StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Do we have any solid numbers showiung the differences between these two ships and how the one evolved into the other.

I though I read that the Venator carried a shitload of fighters as opposed to the ISD. But what about firepower wise? What weapons load out does the Venator carry as opposed to the ISD, etc.

I guess what I'm asking for is a side by side comparison on the ships.

Also a curious observation - why do the PT capital ships seem to have the ability to land on planets yet this ability is nonexistent in their OT counterparts. I would imagine that landing on a planet's surface adds flexibility to a ship's combat options. Why eliminate that ability from the later ships, it seemed to work well for them in the Clone Wars.

Here's the Venator's weapons loadout, according to the ROTS ICS:

8 Heavy turbolaser turrets
2 Medium dual turbolaser cannons
52 Point-defense laser cannons
4 Proton torpedo tubes
6 Tractor beam projectors

As for the Imperator, from the OT ICS:

6 Heavy turbolaser turrets
2 Heavy ion cannon turrets
2 Medium turbolaser quad-turrets
3 Axial-defense turrets (ISD-I only)
I can't say how many Point-defense guns she has, but it's around 56, IIRC.

The Venator carries 192 V-Wings, 192 Eta-2 Actis interceptors and 36 ARC-170's. The ISD-I has 48 TIE/ln fighters, 12 TIE bombers, and 12 TIE boarding craft.

Lengths
Venator: 1137 m
Imperator: 1600 m

Hope this helps.

As for the evolution, I think that the Empire had a problem with the dorsal hangar bay of the Venator, and had KDY use some of the Victory's design elements (bridge tower and ventral hangar bays) in building the Imperator. But that's speculation.

I do think that, firepower wise, the Venator's HTL's are about as powerful as those on the Imperator. And with two more turrets, she could very well match or outgun an ISD. That would make since considering that the Venators were built during a full-scale war, and the ISD's were built for mostly counterinsurgency and "peacekeeping" work. Change in mission profile, really.

I also recall the ISD Mk I having 120 light TLs.

Stravo wrote:Also a curious observation - why do the PT capital ships seem to have the ability to land on planets yet this ability is nonexistent in their OT counterparts. I would imagine that landing on a planet's surface adds flexibility to a ship's combat options. Why eliminate that ability from the later ships, it seemed to work well for them in the Clone Wars.

Maybe its a combination of the OT ships' sizes and the fact that the PT ships are probably laying around somewhere ready to support planetary assault? Also, perhaps the Empire thinks that enough of the galaxy is pacified so that ground forces won't need overwhelming firepower as a rule...

applejack wrote:I recall the ISD Mk I having 120 light TLs.

Thanks for the correction. I thought 56 sounded a little low.
- Ra

The Venator and ISD are both hybrid warship (most probably analogous to a cruiser by WW1/WW2 conventions), carrier, and troop transport. Despite this there are a number of differences.

Obviously, the ISD is larger. It has a bigger powerplant and greater mass (accelration is roughly the same.)

Venators carry 400-some fighters, giving it a much greater carrier role. This is alot, but its worth noting that these are the prequel-era midget "micro" fighters, not a more proper fighter like we see in the OT. ISDs by contrast carry far fewer fighters, but they are generally bigger than most of the midget fighters (at least thats what I've been told.) In addition to that, ISDs carry "other" types of craft like gunboats and blastboats (supposedly only 5 gunboats and a large number of blastboats, but the ratios could be variable... ISDs IIRC have carried more gunboats before.)

Venators in comparison to ISDs carry fewer crew and troops (under 10,000 for the Venator as opposed to nearly 40,000 for the ISD). ISDs are thus better suited to ground attack roles compratively (though dedicated troopships like the Acclamator are better still.) Vehicle wise its probably about even: Venators carry AT-TEs and gunships (and maybe a couple SPHA-Ts, but I wouldn't bet on it.) ISDs have at least AT-ATs and AT-STs (and maybe others, I don't remember offhand.) - presumably the larger gunboats and TIEs are designed to provide aeriel support (don't ask me.) ISDs also carry a temporary garisson, which an Venator (AFAIK) does not.

Offensively, the ISD's HTL turrets have greater volume and firepower (based on the larger powerplant.) than the Venators (Venator have like 3.6e24 watts of reactor power spread among 8 guns, an ISD has at least 1e25 watts spread among 6 guns for hte ISD-1)
The ISD's secondary/intermediate battery is also much heavier and more diverse (The Venator's intermediate battery is virtually nonexistent, by comparison!). It also (liekly) has a much greater number of point defense guns (to offset its smaller fighter complmenet as well as because of its greater mass.) By all evidence, an ISD also has a heavier missile/torpedo battery than a Venator (able to launch more missiles and fire them off for longer.) Lastly, an ISD, unlike the Venator, also carries ion cannons, whereas a Venator most certainly does not.

I also suspect the ISD's "un-notched" wedge shape generally gives its weapons (especially the trench guns) far greater firing arcs and coverage.

Defensively, again the ISD is superior by virtue of its greater size, mass and powerplant (it can mount heavier shields and armor). In addition, the ISD is generally much better constructed IMHO - it lacks alot of the "empty spaces" the venator has (like the hangar) and has fewer ports and entries and whatnot - more structural reinforcement and bracing, likely much better compartmentalization. Of course it still has that exposed reactor bulb (which a Venator does not)

Miscellaneous: Venators can enter the atmosphere and land on planets (presumably to facilitate deploying troops - which an ISD cannot). ISDs by comparison seem to be designed for much longer-term and independent operation - they likely have much greater hyperdrive range (by virtue of its greater size, independent and long-range operations role, long-term supplies store, and comparison to the Acclamator, which heralded the return of "long range" warships.) Of course, the Venator's hyperdrive is faster (class 1 - ISD is Class - 2 IIRC.)

Edit: Given its design, the Venator is a much more dedicated escort and support ship - its can provide some fire support from its heavier guns against bigger targets, and its smaller guns allow it to shoot down smaller craft that might threaten its charges. Its large fighter complement further reinforces its "defensive" role as well as supporting capital ship strikes (like we see with fighters in ROTJ) The ISD is by comparison almost definitely designed to work both with other fleets in both offensive AND defensive roles as well as to work independently. Its a much better designed for duelling it out with other ships, and its multi-role nature makes it suited for supporting many types of roles (as well as "filling gaps" as needed.)

Stravo wrote:Do we have any solid numbers showiung the differences between these two ships and how the one evolved into the other.

Ra covered the numbers for ya.

I though I read that the Venator carried a shitload of fighters as opposed to the ISD. But what about firepower wise? What weapons load out does the Venator carry as opposed to the ISD, etc.

I guess the Venator is pretty well armed. They didn't waste time with medium guns rather went for a high end number of heavies and a shit load of PDG's.

This really points toward the idea that the Venator was supposed to be a ship of the line. Really it seem the same with the Imperator, as many heavies as possible, a couple mediums, and a shit load of lights.

The Venator, though, goes alot further with the fighter complement and here is where the 'desing flaws' show. The massive internal space needed and the various insert/egress points for those fighters to leave, leave the Venator with alot of weak points where those doors and hangars are.

The Venator has the ventral hanger cut out, a big forward door on her bow, and parts of the dorsal hull open up to allow direct access to the hangers that take up a large part of the forward portion of the hull.

The ISD dosn't have these. The weakness are all ventral, and are only two of them grouped together. To exploit them you'd have to be in this arc.

Also a curious observation - why do the PT capital ships seem to have the ability to land on planets yet this ability is nonexistent in their OT counterparts. I would imagine that landing on a planet's surface adds flexibility to a ship's combat options. Why eliminate that ability from the later ships, it seemed to work well for them in the Clone Wars.

I would imagine a desing feature for the day. Durring the Clone wars, the Republic had to land forces on occupied planets. Having transports and carriers able to bring their payloads directly to the surface would be handy.

The Imperials, on the other hand, already had those planets with perhaps garrisons on em already. Any support needed could take the time to use dropships/shuttles.

Not being able to surface, the ISD could use the space that would be reserved for repulsor lifts and landing struts capable of supporting the weight of the ship, for power, weapons, ect.........

Stravo wrote:Also a curious observation - why do the PT capital ships seem to have the ability to land on planets yet this ability is nonexistent in their OT counterparts. I would imagine that landing on a planet's surface adds flexibility to a ship's combat options. Why eliminate that ability from the later ships, it seemed to work well for them in the Clone Wars.

You can't add a capability like that without significant compromises in other areas. Unless it is deemed a necessary component of its design role, it would be insane to incorporate this capability. An ISD is designed to be a pure space combat vessel, capable of wiping out entire battle groups of lesser vessels. And if they need large landing-capable combat vessels, they should still have hordes of Venators and Acclamators available. It's not as if all those thousands of ships would just disappear after 20 years.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Venators carry 400-some fighters, giving it a much greater carrier role. This is alot, but its worth noting that these are the prequel-era midget "micro" fighters, not a more proper fighter like we see in the OT. ISDs by contrast carry far fewer fighters, but they are generally bigger than most of the midget fighters (at least thats what I've been told.)

Nitpick: While the vast majority of the Venator's fighter complement is the "microfighter" V-wing and Actis interceptors, it also carries 36 ARC-170s, which are, as far as I know, the largest fighters ever seen onscreen, and are larger than any TIE by a substantial amount.

Darth Wong wrote: You can't add a capability like that without significant compromises in other areas. Unless it is deemed a necessary component of its design role, it would be insane to incorporate this capability. An ISD is designed to be a pure space combat vessel, capable of wiping out entire battle groups of lesser vessels. And if they need large landing-capable combat vessels, they should still have hordes of Venators and Acclamators available. It's not as if all those thousands of ships would just disappear after 20 years.

Given TESB it also seems likely that the Empire put a greater emphasis on "vehicle-deployed" combat with soldiers coming in second to "mop up" (like we see in TESB on Hoth.) whereas the Republic tended to deploy craft AND troops together in most situations together. Likewise, the OT ships emphasize greater offensive and defensive armaments on the ships as opposed to large fighter complements (which has its advantages and disadvantages, but I tend to think its a better compromise overall.)

ISDs IIRC also carry those big "landing barges" as well as the assault shuttles and transports and whatnot - With the more "vehicle centric" philosophy the Empire seems to use, they don't really need surface-landing capabilities that the Venator and Acclamator needed to deploy troops.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:Venators carry 400-some fighters, giving it a much greater carrier role. This is alot, but its worth noting that these are the prequel-era midget "micro" fighters, not a more proper fighter like we see in the OT. ISDs by contrast carry far fewer fighters, but they are generally bigger than most of the midget fighters (at least thats what I've been told.)

Nitpick: While the vast majority of the Venator's fighter complement is the "microfighter" V-wing and Actis interceptors, it also carries 36 ARC-170s, which are, as far as I know, the largest fighters ever seen onscreen, and are larger than any TIE by a substantial amount.

Yes, but the ISD also carries quite a few blastboats and gunboats (which are as large as or larger than ARC-170's - which are small for an offensive fighter-bomber.)

And recall that to accomodate that massive fighter-carrying capacity (even if they are micro fighters) they had to trade off range/endurance, armament, and durability.

And lets not forget another thing, the Venators apparently have those projectile-cannon "gunport" batteries too - I don't recall seeing anything like that on an ISD.

Connor MacLeod wrote:And lets not forget another thing, the Venators apparently have those projectile-cannon "gunport" batteries too - I don't recall seeing anything like that on an ISD.

I thought that was the Invisible Hand.

Knife wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:And lets not forget another thing, the Venators apparently have those projectile-cannon "gunport" batteries too - I don't recall seeing anything like that on an ISD.

I thought that was the Invisible Hand.

There were internally mounted guns on the Venator too, and the bolts they fired tended to arc, which is definitely an un-beam-weapon-like thing to do. (Besides, they make more sense as short-ranged projectile weapons anyhow.)

I like the microfighters idea but couldn't you consider the TIE fighter a microfighter? It looks about the same size as the V-WIng (Jedi fighters I Assume) and WEG does state the the TIE is sort of a mass produced disposable fighter, essentially two engines, weapons array and a crew compartment without enough room for a hyperdrive or life support.

Am I misinterpretting what we're callling microfighters?

Stravo wrote:I like the microfighters idea but couldn't you consider the TIE fighter a microfighter? It looks about the same size as the V-WIng (Jedi fighters I Assume) and WEG does state the the TIE is sort of a mass produced disposable fighter, essentially two engines, weapons array and a crew compartment without enough room for a hyperdrive or life support.

Am I misinterpretting what we're callling microfighters?

Yeah. Volume wise, the TIE fighter is actually somewhat more massive than the Delta-7 and Actis. The V-wing and TIe might be comparable, but I didn't do the comparisons (Curtis mentioned it to me once, I think.)

The Delta-7 really isn't even too bad either IMHO (though its really cutting it fine I think, since its too small to mount any missiles or hyperdrive.) The Actis though is really bad - in addition to being hideous, its got almost no volume for useful equipment at all - its a glorified airspeeder modified for space travel.

Stravo wrote:I like the microfighters idea but couldn't you consider the TIE fighter a microfighter? It looks about the same size as the V-WIng (Jedi fighters I Assume) and WEG does state the the TIE is sort of a mass produced disposable fighter, essentially two engines, weapons array and a crew compartment without enough room for a hyperdrive or life support.

Am I misinterpretting what we're callling microfighters?

V wing actually looks alot like an A wing with small solar panals strapped on. The Actis is the Jedi fighter.

Micro fighter usually points toward the increadible lack of volume in the PT era fighters. And I would agree with you that the stock TIE fighter is pretty damn small with not alot of internal volume for systems and shit, but they have more room that the Jedi fighter in Ep III.

TIE fighters might qualify as microfighters, but other varients like TIE bombers aren't.

Knife wrote:

Stravo wrote:I like the microfighters idea but couldn't you consider the TIE fighter a microfighter? It looks about the same size as the V-WIng (Jedi fighters I Assume) and WEG does state the the TIE is sort of a mass produced disposable fighter, essentially two engines, weapons array and a crew compartment without enough room for a hyperdrive or life support.

Am I misinterpretting what we're callling microfighters?

V wing actually looks alot like an A wing with small solar panals strapped on. The Actis is the Jedi fighter.

Micro fighter usually points toward the increadible lack of volume in the PT era fighters. And I would agree with you that the stock TIE fighter is pretty damn small with not alot of internal volume for systems and shit, but they have more room that the Jedi fighter in Ep III.

Aside from most being under 10 meters long and maybe 5 meters wide (tops), most tend to have very narrow and thin bodies. The largest (IIRC) is the ARC-170 and maybe the naboo fighter, and both really aren't much bigger than an X-wing are they? (whereas something like the B-wing, according to ILM, is half the size of the Falcon!)

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Aside from most being under 10 meters long and maybe 5 meters wide (tops), most tend to have very narrow and thin bodies. The largest (IIRC) is the ARC-170 and maybe the naboo fighter, and both really aren't much bigger than an X-wing are they? (whereas something like the B-wing, according to ILM, is half the size of the Falcon!)

I wouldn't consider the ARC a micro fighter. She's fleshed out. The Actis, though, not only is she short and not very wide, she's squished flat. There is like no internal space in there. The Delta-7 isn't as bad, but not good.

The Naboo fighter doesn't have much either but atleast they strapped the bigger engines on nacells. The Actis and the Delta have punny sublight engines.

Just a miscellaneous comment, I think RotS gave us a wealth of clear evidence that the weapons in use in the Clone Wars are likely still in the Imperial arsenal by the time of the RoTJ:

1. Stass Allie's speeder bike: exactly the same as the RotJ model, except with Republic paintjob. The larger "BARC" Speeders that killed her being in service is quite likely;

2. AT-STs referred to in RotS novelization;

3. T-21 light repeating blasters referred to in RotS novelization;

4. Juggernauts known to be still in Imperial service in the EU;

5. Victory-class Star Destroyers referred to in RotS novelization.

6. First combat appearance of the AT-AT was during the Clone Wars (Jabiim?).

Knife wrote: I wouldn't consider the ARC a micro fighter. She's fleshed out. The Actis, though, not only is she short and not very wide, she's squished flat. There is like no internal space in there. The Delta-7 isn't as bad, but not good.

Its large (and appropriate) for an actual fighter, but IIRC the ARC-170 is more of a heavy fighter-bomber (like a Y-wing, really). Its bigger, but it still a pretty crowded design (look at the fighters in the ARC-170 cockpit, and compare it to the much more spacious cockpits in the OT.) On top of that you crowd in two more crews (and two aft guns!) in addition to everything else.

Not a "micro fighter" I suppose, but a "micro-bomber".

The Naboo fighter doesn't have much either but atleast they strapped the bigger engines on nacells. The Actis and the Delta have punny sublight engines.

Big engines yeah, but its uglier than even the actis and has that ludicrous "astromech" setup. (of course we have the "pocket-dimension astromech socket" on the actis too...)

Big engines yeah, but its uglier than even the actis and has that ludicrous "astromech" setup. (of course we have the "pocket-dimension astromech socket" on the actis too...)

I was watching for this the whole damn time in my (so far) two viewings of RotS. Is R2 sticking out the bottom?

Connor MacLeod wrote: Its large (and appropriate) for an actual fighter, but IIRC the ARC-170 is more of a heavy fighter-bomber (like a Y-wing, really). Its bigger, but it still a pretty crowded design (look at the fighters in the ARC-170 cockpit, and compare it to the much more spacious cockpits in the OT.) On top of that you crowd in two more crews (and two aft guns!) in addition to everything else.

Not a "micro fighter" I suppose, but a "micro-bomber".

I chalk it up the same as I do with the Venators. Design flaws while they're ironing out shit. They did a massive military build up for the Clone Wars and pumped out some designs that while worked, could be heavily improved upon.

Big engines yeah, but its uglier than even the actis and has that ludicrous "astromech" setup. (of course we have the "pocket-dimension astromech socket" on the actis too...)

Yeah, it's ugly and has the droid socket problem. But the Delta is ugly, has tiny tiny engines and the droid socket problem with the Actis having all three as well and even less internal volume.

Huge oversight on your assessments of the ISD's heavy guns.

Venators have eight dual-barrelled turrets (16 guns)

ISD-IIs have eight eight-barrelled turrets (64 guns). Assuming equal caliber, this is a factor-four increase in firepower.

McC wrote:Huge oversight on your assessments of the ISD's heavy guns.

Venators have eight dual-barrelled turrets (16 guns)

ISD-IIs have eight eight-barrelled turrets (64 guns). Assuming equal caliber, this is a factor-four increase in firepower.

That's the Mark II ISD. The Mark I is the ISD that Ra outlined. You can check out the differences on SWTC.