking about?

Apologies, upon doing research that I should have done before he is in fact called Admiral Trench, he was killed, along with his entire fleet in the clone wars when Anakin directed several missiles into the bridge of his ship while his shields were down due to having fired those very missiles.

Perhaps SW governments have conducted studies that show that command staff are 50% more effective when they can see the stars?

Then they are paying for their +5 starlight bonus by making themselves ridiculously vulnerable to enemy fire. Ever heard of video displays? We see Piet stood watching a battle going on through his window, there is no reason he could not be doing that on a video display behind a sheet of armour.

If engagement after engagement ended with pinpoint strikes against capital ship bridges, after a few thousand years they would probably have changed the design.

What engagements, the galaxy has been at peace for thousands of years. Lessons learned from heavy fighting in the sith wars would have been buried under naval traditions and designing for prestige of the local government.

As I recall, while those shots didn't cause the ships to blow up, they did put them out of commission, with one all but crashing on Coruscant.

The Invisible hand was still operating effectively till Grievous abandoned ship and let it fall into the atmosphere. It got away from the Republic ships attacking it at any rate.

I've read the novelization... nobody was planning to hit the bridge.

Fair enough. conceded.

has never been demonstrably proven.

Except for the battle of Christophsis where it was specifically used. Although admittedly by a Jedi.

Perhaps the targeting isn't sufficient to pinpoint strike a ship's bridge, even an point blank range.

I'd imagine their ability to engage targets light minutes away would necessitate the ability to target a specific area at closer ranges but you are likely right in that accuracy would be much greater going for the body of a ship. Like the reason soldiers don't go for head shots, regardless of their skill to do so. Also even fighters carry missiles accurate enough to take out the exposed bridges of most ships.

Perhaps there is a cultural aversion to eliminating the command and control structure of a ship

So tradition… although a very valid reason it’s not a practical one. A ship that didn’t follow said tradition would be superior. And as shown battles have gone against fleets that followed this tradition, such as Christophsis.

those where small man crewed light guns

The venerator at least was using its heavy guns as well.

so we can only conclude that powerful enough weapons on capital ships hold enough power to slag a vessel armor or not.

Yes, no argument there, but putting a critical system like the bridge outside said armour makes the use of lighter weapons more effective.

EDIT: Quote tags

In the Empire Strikes Back, didn't the Millennium Falcon evade a Star Destroyer by flying directly at the bridge and then quickly attaching itself to the ship in a place where the sensors couldn't locate it? If I recall correctly, the crew on the bridge reacted with alarm when they thought a freighter was going to ram them. If this is correct then it implies that the bridge is exposed enough to be vulnerable to freighters ramming into it... to speak nothing of actual weapons targeting it.

Then again, the AT-ATs were vulnerable to having cables wrapped around their legs to trip them up, so it could be that the Empire is willing to sacrifice some functionality in their machines in exchange for intimidation factor. Having the bridge located on the top of the ship could be intimidating or at least give the bridge crew a nice view of their huge ship.

Rossum wrote:In the Empire Strikes Back, didn't the Millennium Falcon evade a Star Destroyer by flying directly at the bridge and then quickly attaching itself to the ship in a place where the sensors couldn't locate it? If I recall correctly, the crew on the bridge reacted with alarm when they thought a freighter was going to ram them. If this is correct then it implies that the bridge is exposed enough to be vulnerable to freighters ramming into it... to speak nothing of actual weapons targeting it.

Then again, the AT-ATs were vulnerable to having cables wrapped around their legs to trip them up, so it could be that the Empire is willing to sacrifice some functionality in their machines in exchange for intimidation factor. Having the bridge located on the top of the ship could be intimidating or at least give the bridge crew a nice view of their huge ship.

"Sir, they're moving into attack position."- Flunky

"Raise shields."- Captain

ZOOOM

"Where did they go, track them."-Captain

Shields are the primary armor in SW. It didn't go down as

"Sir, they're moving into attack position."- Flunky

"Thank god we're in the bowls of the ship protected by the ships armor."- Captain

ZOOOM

"Where did they go, track them."-Captain

Rossum wrote:In the Empire Strikes Back, didn't the Millennium Falcon evade a Star Destroyer by flying directly at the bridge and then quickly attaching itself to the ship in a place where the sensors couldn't locate it? If I recall correctly, the crew on the bridge reacted with alarm when they thought a freighter was going to ram them. If this is correct then it implies that the bridge is exposed enough to be vulnerable to freighters ramming into it... to speak nothing of actual weapons targeting it.

Or it could be that they were simply reacting (as humans are wont to do) to a massive ship flying straight at them. Or are you telling me that you don't react instinctively when you see a pebble or a giant big flying at your car's windshield? Or do you only react if it's something massive, like a log falling off a logging truck?

Darth Tanner wrote:

so IF they have the oomph to get through your shields where you park your bridge isn't going to matter much in the long run.

Except it does, we have seen the Invisible Hand get a pounding with its shields down and although the hull took heavy damage shots didn’t destroy the entire ship or penetrate into the hull that far. If the Venator had been going for a kill shot and fired at the bridge/tower assembly it would have killed General Grievous and Count Dooku, having the bridge deep inside the armoured hull offers much more survivability to senior officers and the functioning of the ship. Again this is shown when the Spider General gets killed by a couple of missiles to the bridge in the Clone Wars cartoon costing the separatists an entire battle and fleet because he was sat outside the armour of the hull without shields, a fate he would have suvived if he had only been sat twenty meters away inside the armour belt.

Actually this scene really doesn't mean anything about how much the armor can take from full powered turbolaser blasts because the Republic ships would not be using full power shots on a ship that is HOLDING THEIR LEADER HOSTAGE especially when you have an active rescue mission on board they were attacking Grevious' ship enough to prevent it from escaping.