ISD. A serious design flaw.

[Frank Hipper]

Yes it is, because the ventral side should never face an enemy capship.
If it does, the ISD's in deep shit anyway and might as well rotate to get out of it.

As Sea Skimmer pointed out earlier, ISDs were designed from a standpoint of superiority in the first place. Fine.
But that's a dangerous assumption, and as you pointed out, if an opponent gets in position to attack the soft underbelly (never more fitting) the possiblity exists for disaster. Designing with absolute superiority as your defense can blow up in your face if that superiority evaporates.

With the exception of the sailing ship-of-the line, every historical ship that I know of that has utilised a concentrated fire, limited arc weapons placement has been a dismal failure, most especially when cofronted with more flexible designs. Take the Japanese "battleship destroyers" of the Hashidate class. Or even better, the Russian gunboats of the Sivutch and Grozyashi classes.

[Jaded Masses]

What about taking advantage of a star destroyers pointyness? If you put [big] guns on the ventral and dorsal side then they can still bear forward and you can fire at targets above and below thus maximizing both advantages. should you wish to concentrate your fire you can roll your ship towards the one you want to destroy but still engage targets making a point to stay on opposite sides.

I thought this was the point to having a point (pyramid that is) on your starship.

Edit: "of" removed

[Kerneth]

Yes it is, because the ventral side should never face an enemy capship.
If it does, the ISD's in deep shit anyway and might as well rotate to get out of it.

As Sea Skimmer pointed out earlier, ISDs were designed from a standpoint of superiority in the first place. Fine.
But that's a dangerous assumption, and as you pointed out, if an opponent gets in position to attack the soft underbelly (never more fitting) the possiblity exists for disaster. Designing with absolute superiority as your defense can blow up in your face if that superiority evaporates.

With the exception of the sailing ship-of-the line, every historical ship that I know of that has utilised a concentrated fire, limited arc weapons placement has been a dismal failure, most especially when cofronted with more flexible designs. Take the Japanese "battleship destroyers" of the Hashidate class. Or even better, the Russian gunboats of the Sivutch and Grozyashi classes.

Let's face it. The Empire does have a history of assuming superiority in its dealings with other forces. From Grand Moff Tarkin not launching TIEs to deal with the Rebel Alliance fighter strike at Yavin, to the Emperor ordering his fleet to not engage the Rebels but to merely hold them in place for the Death Star to deal with them, to the EU where Thrawn doesn't concieve of the possibility that his Noghri bodyguard Ruhk might betray him, to the Remnant Moffs assuming that the Yuuzhan Vong wouldn't dare attack the Remnant. The Empire, as a government, is enormously prone to making mistakes due to arrogance--a trait that starts with its highest ranking officers and trickles on down to the common soldiers.

Ultimately, it was that arrogance in dealing with NonHuMans, and the way the Empire handled the Rebel Alliance, that caused the government to be overthrown and driven into a mere corner of the galaxy. It's not really surprising that they might design a capital ship with the expressly-held belief in the Empire's ability to defeat any and all enemies due solely to its innate superiority over non-Imperials. Also keep in mind that prior to the fall of the Old Republic and the rise of the Empire, nobody had constructed purely-combat oriented warships in millenium. A few design flaws are hardly surprising in those circumstances, any more than in the passenger-liner-converted-to-warship Mon Calamari Cruisers.

[Master of Ossus]

But forcing an opponent to to roll can be exploited in multi-ship engagements. Present a tempting target on one arc, roll your ship and expose blind spots to another opponent.

Obviously, whenever you're designing weapons layouts of starships, you have to maintain a balance between concentration of firepower and coverage. The ISD was designed to bombard planets into submission, and at that job its weapons layout would be EXTREMELY efficient, and would protect its hangar from weapons fire from the ground. At the same time, it does make it more vulnerable to large numbers of smaller ships. On the other hand, such ships are generally not considered to be a significant risk to ISD's, as the ISD is so much larger and more powerful in the first place. Obviously, Imperial command decided that the trade-off was worth it, when it designed the starship.

[Master of Ossus]

Yes it is, because the ventral side should never face an enemy capship.
If it does, the ISD's in deep shit anyway and might as well rotate to get out of it.

As Sea Skimmer pointed out earlier, ISDs were designed from a standpoint of superiority in the first place. Fine.
But that's a dangerous assumption, and as you pointed out, if an opponent gets in position to attack the soft underbelly (never more fitting) the possiblity exists for disaster. Designing with absolute superiority as your defense can blow up in your face if that superiority evaporates.

Not really. The ISD is meant to be able to be the smallest and most economical ship possible that can subdue an entire planet. Larger ships, such as the Allegiance class and Executor class are designed more properly for fleet battles. I think it's important to remember that the ISD was never designed to be the largest and most powerful Imperial ship in existence, much less the most powerful one in the Galaxy. It was designed to be an exceptionally versatile ship with the ability to put down an entire world. I don't think it was designed with absolute superiority in mind--ships like the Allegiance and Executor classes were designed to do that--rather, it was meant as a relatively fast and powerful ship, capable of eliminating small planetary defense fleets made up of a few picket ships (ie. Carrack cruisers), and starfighters which can't really harm something that large, anyway.

[Mad]

ISDs also have various weapons scattered all over the hull, including ventral locations, to help handle any smaller ships that can sneak their way around to under an ISD. So it's not like Star Destroyers are completely defenseless down there...

[Sea Skimmer]

. At the same time, it does make it more vulnerable to large numbers of smaller ships. On the other hand, such ships are generally not considered to be a significant risk to ISD's, as the ISD is so much larger and more powerful in the first place.

Even if combine they are a threat, rapidly destroying them one after the other with concentrated firepower will bring better results then engaging all of them at once.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

What about taking advantage of a star destroyers pointyness? If you put [big] guns on the ventral and dorsal side then they can still bear forward and you can fire at targets above and below thus maximizing both advantages. should you wish to concentrate your fire you can roll your ship towards the one you want to destroy but still engage targets making a point to stay on opposite sides.

I thought this was the point to of having a point (pyramid that is) on your starship.

Unfortunately, the slope of an ISD is not that steep. Look at a diagram or picture of it. It is pointy. But the dorsal and ventral sides are sloped at perhaps 5 degrees (eyeball, you can use a protractor but I doubt it'll be much more.) So at most, you can depress the dorsal guns to about five degrees (unless you superelevate them, but then recoil might a problem) and the ventral guns can "elevate" to point above level perhaps 5 degrees before the hull gets into the way.

So now, instead of having the benefit of full octuple HTL power over about 60 degrees of elevation (a few degrees above level to let them clear each other, and then all the way to the maximum elevation of the gun) you only have about 10 degrees. If the target is more than 5 degrees below your ship's centerline, you can't use the dorsal guns because they'll start hitting the ship from being depressed that low. The ventral guns stop working at 5 degrees positive elevation, because they'll start hitting the hull too

[JodoForce]

I think the most important point is, is it possible for targets that HTLs are meant for (huge ships) to constantly stay out of the target zone of the HTLs by manoeuvring? If their intended targets do indeed have such manoeuvrability then you have a problem, but I would contend that they do not, especially in the space combat environment.

The idea is to cover as large as possible a firing cone with full firepower, and the current design does that admirably.

HTLs are not for defense, unless you're thinking in terms of 'attack is the best form of defense', in which case the goal is to eliminate your enemies as quickly as possible before they can do any real harm to your ship.

Having a wide firing cone already ensures that the ISD be able to subdue one ship as quickly as possible and then move on to the next as quickly as possible.

Having a few HTLs on your underside will not stop a determined foe from pressing the attack, from a direction where you should not be facing the enemy with anyway.

The best way to protect your Achille's heel, given that you can turn it away and face your enemy with your strong side later, is to have heavier passive defenses until you can turn around to deal with the enemy.

[JodoForce]

By the way, the reason why naval ships can have such apparently wide coverage with their main guns is because they're fighting at sea, not space If the deck of the ship were completely flat it could even have 100% coverage in all directions... but it still would have 0% coverage on its underside Basically something like the ISD's design. I think if faced with the tradeoffs of spaceship design, current naval warship designers would design something like the ISD too

Of course, if you could just place MORE guns on the underside instead of shifting the current guns around, that would be welcome

[Howedar]

Unfortunately, the slope of an ISD is not that steep. Look at a diagram or picture of it. It is pointy. But the dorsal and ventral sides are sloped at perhaps 5 degrees (eyeball, you can use a protractor but I doubt it'll be much more.) So at most, you can depress the dorsal guns to about five degrees (unless you superelevate them, but then recoil might a problem) and the ventral guns can "elevate" to point above level perhaps 5 degrees before the hull gets into the way.

So now, instead of having the benefit of full octuple HTL power over about 60 degrees of elevation (a few degrees above level to let them clear each other, and then all the way to the maximum elevation of the gun) you only have about 10 degrees. If the target is more than 5 degrees below your ship's centerline, you can't use the dorsal guns because they'll start hitting the ship from being depressed that low. The ventral guns stop working at 5 degrees positive elevation, because they'll start hitting the hull too

This is all true, but you're only taking into account the vertical axis slope. The slope of the horizontal axis is (wild-ass guess) more like 10-15 degrees each side.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Side to side it is somewhat steeper. I'm talking about a bow target, though, to simplify why his idea doesn't work that well. The hull doesn't permit much yaw (port or starboard) deviation from the bow before they mask the guns in their current configuration again.

The best idea (not counting recoil and power distribution problems) would be to put all the guns dorsal, but on the centerline and one line from front to back, then space them out so the natural slope of the ship allows them to superfire each other. That way, you get about -5 to (max elevation of gun) degrees in bow fire. You can maintain full fire even in broadside configuration (you get a few more degrees of depression in broadside too,) up to perhaps 150 degrees of yaw either way when you'd start hitting the bridge tower.

[Peregrin Toker]

ISDs also have various weapons scattered all over the hull, including ventral locations, to help handle any smaller ships that can sneak their way around to under an ISD. So it's not like Star Destroyers are completely defenseless down there...

And what about the fighters?? The TIE-Fighters aboard the ISD can protect exposed areas.

[Frank Hipper]

ISDs also have various weapons scattered all over the hull, including ventral locations, to help handle any smaller ships that can sneak their way around to under an ISD. So it's not like Star Destroyers are completely defenseless down there...

And what about the fighters?? The TIE-Fighters aboard the ISD can protect exposed areas.

The point I'm trying to make is the MAIN battery has poor firing arcs. Secondary and smaller point defense weapons and fighter contingents make for a a decidedly smaller punch.

As Ossus pointed out, though, for orbital bombardment, you don't need a clear field of fire. I was operating under the assumption that ISDs were general purpose ships, not pure assault platforms.

[JodoForce]

Each HTL by itself have fine firing arcs, it's just that their firing arcs all happen to mostly overlap...

Points you need to address:
1. Can targets worthy of HTLs manoeuvre away from their current firing arcs?

2. Is it more important to cover all quarters and all targets than to defeat each target more rapidly?

3. Value of having a few guns down there to engage your enemy at say 30% firepower as opposed to having to roll 180 deg and then engaging at 100% firepower, and presenting a tougher side at that?

After all it's not as if your enemy would stop firing at your belly as soon as you bring one or two HTLs to bear...

4. While modern warships may be able to cover their rear with 30-50% of their firepower they are also able to engage with 100% firepower in a wide arc. If it's a choice between having 30% firepower at the rear and 70% elsewhere in front or having 0% at the rear and 100% elsewhere, what would you choose? What if your ship happen to be able to rotate 180 degrees in half a minute?

[Lord Pounder]

The arrogance is high in the Inperial Navy. And to be honest untill the arrival of the Mon Cal Cruisers no ship could stand toe-to-to with an ISD therefore whats the point in changing the lay out massivley. ISD's where built as a scare weapon. The whole Tarkin Doctrine conprised of fear through threat of force, and untill the Death Star, the ISD was that ultimate threat. Numerous sources show that the ISD was built to fight off entire planatary defences single handed. By Old Republic terms the ISD is a fleet on it's own and it was configured exactly for that.

[Jaded Masses]

Unfortunately, the slope of an ISD is not that steep. Look at a diagram.........

Conceded, but I would say that the poor slope on the bottem is also a design flaw, and that by putting a protective cowl around the docking bay it wouldn't be any less protected would the slope be steeper.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I don't think that ISD's use their HTLs for anything but to destroy or severly damage ships/onboard systems, considering that it's probably more common for them to engage ships that aren't on the same shielding and firepower scale as themselves.

They probably only break out the big guns when they're up agaisnt the big boys like Mon Cals, and only when they want to blow them out of the ether.

[Peregrin Toker]

ISDs also have various weapons scattered all over the hull, including ventral locations, to help handle any smaller ships that can sneak their way around to under an ISD. So it's not like Star Destroyers are completely defenseless down there...

And what about the fighters?? The TIE-Fighters aboard the ISD can protect exposed areas.

The point I'm trying to make is the MAIN battery has poor firing arcs. Secondary and smaller point defense weapons and fighter contingents make for a a decidedly smaller punch.

As Ossus pointed out, though, for orbital bombardment, you don't need a clear field of fire. I was operating under the assumption that ISDs were general purpose ships, not pure assault platforms.

Remember that external weapons require massive internal power feeds, layer systems to absorb recoil and so on. In order to have heavy batteries on the underside of the ship, you'd probably have to build the ship a great deal bigger in order to accomodate for not only a bigger power plant, but also aforementioned recoil-absorption infrastructure and similar stuff.

(I largely got this opinion from this page:
http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/deckplan/d ... ml#weapons)

[RTN]

An ISD can dip forward slightly to bring it's other HTL turrets into a viable firing arc.

That's not very practical when you are trying to gain a locational advantage. Sure, it drastically increases firepower per target, but it negates an already limited mobility if you have to move the entire ship to bring more guns to bear. Rolling helps because it doesnt stop you from going forward, but re-angling your pitch would -- unless ISD's can perform sliding movements.

[JodoForce]

Any ship in space is able to slide / strafe / what-have-you by default. The movie producers like to make things look 'good' by eliminating it.

[vakundok]

Any ship in space is able to slide / strafe / what-have-you by default. The movie producers like to make things look 'good' by eliminating it.

You are right. But. Since the filmmakers eliminate it, it is canon that they canot.
The actual arrangement of the main turrets is not a serious problem for a combat situation which does not require the maximum speed or maneouverability of the ISD. When the situation requires theese it is a flaw.

[Frank Hipper]

The actual arrangement of the main turrets is not a serious problem for a combat situation which does not require the maximum speed or maneouverability of the ISD. When the situation requires theese it is a flaw.

It actually requires speed and manouverability to overcome the siting of those turrets. Unless you're engaging something stationary.

[RTN]

Any ship in space is able to slide / strafe / what-have-you by default. The movie producers like to make things look 'good' by eliminating it.

Um... sorry, but no. A ship if it was pushed by something else (like getting slammed by a broadside, or using its own manuvering thrusters that actually allow for lateral thrust) can slide / strafe. Best case scenaro the ISD hurls itself forward, perfoms a sharp turn -- causing it to fly backwards because its mass is to high to redirect its net direction right away. Unless I see some sort of manuvering jets, port/starboard/ventral/dorsal engine assembly, or they claim inertialist of gravimetric drives the ISD cannot controllably slide or strafe. The only visible engines on an ISD are aft.

[RTN]

The only visible engines on an ISD are aft.

The only ones big enough to provide the necessary propulsion anyway.