StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've seen a couple websites with conflicting data on the armaments of an ISD II. Could any of you tell me exactly what the armaments of the ISD II is?

No. I don't think anyone really knows. There's several official loadouts floating about, but they're wrong.

More than a ISD I

The only difference worth noting is the four octuple heavy turbolaser turrets, and the lack of the heavy brim trench guns seen on the ISD1 model.

The ISD1 is a superior design.

Vympel wrote:The only difference worth noting is the four octuple heavy turbolaser turrets, and the lack of the heavy brim trench guns seen on the ISD1 model.

The ISD1 is a superior design.

That's just impossible. Why "improve" a design by making it weaker? Particularly since said new design is stated to have better shields, armour, firepower, you name it.

Yes, the ISD-II main guns are smaller, but todays warships have much smaller weapons than comparable WWI ships, yet are much more powerful overall. While WWI guns had a lot more raw destructive power (save nuke shells), it's obvious that modern weapons are superior in range, accuracy, refire, penetration etc. The analogy works in this case.

According to the canon novelization, the ISD-1 had "dozens" of heavy weapons emplacments (well.. dozens of the kind it fired at the Tantive IV in ANH)

nightmare wrote:

Vympel wrote:The only difference worth noting is the four octuple heavy turbolaser turrets, and the lack of the heavy brim trench guns seen on the ISD1 model.

The ISD1 is a superior design.

That's just impossible. Why "improve" a design by making it weaker? Particularly since said new design is stated to have better shields, armour, firepower, you name it.

Yes, the ISD-II main guns are smaller, but todays warships have much smaller weapons than comparable WWI ships, yet are much more powerful overall. While WWI guns had a lot more raw destructive power (save nuke shells), it's obvious that modern weapons are superior in range, accuracy, refire, penetration etc. The analogy works in this case.

No it doesn't. First of all, the weapons of warships today as compared to WW2 exhibits a difference of 50-80 years. There is no such time lapse in ISDs- it would be ridiculous to argue that ISD2 main guns are orders of magnitude more effective than ISD1 guns- no signigicant period of time has passed where you could reasonably argue that ISD2 fire control is more effective than ISD1 fire control.

In addition, like you said todays warships weapons are smaller and less powerful, not more powerful than WW2 guns. They're an after thought in the design due to the presence of missiles- which doesn't apply in the ISD1 vs ISD2 situation.

I made a thread about it. Main points

1: The ISD1 bridge is less exposed than the ISD2 bridge.

2: The ISD1 has brim trench heavy turbolasers, which the ISD2 totally lacks

3: The ISD1 heavy turbolasers are obviously more powerful

4: The ISD1 has heavy ion cannons which are more versatile

5: The ISD1 heavy cannons have superior field of fire, and can fire dead forward, unlike the ISD2 design

6: There's circumstantial canon evidence that states that ISD1s went through an upgrade: the ISD1s seen post ANH no longer have their distinctive array in between the globes, instead the array is standardized with the ISD2 model. This makes identifying an ISD1 harder- but all you need to do is look at the engines.

Connor MacLeod wrote:According to the canon novelization, the ISD-1 had "dozens" of heavy weapons emplacments (well.. dozens of the kind it fired at the Tantive IV in ANH)

Pretty in line with the filmI guess- visible heavy turbolaser barrels are 20 in number (12 from the dorsal guns and 8 from the quad brim trench guns)

@Vympel: I'm back, good to see you still here!

As for the ISDs... I always thought it's quite strange that there're no HTL batteries below the trench line...

If an enemy vessel approach from directly below than only MTLs and LTLs should fire on it!

This is not a very good design!

That makes more sense. But I'd like to point out that there's no need for a huge technological development. Already with the ISD-1 and the DS, heavy turbolasers are stated to be very difficult to aim - while light TLs are used with pretty good precision against the Tantive IV, asteroids, the MF. We also know that the refire rate is better with the light TLs.

In other words, the ISD-2 guns would likely have better accuracy and refire rate, possibly giving more effective firepower at a given time than the ISD-1.

As for the bridge being exposed.. well, it doesn't matter a whole lot, does it? It's still shielded and the ship would continue to fire and move even after you blow up the bridge, particularly when using the auxilliary bridge instead.

Boba Fett wrote:@Vympel: I'm back, good to see you still here!

As for the ISDs... I always thought it's quite strange that there're no HTL batteries below the trench line...

If an enemy vessel approach from directly below than only MTLs and LTLs should fire on it!

This is not a very good design!

Was wondering where you went

It's not so much of a huge vulnerability in that any vessel approaching from below would be detected from a good enough distance away that it would be able to re-orient itself to meet the threat- also, putting the heaviest weaponry on the dorsal side makes sure that the Captain doesn't keep his hangar exposed to enemy attack by playing John Wayne with ventral HTLs.

nightmare wrote:That makes more sense. But I'd like to point out that there's no need for a huge technological development. Already with the ISD-1 and the DS, heavy turbolasers are stated to be very difficult to aim - while light TLs are used with pretty good precision against the Tantive IV, asteroids, the MF. We also know that the refire rate is better with the light TLs.

In other words, the ISD-2 guns would likely have better accuracy and refire rate, possibly giving more effective firepower at a given time than the ISD-1.

Yeah- the thing I like most about the ISD1 is the brim trench guns and the heavy ion cannons. I do like the big guns. The ISD2 guns are certainly easier to fire and offer a great deal more volume of fire.

Actually this is why I have a thought that the ISD1 wasn't succeded in production by the ISD2, but was rather complemented in production- even in the elite Death Squadron we still see an ISD1- they're probably meant to fight together.

As for the bridge being exposed.. well, it doesn't matter a whole lot, does it? It's still shielded and the ship would continue to fire and move even after you blow up the bridge, particularly when using the auxilliary bridge instead.

Just still pissed off about the Executor

Vympel wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:@Vympel: I'm back, good to see you still here!

As for the ISDs... I always thought it's quite strange that there're no HTL batteries below the trench line...

If an enemy vessel approach from directly below than only MTLs and LTLs should fire on it!

This is not a very good design!

Was wondering where you went

It's not so much of a huge vulnerability in that any vessel approaching from below would be detected from a good enough distance away that it would be able to re-orient itself to meet the threat- also, putting the heaviest weaponry on the dorsal side makes sure that the Captain doesn't keep his hangar exposed to enemy attack by playing John Wayne with ventral HTLs.

John Wayne...

Now that was a funny guy with his strange way of walking!!!

Vympel wrote: 5: The ISD1 heavy cannons have superior field of fire, and can fire dead forward, unlike the ISD2 design

No, they cannot,not all.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbradford/ISD_Guns.jpg

See?
Unfortunately the model has lost many of its barrels, but as you can see with the one surviving on the turret on the left there is no way that all the turrets can be trained and fire forward,there is simply not enough space for them.Hell, considering the lenght of the turrets it is likely that they could not be trained forward even without barrels.Only the first turbolaser of each bank would have a forward arc of fire.And of course the ion cannons turrets can be trained aft.

Well, it could mean a chance in mission requirements.
The HTL are designed (in principle) to take out similar (or larger) targets than the ISD II, but after a fashion, Operations (or whatever bureau implements it) saw that the ISD's spent more time taking on smaller vessels, or the level of capital ship threat diminished, so they required the new ISD to have less heavy firepower, at the same time increasing medium/ligth firepower, a job more suitable to the patrol/police actions.

Maybe...

I always thought that these HTL batteries were used mostly in bombardments.

Vympel wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:According to the canon novelization, the ISD-1 had "dozens" of heavy weapons emplacments (well.. dozens of the kind it fired at the Tantive IV in ANH)

Pretty in line with the filmI guess- visible heavy turbolaser barrels are 20 in number (12 from the dorsal guns and 8 from the quad brim trench guns)

Emplacements would refer to individual batteries..and if this is at all in line with the TAntive IV/Devastaor scene, the HTLs were out of Line of fire with the corvette (And probably not useful anyhow either)

Admiral Piett wrote:
No, they cannot,not all.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbradford/ISD_Guns.jpg

See?
Unfortunately the model has lost many of its barrels, but as you can see with the one surviving on the turret on the left there is no way that all the turrets can be trained and fire forward,there is simply not enough space for them.Hell, considering the lenght of the turrets it is likely that they could not be trained forward even without barrels.Only the first turbolaser of each bank would have a forward arc of fire.And of course the ion cannons turrets can be trained aft.

I didn't explicitly say all.

I've always understood that the ISD2-series star destroyer has six dual HTL turrets, either side of the superstructure, two duel HIC turrets, also either side of the superstructure, and two quad HTL batteries in the waist trench gun platform. There are probably also approximately 40 - 60 MTLs and about twenty MICs scattered around the ship, mostly on the superstructure or in the trench.

I strongly suspect that armament on the ventral side is concentrated around the most vulnerable part of the ship, the landing bays. That is probably mostly MTLs and LTLs. This area is probably also heavily armoured and there are likely extra redundant particle shields over the landing bay appatures.

There are also probably several multiple-tube concussion missile launchers in the trench (based on 'Shadows of the Past').

There are probably about 100+ single point-defence LTLs scattered all over the ship's surface area.

In another thread, someone suggested that the ISD1 and ISD2 were developed simultaneously. The ISD1 (which has more forward-firing armament) would lead a battle line while the ISD2s would follow, providing heavy off-axis fire when "crossing the t".

I have always hated the total lack of heavy ventral armament on the ISDs. I have developed (in my head) a version of the ship where the superstructure-side turrets are duplicated on the underside, and the turret mounts are staggered upwards the further aft you go to give each one unobstructed forward firing.

Vympel, what you are saying is irrelevant, the ISD2 is said to have more weapons, stronger weapons, better shields, thats a fact.

The ISD1 might have a few ideas that make it better in some aspects, but generally the ISD2 is a way more powerfull warship.

His Divine Shadow wrote:Vympel, what you are saying is irrelevant, the ISD2 is said to have more weapons, stronger weapons, better shields, thats a fact.

The ISD1 might have a few ideas that make it better in some aspects, but generally the ISD2 is a way more powerfull warship.

No, it ain't irrelevant. I've seen the two models and I know which one's armament is more sensible. Canon is greater than official. You won't find me any official information that says that the guns on an ISD2 are 'more powerful' than those on an ISD1. They're the same.

BenRG wrote:I've always understood that the ISD2-series star destroyer has six dual HTL turrets, either side of the superstructure, two duel HIC turrets, also either side of the superstructure, and two quad HTL batteries in the waist trench gun platform. There are probably also approximately 40 - 60 MTLs and about twenty MICs scattered around the ship, mostly on the superstructure or in the trench.

I think you mean ISD1. The ISD2 has all visible weapons up top on the dorsal mounts.

I strongly suspect that armament on the ventral side is concentrated around the most vulnerable part of the ship, the landing bays. That is probably mostly MTLs and LTLs. This area is probably also heavily armoured and there are likely extra redundant particle shields over the landing bay appatures.

Pretty much.

There are also probably several multiple-tube concussion missile launchers in the trench (based on 'Shadows of the Past').

The games also credit most capital ships with warhead launchers.

In another thread, someone suggested that the ISD1 and ISD2 were developed simultaneously. The ISD1 (which has more forward-firing armament) would lead a battle line while the ISD2s would follow, providing heavy off-axis fire when "crossing the t".

I have always hated the total lack of heavy ventral armament on the ISDs. I have developed (in my head) a version of the ship where the superstructure-side turrets are duplicated on the underside, and the turret mounts are staggered upwards the further aft you go to give each one unobstructed forward firing.

You don't wanna be showing your belly in combat I don't think. Better to keep your enemy where the weapons are and the hangar isn't.

1: The ISD1 bridge is less exposed than the ISD2 bridge

I have not seen pictures of this, where could I find such?

2: The ISD1 has brim trench heavy turbolasers, which the ISD2 totally lacks

Ofcourse, but do we know it's totally without such things?

3: The ISD1 heavy turbolasers are obviously more powerful

Assumption, the ISD2 heavy turbolasers are only a bit smaller and more numerous, official evidence says they are stronger.
Infact combining RPG and visual evidence we get an ISD2 that has 8HTL turrets, 50 heavy cannons, 50 turbolasers
Thats over a hundred heavy turbolasers and 50 more light or medium ones.

4: The ISD1 has heavy ion cannons which are more versatile

The ISD2 has ion cannons too.

5: The ISD1 heavy cannons have superior field of fire, and can fire dead forward, unlike the ISD2 design

I believe there is no proof for either of your points.

Vympel wrote:No, it ain't irrelevant. I've seen the two models and I know which one's armament is more sensible. Canon is greater than official. You won't find me any official information that says that the guns on an ISD2 are 'more powerful' than those on an ISD1. They're the same.

Canon doesn't say that the ISD1's armament is more powerfull either, hence it's not canon vs. official, it's your theory vs. official, you loose on those grounds.

The ISD1 might have more sensible design, but the ISD2 has much more firepower.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

1: The ISD1 bridge is less exposed than the ISD2 bridge

I have not seen pictures of this, where could I find such?

SWTC- Saxton's site.

Ofcourse, but do we know it's totally without such things?

Because the guns are quite massive- the equivalent notches on the ISD2 are totally empty.

Assumption, the ISD2 heavy turbolasers are only a bit smaller and more numerous, official evidence says they are stronger.
Infact combining RPG and visual evidence we get an ISD2 that has 8HTL turrets, 50 heavy cannons, 50 turbolasers
Thats over a hundred heavy turbolasers and 50 more light or medium ones.

If that's the case then it's also an assumption that the HTLs are more powerful than any other gun. Bigger barrel means more powerful weapon. What official evidence says those guns are more powerful than the ISD1 weapons?

The ISD2 has ion cannons too.

Not the big ones though.

I believe there is no proof for either of your points.

Have you LOOKED at the models? It's obvious- the front turrets on the ISD1 have no obstruction in front of them- it's impossible for the ISD2 to fire it's guns dead forward without tilting downwards. It's not a major problem, but there it is.