Star Destroyer vs Star Destroyer

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-12-09 10:27am

If you had 2 ISDs next to each other, and they had to fight to the death, how long would it take?

harbringer · Post by **harbringer** » 2003-12-09 10:38am

If they just sit next to each other soaking damage and hammering away then 10 to 15 minutes as both ships can punch into the other with massive batteries. The winner would depend on how identical the ships were and what sort of crew they had. If evasions maneuver and fighter strikes were the order of the day go figure anywhere up to days, depending on the opposing captains crews fighter casuaties and the room to move/places to hide. Basically how long is a piece of string and how much damage are the opposing captains willing to risk, then how much does the crew believe in their captain

.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-12-09 11:40am

Took ~30 minutes in Isard's revenge. Also took about that long at Endor for the rebels to wear down Imperial shields.

FettKyle · Post by **FettKyle** » 2003-12-09 12:13pm

Wouldn't only be a minute or 2 if they were taking each others HTL batteries. From what I know they have to constantly moving aroung each other just to keep it going for 30 minutes

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-12-09 12:20pm

No matter the length of time, both ships will be virtually wrecked by the end of the battle. The winner will be the one who 1. concentrates his fire better 2. manages to assume a superior firing position 3. utilizes his fighers/bombers better and 4. concentrates his shielding better.

But even if one ship does all those and the other doesn't, it'll be a brutal slugging match.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-12-09 12:38pm

Well, it depends who of the both reacts faster when the shields of the opponent fail. Killing vital systems with fighters is then a very good tactic, and can bring victory....

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-09 02:52pm

FettKyle wrote:Wouldn't only be a minute or 2 if they were taking each others HTL batteries. From what I know they have to constantly moving aroung each other just to keep it going for 30 minutes

No, it wouldn't. For one thing you're ignoring the fact that their guns aren't instant kills against themselves. Like most warships up until the post-world war two designs, they could take a fair amount of their own fire before they are crippled let alone destroyed.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-12-09 05:49pm

Wouldn't the ship that gets the first shots in also have an advantage?

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2003-12-09 06:12pm

Tribun wrote:Well, it depends who of the both reacts faster when the shields of the opponent fail. Killing vital systems with fighters is then a very good tactic, and can bring victory....

Once the shields fail, your are lost.

In ROTJ you can see a single blast from a Mon Cal cruiser destroy a Star Destroyer.

So, IMO, its a matter of who gets the opponent's shields down first.

Though it is possible for fighter craft to utilize the little 'holes' that appear when shields are extremely taxed, I do not think that it would make that big of a difference (but then every small difference could be the deciding factor).

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2003-12-09 07:08pm

Just a few small thoughts:

Would an ISD/ISD battle be a stationary affair not so much relying on tactics as relying on whos shields fall first, one in which they rush to meet each other head on, or would it be similar to ww1 naval battles (Ie getting just inside heavy weapon range, unleashing a salvo, then altering course to move just outside the targets weapons) except with the added advantage of using bombers to strike at stressed shield points or these 'holes' that were mentioned that can be created by heavy attacks?

Seems to me that the only real way an ISD/ISD battle really begins is when the shields are down..up till then the vessel sits pretty much impervious..or am I missing something here. HTL's seem like enormous weapons, even if the shields held, would there be crew loss from concussion, or systems knocked off line just by the amount of KE?

I think an ISD vs battle would be interesting...but neither party really wins, even the winner would be heavily damaged and possibly unable to exit the field.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-12-10 01:20am

pellaeons_scion wrote:Just a few small thoughts:

Would an ISD/ISD battle be a stationary affair not so much relying on tactics as relying on whos shields fall first, one in which they rush to meet each other head on, or would it be similar to ww1 naval battles (Ie getting just inside heavy weapon range, unleashing a salvo, then altering course to move just outside the targets weapons) except with the added advantage of using bombers to strike at stressed shield points or these 'holes' that were mentioned that can be created by heavy attacks?

ISDs aren't really agile enough to try darting in and out of each other's range, and anyway turbolasers have a pretty high range. Besides which, the OP places the two of them nest to each other.

I think that the winner would be the first one to dive underneath the other's Y-axis and open up on the other ship's underbelly, where TL coverage is lighter. Of course, the other ship will attempt to rotate to bring its heavier guns to bear, so the first ship must keep moving to stay beneath the other.

SW capship combat is really just like that: establish and hold a superior position, then pound away.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-12-10 04:05am

An ISD vs ISD would a battle of skills. The superior captain would win.

Here are ten important things that can determine victory.

1. Concentrating fire on one single shield is crucial. Blasting away at different shields does not achieve anything.

2. The maximum possible number of weapons must be brought to bear up on the enemy. Idealy this means keeping the target directly in front so all the primary guns can engage at once.

3. Rotating through shields to keep any one shield from becoming weak or collapsing. By doing this a Star Destroyer can survive much longer (It tooks three hours to collapse the shields on Teshiks ISD IIRC, in contrast some battles last only minutes).

4. Targeting specific subsystems on the enemy ship is vital. Ion cannons should be used to target areas where enemies shields have failed. Disabling or destroying components will greatly reduce the enemies effectiveness.

5. The strongest shield and largest possible number of weapon should be facing the enemy. This requires great skill as captains must choose whether to compromise firepower to keep weak shields protected or vice verse.

6. Fighters and bombers must be used to tatget specifc parts of enemy ships. At the same time the captain should use his interceptors to keep the enemy from doing the same.

7. Torpedo bombers should attack weaked shields that the enemy has been hiding. This is a good way too keep to enemy from diverting all power to one single shield facing the target.

8. Power distribution between shields, weapons and propulsion is crucial to victory.

9. Staying out of the enemies effective firing arcs is important. Maneuvering into blind spots is an excellent idea.

10. Star Destroyers have minimal rear weapons coverage. Every attempt must be made to maneuvere into the enemies rear arc and staying there.

Thats all I can think of at the moment.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2003-12-10 06:15am

evilcat4000 wrote:An ISD vs ISD would a battle of skills. The superior captain would win.

2. The maximum possible number of weapons must be brought to bear up on the enemy. Idealy this means keeping the target directly in front so all the primary guns can engage at once.
.

A broadside would be better. Firing in the forward arc you could ony get you first HTL on either side to fire on a target. With broadside you gett what 3(or ist 4?) HTLs and the heavey ion cannon as well.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-12-10 06:20am

Crazedwraith wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:An ISD vs ISD would a battle of skills. The superior captain would win.

2. The maximum possible number of weapons must be brought to bear up on the enemy. Idealy this means keeping the target directly in front so all the primary guns can engage at once.
A broadside would be better. Firing in the forward arc you could ony get you first HTL on either side to fire on a target. With broadside you gett what 3(or ist 4?) HTLs and the heavey ion cannon as well.

That's why the best option is to dip the ISD forward so that more of it's HTLs and ion cannons can be brought to bear.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2003-12-10 06:40am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:An ISD vs ISD would a battle of skills. The superior captain would win.

2. The maximum possible number of weapons must be brought to bear up on the enemy. Idealy this means keeping the target directly in front so all the primary guns can engage at once.
A broadside would be better. Firing in the forward arc you could ony get you first HTL on either side to fire on a target. With broadside you gett what 3(or ist 4?) HTLs and the heavey ion cannon as well.
That's why the best option is to dip the ISD forward so that more of it's HTLs and ion cannons can be brought to bear.

So basically for best effect you want to behind and below your target.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-12-10 10:29am

Crazedwraith wrote: So basically for best effect you want to behind and below your target.

...Which also has the advantage of reducing the enemy's return fire to insignificance until it spins around to present it's dorsal surface.

harbringer · Post by **harbringer** » 2003-12-10 12:02pm

evilcat expanded on my short paragraph but is essentially what to expect as per method. Two ISD's trying to get into a rear arc could take a very long time with two *good* captains. If one of the crews are bad and maintenance is less then optimal then that ship will die first. The amount of damage a captain is willing to risk is also a factor. If lord vader appears to one captain and says "Failure is not an option captain" and not the other one captain will have a very high motivation to succeed the other to simply escape.

So basically it can take as long as you want given the right conditions.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2003-12-10 07:41pm

So there would be some elements of manuvering, if only to keep optimum fire position on the weakest shield..that makes sense. But, I must admit, I cant really see ISD's chasing each others tails, trying to get a shot at the rear..else it would be more like fighter combat, and as kuja said, they arnt very agile making combat like that somewhat unfeasible.

Though its important having a skilled captain, I believe the deciding factor would be how seasoned the crew was in terms of damage control and efficency at their stations. The better they were at repairing and keeping systems functional under fire would give them the best chance of survival and victory

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2003-12-10 09:01pm

Attempting to get into the others ships "6" would definitely not be a good idea. Relativistic particle exhaust would eat into your forward shields pretty quickly, in their in close. That and the I beleive that theres a limitation on the HTL all firing forward. How much can they elevate anyway? Sure you could dip your nose to expose the rearward HTL mounts; but that would just expose more area to their exhaust.

I'd say if you have the superior fighter screen, double front the sheilds and wade on in. And if possible stay below the other guys midline.

Honestly, though their are so many variables, that it just falls back on crew quality. Ultimately its all about the men, not the machines, when your evenly matched.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2003-12-10 09:24pm

Just an aside: how many broadsides (Heavy guns only I would guess) would it take to crack the opposing ISD's shield?

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2003-12-10 09:31pm

pellaeons_scion

Try a search on heavy turbolasers, Bean calculated this back when ATOC: ICS first came out.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2003-12-10 09:32pm

right..sorry

harbringer · Post by **harbringer** » 2003-12-10 11:05pm

pellaeons_scion love your sig

and in australia apathy is considered energy conservation lmao. It's too big or takes too much effort to fix.. we will do it tomorrow....

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2003-12-10 11:57pm

and of course..tomorrow never comes

eep..thread hijack...must return to topic.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-12-10 11:57pm

Stormbringer wrote: No, it wouldn't. For one thing you're ignoring the fact that their guns aren't instant kills against themselves. Like most warships up until the post-world war two designs, they could take a fair amount of their own fire before they are crippled let alone destroyed.

The OT ICS makes it pretty clear that the heavy axial turrets would penetrate the defenses of the heaviest starships. This would be offest by the far longer recharge rate (10 seconds or more, probably more like 20 seconds), but its not inconceivable for broadsides from the heavy turrets to destroy either or both ships in a matetr of minutes, mostly because of the longer recharge rate required for the guns.