Guns of Star Wars capital ships

[Illuminatus Primus]

Does anyone else hate how the turrets are always placed such as they are useless as turreted weapons, largely confined to specific broadside arcs?

[Havok]

Does anyone else hate how the turrets are always placed such as they are useless as turreted weapons, largely confined to specific broadside arcs?

Yes. Very much. Even when I was a kid I thought the TLs on the SDs were dumb because a) they could only fire to one side and b) didn't look to be very effective firing forward.

[Darth Wong]

Does anyone else hate how the turrets are always placed such as they are useless as turreted weapons, largely confined to specific broadside arcs?

Why does that make them useless? Real battleships had plenty of turrets along the sides of their superstructures, able to fire only to one side or another. Were those turrets all useless too?

[Darth Ruinus]

Does anyone else hate how the turrets are always placed such as they are useless as turreted weapons, largely confined to specific broadside arcs?

I hate how most of the time they have all or most of their guns on the dorsal part of the ship, so they cant hit anything beneath them with as much punch.

BTW, whats wrong with broadsides?

[Havok]

Does anyone else hate how the turrets are always placed such as they are useless as turreted weapons, largely confined to specific broadside arcs?

Why does that make them useless? Real battleships had plenty of turrets along the sides of their superstructures, able to fire only to one side or another. Were those turrets all useless too?

I don't know about IP, but that's why I think they are lame, not necessarily useless. Space is a 3-D battlefield. Intelligently designed space going capital ships should have weapon firing arcs that represent that. That or have a lot more weapons that you can see, pointing in all directions.

Granted, I am thinking about how I used to think about SDs, in that you can only see the two side batteries on a SD in the movies and I don't believe you ever actually see them fire, (The TLs come from the "hull"), but this is how I viewed SW for a very long time. Mostly because I never gave it as much thought as a lot of the people here did.

[Havok]

Does anyone else hate how the turrets are always placed such as they are useless as turreted weapons, largely confined to specific broadside arcs?

I hate how most of the time they have all or most of their guns on the dorsal part of the ship, so they cant hit anything beneath them with as much punch.

BTW, whats wrong with broadsides?

Nothing. In space I'm sure a broad side battle could occur just as easily as any other, but I doubt they would be the norm, unless you design your ships with their most powerful weapons pointed starboard and port.

[Darth Ruinus]

Nothing. In space I'm sure a broad side battle could occur just as easily as any other, but I doubt they would be the norm, unless you design your ships with their most powerful weapons pointed starboard and port.

You mean, just like the ISDs?

[DrMckay]

Why does that make them useless? Real battleships had plenty of turrets along the sides of their superstructures, able to fire only to one side or another. Were those turrets all useless too?

The main guns on a (early dreadnought-type) battleship were arranged on the centerline with a clear field of fire forward, left, and right. The side-mounted guns you mentioned were of a smaller caliber and more suited to dealing with fast attack torpedo boats, etc, while the larger armament would be focused on an enemy battleship.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Does anyone else hate how the turrets are always placed such as they are useless as turreted weapons, largely confined to specific broadside arcs?

Why does that make them useless? Real battleships had plenty of turrets along the sides of their superstructures, able to fire only to one side or another. Were those turrets all useless too?

Only the early dreadnoughts; later dreadnoughts - the so-called "super-dreadnoughts" - usually featured superfiring turrets in a nice row (HMS Dreadnought vs. USS Iowa). That was a majority of the firepower could be directed forward or to either broadside without a turret or superstructure obstructing the lines of fire. You will notice of course even in the early dreadnoughts where they had wing turrets (such as those on HMS Dreadnought above) which could not bring fire to bare to either side, they were still capable of firing directly aft and directly forward. Being in a tight row and also at the same elevation (even the early battleships do not make this mistake), the Venator and Imperator/Imperial Star Destroyers cannot bring most of their turrets to bare forward or backward, only the first pair and last pair of turrets, respectively. Furthermore, the Mark II Imperial-class Star Destroyer's octuple guns are so recessed to the hull that they cannot fire forward or aft at all (relative to the longitudinal axis, naturally if the ship pitches it can bring them to bare, but the whole point of a turret is to increase line of sight for one's weapons without having the maneuver the ship)!

As expressed before, the small turrets on the hull were not primary armament, but defensive weapons - a battery of numerous small guns arrayed in every direction was a good solution to the tactical problem at hand. If that were the case here, that would not even be bad! But the ISD does not have anywhere near as many guns, so many arcs are not covered unlike those pre-dreadnought turrets. I don't have a problem with that approach, as the countless tiny guns on the Executor is fine. I don't care about the orientation of each individual gun or the number of guns as long as the major firing arcs are fully covered. But the Venator and Imperator/Imperial Star Destroyers do not have that virtue.

[Stark]

Isn't it relevant that each weapon can use a significant fraction of the powerplant's output, so unlike a regular battleship where more guns = more firepower, more guns = similar firepower spread between more guns? I'm not sure if I remember what proportion of power can be used per heavy weapon though.

[Darth Wong]

Only the early dreadnoughts; later dreadnoughts - the so-called "super-dreadnoughts" - usually featured superfiring turrets in a nice row (HMS Dreadnought vs. USS Iowa).

Even those later ships had plenty of side-mounted turrets. The huge turrets were mounted on the centreline, but they were so massive relative to the ship that no other mount method was practical. In the case of an ISD, they can mount absurdly powerful guns which are so small relative to the hull that they are comparable (at most) to the 5" guns on an old battleship, not its 16" guns. There were sound mechanical reasons why you couldn't put 16" guns on either side of a battleship, in terms of physically mounting and rotating the turrets, not to mention bringing up ammo. Those reasons do not apply to the turrets on an ISD.

As expressed before, the small turrets on the hull were not primary armament, but defensive weapons - a battery of numerous small guns arrayed in every direction was a good solution to the tactical problem at hand. If that were the case here, that would not even be bad! But the ISD does not have anywhere near as many guns, so many arcs are not covered unlike those pre-dreadnought turrets.

It has plenty of smaller guns itself; are you seriously expecting a mile-long ship to have such massive turrets relative to its length that they cannot be doubled up and mounted alongside its superstructure?

[DrMckay]

As IP said, the Dreadnought did have large guns on the "wings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HMS_ ... rawing.png

[Darth Wong]

As IP said, the Dreadnought did have large guns on the "wings."

Well, it had 12" guns. 16" guns are so massive that you obviously have to design a ship to make the most possible use of each individual gun, because you just won't be able to mount a lot of them.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Even those later ships had plenty of side-mounted turrets. The huge turrets were mounted on the centreline, but they were so massive relative to the ship that no other mount method was practical. In the case of an ISD, they can mount absurdly powerful guns which are so small relative to the hull that they are comparable (at most) to the 5" guns on an old battleship, not its 16" guns. There were sound mechanical reasons why you couldn't put 16" guns on either side of a battleship, in terms of physically mounting and rotating the turrets, not to mention bringing up ammo. Those reasons do not apply to the turrets on an ISD.

I'm not disputing the physical ability to mount them. I'm disputing placing the ISD's primary armament in such a way that it cannot superfire, especially if the mechanical considerations are less significant than that of a terrestrial battleship. Why not distribute the armament over the terraces or the slope of the hull in a pyramidal fashion such that all four turrets could fire directly forward over the fo'c's'le? There is an opportunity to exploit the dagger-shape of the ISD that is not exploited. Simply staggering the turrets further forward would place them more around the center-of-mass and permit a full alpha strike to be directed forward. Why not place armament on the ventral arc? Just because the armament is there, as you said, its not a huge volume or mass penalty, and not all the turrets need to be able to be fully-powered at once?

It has plenty of smaller guns itself; are you seriously expecting a mile-long ship to have such massive turrets relative to its length that they cannot be doubled up and mounted alongside its superstructure?

I have no issue with the relative scale of the guns; I do have an issue with the inefficient configuration of the guns relative to the shape of the vessel. Opportunities available are not exploited. The ISD-II in particular, its simply absurd that the turrets cannot be raised (or the superstructure lowered) such that they could have a broader line-of-sight. They literally built physical barriers around them.

[Coalition]

I hate how most of the time they have all or most of their guns on the dorsal part of the ship, so they cant hit anything beneath them with as much punch.

True, but it also means that they can bring all of their heavy guns to bear on a single capital target by dipping the nose, or rolling the ship. By having a designated 'side' (the bottom) be the weak point, and the top being the strong point, the Captain of an ISD knows to keep the top mostly towards an enemy, and the bottom away.

For broadsides, it means either you are among the enemy, and are exchanging fire at close range, or you had to turn to engage the enemy with your largest weapons from long range. Nothing wrong with either, it is just a design choice.

If ISDs are nimble enough compared to capital ships (Executor SSD, Mon Cal battleships), then they can get by with a narrow cone of fire, because they can easily turn to keep an enemy ship in sight. Larger ships would have broadsides, as they are expected to duel similar sized, lower maneuverability ships.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Extra weapons on the ventral arc are not large enough nor massive enough to incur significant penalities, as Mike pointed out. Furthermore, you are not limiting the firepower of the dorsal arc, because you can funnel all your reactor power through those guns if you wish.

Furthermore, larger ship = broadside does not make sense, because the ISD does not qualify as a large ship, by your own post.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not disputing the physical ability to mount them. I'm disputing placing the ISD's primary armament in such a way that it cannot superfire, especially if the mechanical considerations are less significant than that of a terrestrial battleship. Why not distribute the armament over the terraces or the slope of the hull in a pyramidal fashion such that all four turrets could fire directly forward over the fo'c's'le?

Why bother, since those guns aren't going to be firing at targets close enough to fly circles around the ship anyway? They're clearly meant for high-yield long-range gunnery, while the smaller guns hit closer targets. The 16" guns on a battleship can't depress to hit small close-range targets either; this doesn't make them an "inefficient" design. It only means that they are meant for a particular purpose, and don't work for some totally different purpose. I hate to break it to you but things are generally designed for a particular purpose, not to be ideal for whatever purpose you choose to throw at them.

These guns may be small relative to a truly huge vessel, but they're quite massive in absolute terms, and would simply not traverse quickly with accuracy.

There is an opportunity to exploit the dagger-shape of the ISD that is not exploited. Simply staggering the turrets further forward would place them more around the center-of-mass and permit a full alpha strike to be directed forward. Why not place armament on the ventral arc? Just because the armament is there, as you said, its not a huge volume or mass penalty, and not all the turrets need to be able to be fully-powered at once?

One could speculate all day, but there isn't enough information for that. But it wouldn't be hard to come up with theories; we know that the recoil from heavy guns is so large that it threatens the structural integrity of the ship without reinforcement fields. The ability to fire all eight turrets forward simultaneously may simply be unsustainable, so it would be totally pointless to design the ship in such a manner as to make this possible.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Of course, an element of this discussion is out-of-universe. I would've preferred to see an objectively better lay-out on the SW warships. Of course there exist ample possible excuses working in the blank spots in our knowledge in-universe of their technological issues.

[Darth Wong]

Of course, an element of this discussion is out-of-universe. I would've preferred to see an objectively better lay-out on the SW warships. Of course there exist ample possible excuses working in the blank spots in our knowledge in-universe of their technological issues.

You can't say something is "objectively better" without knowing a lot more about their design parameters and limitations.

[Havok]

How big are the big guns on an ISD compared to the guns they show on the DSI. Those seemed to rotate and fire with pretty good speed.

[Darwin]

It's a large caliber mass driver. That gives it good dual-purpose use, anti-ship broadsides, and with other guns in volley to create a 'flak curtain' in the overall defense of the ship, as opposed to engaging point targets.

As for the Venator's big dorsal hangar bay, it allows the ship to launch its total small craft complement very very quickly if it's not being directly threatened by guns heavy enough to pierce its shields, and it can launch via the ventral bay, albeit slower, if it's under fire. Aside from the complexity, it seems sound, though not a design that would be repeated after extensive battle experience brought the flaws to light to the designers.

Basically, it was an okay and initially impressive idea by designers who hadn't experienced real large scale space battles for a thousand years. I'm willing to cut it some slack.

[montypython]

One could speculate all day, but there isn't enough information for that. But it wouldn't be hard to come up with theories; we know that the recoil from heavy guns is so large that it threatens the structural integrity of the ship without reinforcement fields. The ability to fire all eight turrets forward simultaneously may simply be unsustainable, so it would be totally pointless to design the ship in such a manner as to make this possible.

For an adhoc design that may make sense, but for a purpose built combat vessel not having the ability to fire its entire main armament simultaneously would be the equivalent of a terrestrial battleship only capable of stagger fire, which would be a fatal liability against any equivalent ship with full salvo fire.

[Terralthra]

One could speculate all day, but there isn't enough information for that. But it wouldn't be hard to come up with theories; we know that the recoil from heavy guns is so large that it threatens the structural integrity of the ship without reinforcement fields. The ability to fire all eight turrets forward simultaneously may simply be unsustainable, so it would be totally pointless to design the ship in such a manner as to make this possible.

For an adhoc design that may make sense, but for a purpose built combat vessel not having the ability to fire its entire main armament simultaneously would be the equivalent of a terrestrial battleship only capable of stagger fire, which would be a fatal liability against any equivalent ship with full salvo fire.

And if we were talking about terrestrial battleships, that would be relevant. We're talking about ships whose design considerations we simply have almost no clue. We don't even know if a situation wherein an ISD would encounter an equivalently sized ship with the ability to salvo fire could even occur.

[montypython]

And if we were talking about terrestrial battleships, that would be relevant. We're talking about ships whose design considerations we simply have almost no clue. We don't even know if a situation wherein an ISD would encounter an equivalently sized ship with the ability to salvo fire could even occur.

Regardless of environmental setups there are still certain elements that remain fundamental in any situation, and sustainable high volume firepower is critical in any ranged battle. Being able to volley fire rapidly compared to staggered fire for equivalent ships, even if merely abstracted, is still a distinct advantage to have in terms of energy delivery.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Of course, an element of this discussion is out-of-universe. I would've preferred to see an objectively better lay-out on the SW warships. Of course there exist ample possible excuses working in the blank spots in our knowledge in-universe of their technological issues.

You can't say something is "objectively better" without knowing a lot more about their design parameters and limitations.

I meant pure layout, if I'm George Lucas and can fudge the rest.