I think imperial fleet tactics tended to have patrol and escort cruisers guarding the star destroyers' aft sections. The big thing to remember is that these may be military vessels, but they're mainly meant to fight against rebel(with a lowercase 'R") elements, pirates, and smuggers. Most of the time, a single star destroyer is enough. It wasn't until the rebel alliance really put up a huge fight where they really had to focus on using more than one star destroyer, IIRC.
In historical naval terminology, a cruiser was a ship that was to operate independently. The type, over time, got bigger until the introduction of the dreadnought battleship. Which cruisers came to rivial as, you guessed it, battlecruisers. (Cruiser size, speed, and armor with battleship sized guns). Battleships ruled until air power from carriers made them obsolete. A star destroyer, combines all of these functions, battlecruiser and carrier. Since the SW universe does have carriers, and small warships such as frigates and corvettes do not normally carry many or any starfighters, it logically follows that star destroyers are intended to be able to operate independently and are thus correctly termed cruisers. But ships roles are not exactly like from real life in the star wars universe since they seem to rely mostly on capital ships like cruisers and battleships and lots of starfighters. You don't really see any escorts, destroyers, etc. to protect the fleet. And Resurrected Starships is correct, the ship is designed to maximize its firepower towards a single point (the bow) for use on stationary targets, like planetary defense stations and planets themselves. The Empire needed lots of ships of this type to be able to suppress unruly planets and the star destoryer is designed with occupation and suppression in mind, not fleet actions. Which makes sense since the Empire was really uncontested in the galaxy.
but the SD is a bad design to fight Pirates or Rebels. we just established that its better suitet as a duell ship and brawling with enemy capital ships over a big distance (not that we ever see that in the movies), and its anti figther capabilities are supposed to be rather limited (wich is pretty dumb, it would be easy to add more and/or better anti fighter weapons). a star destroyer is better suited to operate in combination with other ships. it is not a Battlestar, wich are more capable of withstanding more diverse situations on their own. also the most Imperial commander don´t seem to umderstand what their ships excell at.
I beg to differ that a Star Destroyer isn't like a Battlestar. And any ship will perform better with support, no matter what the role for which it is intended. And in SW they do use corvettes and frigates for patrol and anti-piracy operations. The Nebulon-B escort frigate is one such vessel. Starfighters, are also for force projection and they are dangerous even to capital ships, no point defense is impervious, and it is always better to try to shoot down enemy bombers and fighters before you need to rely on your point defense.
(3:55) I was just going to say the same thing! :P Other than that, great video! :) Reference: vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/3/3f/Imperial_Star_Destroyer_schematics.jpg
Star Destroyers were meant to operate in groups. And their combat movement in fleet formation was always tip-to-tail opposing formation. There are several scenes in the movies showing groups of SD's moving in opposite directions while engaged in combat. This would eliminate the aft SD vulnerability.
True, but a staggered line, in both plans, would also allow SD to move in the same direction and focus their fire on the same target while still being able to cover each other's flanks and aft, at least to some degree. Escorts would be preferable.
Interesting... Have supporting ships use weapons too small to harm the Star destroyer to "hose it down" when enemy fighters are skimming the surface... Kinda like how tanks will hose down another friendly tank when it's being swarmed by infantry.
I believe that's close to how the Lancer Frigates were supposed to be employed. Covering the big ISDs from fighters, while sitting under the protective umbrella of those ships' guns and physical size. Naturally such positions would inevitably lead to hitting the ISDs, but good thing the Lancers only really had a lot of starfighter sized laser cannons.
From my research on this (as i have always been bothered by the lack of any imperial ships other than the ISD in the films) i have discovered that a ISD usually had a Battle squadron formed around it. A Battle squadron was made up of 1 Star destroyer, 2 attack lines, 1 pursuit line an attack line consisted of 3 heavy cruisers or 6 light cruisers or frigates. these ships would ships like the Vindicator class heavy cruiser, the Carrack class light cruiser or the Lancer class frigate. a pursuit line consisted of 4 to 10 Corvette's, ships like the Raider class or the Vigil class The Battle squadron makes up for the glaring flaws in the ISD design with smaller faster ships protecting its weak areas and (depending on configurations) acting as a fighter screen leaving the TIE/LN's and IN's free to escort the TIE/sa Bombers Now tbh i can understand why we never get to see these ships, budget cost and such, but I also believe that if we saw an imperial fleet as it should have been, star destroyers with support vessels, that the rebel scum would never have had a chance for victory, As in the star wars X-wing book series it is mentioned that while the lancer class frigate is slow and easily out run by small fighters it was considered death for multiple fighter squadrons to try to take out 1 lancer class frigate, My sources are, Imperial Sourcebook, Second Edition, Star Wars: Imperial Handbook: A Commander's Guide, and starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
You see how effective star destroyers are when they have the element of surprise in rogue one. Instantly firing as it emerges. tearing the unprepared ships apart.
Inge Merete Hansen I think it was a Vader tactic to attack instantly after they got out of Hyperspace. I think Thrawn's and Vader's tactics are very different Thrawn tried to make it impossible for ships to escape while Vader are taking huge risks like in Rogue one and he also used tactics by taking big risks like when he used the Cloaked Ship against Trench
chris pearson No, the star destroyer had absolutely 0 point defense weapons. It has been mentioned in multiple videos by many star wars lore people, it's on the wiki, I know it was in the EU books and am pretty sure it's mentioned somewhere in the thrawn book. They relied solely on their ties and support ships for anti-fighter. The star destroyer was a great design but it was in the wrong situation. The entire imperial fleet doctrine was based on ships that would cause fear and fighting other capital ships. This would have been fine if say the chiss or hard had attacked them but the rebel alliance had very few capital ships and weren't willing to risk losing them in open warfare except for something critical like scarif or endor. That's why the rebels did so well, their strength was the empire's main weakness, starfighters.
chris pearson Look. You can believe whatever you want to believe in your own head canon but in both official and legends canon, the ISDs have no point defense weaponry and the ISD II is actually slightly larger than the ISD I. (Side note, where did you get the idea that the film's show the ISD II is smaller than the ISD I? They use he exact same model for both ships.)
Daniel Kottcamp That's insane. Especially given how much damage fighters can, apparently, do to Star Destroyers. Removing the point defense from ISD II would be like stripping all the AA guns off a WWII battleship and relying just on fighters to protect not only themselves, but friendly carriers, from bombers, torpedo planes, or even worse, Kamikaze. I keep having to say this, but it's like the Empire was designed to be defeated by the Rebels.
Two major flaws: 1) misidentification of the shield system: the highlighted ship elements are *not* shield generators or shield projectors, they are comms, sensors, nav modules, and related functions; and 2) star destroyers are actually quite fast and agile, especially for their size - they have difficulty outmaneuvering very small ships, like light freighters and starfighters, but they're perfectly capable of virtually swiveling about in place, given a competent command and crew. Additionally, while the hind quarter of a Star Destroyer is relatively undefended (as is the underside - the weapons array is actually aimed at a top-forward arc), except for the engine wash, these quarters can be effectively covered in pairs, by orienting the primary arc to cover the auxiliary arc of the other ship. Ideally, the Star Destroyer will keep its top-forward arc facing the enemy, while launching fighters into relative safety, where they can group into formations and flight schedules. These errors are entirely forgivable though, since they stem from bad data that has so ubiquitously permeated the net, due to the careless observations of fans, compounded by the inattentive attitudes of the toy companies, and the subsequent feedback into Star Wars games, and even movies (Lucas actually gave these things considerable thought for Ep.IV, but somewhat less thought went into the sequels).
You sound just a bit biased there! Anyway, onto my equally biased, dumb ramblings: So if what you're saying is incorrect/contradicted according to movies, toys and games, than it isn't canon. I'll paste an excerpt of a comment of mine from a different video: "When the Executor's "RADAR"(as you claim, with minor evidence. Also, there's even a page about the supposed inconsistency on Wookiepedia with only a few shreds of evidence starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sensor_globe ) tower gets destroyed, this exchange happens: "CONTROLLER : Sir, we've lost our bridge deflector shield." So they were probably intended to be RADAR towers originally because they look just like them, but in all other instances like the canon comics and cartoons, they're shield generators. Maybe they do both, and Star Destroyers are known have sensors scattered everywhere already anyway." *-End of excerpt* So what you're saying about the shield generators is probably not canon, because comics, toys, movies, cartoons, and games, many of which are canon, claim those do generate the shields for a star destroyer. So they most definitely are shield generators, you're *wrong* about that if you're claiming otherwise, as you're blatantly contradicting known canon. Did you know the original Emperor in Episode 5 looked like a damned ape! I guess that MUST be canon as they, and I quote: "stem from bad data that has so ubiquitously permeated the net, due to the careless observations of fans, compounded by the inattentive attitudes of the toy companies, and the subsequent feedback into Star Wars games, and even movies." So I guess even though in every other release besides the theatrical one, the Emperor looks completely different and has a way better voice, that somehow isn't canon. According to your logic, I guess all depictions of the Emperor were wrong the entire time! WORSHIP THE APE-PEROR! I just want to see why you're going against canon here, it's bad logic if you accept the emperor the way he looks in every depiction but yet you claim the shield generators aren't shield generators!. *Okay, sorry, I shouldn't be such an asshole!* Could I see a source/evidence for 1.6 km long ships being maneuverable and swiveling, that sounds cool. I'd like to read/watch a clip of that. What do you mean when you say "except for the engine wash, these quarters can be effectively covered in pairs, by orienting the primary arc to cover the auxiliary arc of the other ship." Do you mean a Star Destroyer causing mass friendly fire by acting as point defense due to turbolasers being much more powerful than a starfighter's, subsequently tearing through the shields of his ally? Ion weaponry, such as what's commonly found on Y-wings could be an amazing counter to that, in addition to it's main role as a bomber. Ion torpedoes or other ion support fire would be a great utility as well. Longer range, or if you're desperate, snubfighters delivering large volleys of proton torpedoes or concussion missiles could wreak havoc on the point defense roles, doubly so with ion torpedoes mixed in. Try performing an Ackbar Slash so the enemy devastates their own shield for you! I'll quote an excerpt from Armond436 Link to their full comment: www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceFiction/comments/3jqt5l/star_wars_describe_some_tactics_of_space_ship/curreej/ "Against a capital ship, you can have a squadron of 12 snubfighters unload torpedoes on one shielded side. Have a pair make runs at the ship, dodging turbolaser fire along the way; they transmit their lock telemetry to the rest of the squadron, then everyone times their (dual-linked, if possible) proton torpedo launches to land at the same time. This gives a better chance to penetrate shields and hit critical systems in the hull (for example, shield generators, turbolaser batteries, or the bridge). Repeat with new ships that have fresh shields until everyone's out of torps" [sic, torpedoes] ... "To counter overwhelming odds in a capital ship battle, Admiral Ackbar used the "Ackbar Slash", where he ran at moderate to high speed between two Star Destroyers focusing fire on him. Their gunners couldn't rotate fast enough to keep up with his cruiser and caused a lot of damage through friendly fire. Within all this, snubfighters play a significant role: bomber-type ships help focus fire on the primary shield target, while dogfighters defend against enemy bombers. In addition, dogfighters can get under the guns of a capital ship (which will only depress so far) and try to get some damage in. Oh yeah, and there was that time when Rogue Squadron (or maybe it was Wraith Squadron?) placed a "tick" on top of the command tower of a Star Destroyer, which just got up and blew apart the shield generators when everyone was ready. Concentrated turbolaser or especially ion fire on an engine system can force a target to surrender their ship to your side.". *-End of excerpt* All that really matters here is the objective, what are both sides trying to do. A defensive posture would be very useful if a Star Destroyer fleet is fighting in planetary orbit for example. But relying on TIEs to defend your Star Destroyer would be much better if you want to annihilate in interdicted rebel fleet that can't use hyperspace. The wall formation is a great idea for capital ships that are just bombarding a target. I'll excerpt the "Wall" formation from a Homeworld Formations guide, I think it's somewhat relevant here at least. Link to the guide discussing uses for the "Claw" or "Sphere" formation(I'd say Homeworld tactics are relevant to Star Wars: www.rakrent.com/rtsc/html/hw7.htm "Think of this either as an artillery line in space or a useful way to organise small groups of bigger ships. Wall formations are primarily designed to unleash a vast amount of concentrated firepower in a specific direction. As a result they're often used with Capital ships or Heavy Corvettes, since these slower moving ship classes can concentrate on just shooting stuff rather than wasting time getting into position. Since there aren't any ships in Homeworld with really long ranges, walls have to move into the action most of the time. Some players set they're walled ships to Evasive and hand-pick their targets. Ships set to Aggressive tend to get distracted by whatever attacks them - not a desirable situation in a slow moving wall. A wall with only less than half a dozen members in it those is fairly concentrated, and a convenient way to group a few ships together. There's also a limit to just how big a wall can be before it starts becoming too cumbersome; capital ships in particular have a habit of becoming widely space when in position. Walls with many ships can get so big that ships on the periphery are simply out of firing range for much of the time and the formation will start meandering as vessels try to get into range. Wall formations can be devastating, but things can get muddled very quickly if the formation suddenly gets flanked and has to suddenly move around and defend itself. Initiative can be quickly lost and leave many ships disadvantaged as they find themselves blocked by their fellows beside them, or worse, getting hit by friendly fire traveling lengthwise along the wall. Like any heavy position, it will need escorts, defenders and due vigilance." *-End of excerpt* *The tactic you suggested is a very useful one in some circumstances, and bad in others. This whole post (minus the bit about the fact shield generators are, in fact, shield generators) was basically saying CONTEXT FOR THE BATTLE MATTERS A LOT! What do you and the enemy have and what are you trying to do?* I'd be happy to discuss space stuff. Hooray for TH-cam comment character limits anyway!
From what I've understood of the design, the dome ok the lower hull was because of the large main reactor, and the needed armor to protect it. Though a third shield generator to help bolster defense would make a good use too.
the domes on the bridge, 1 for bridge and the other is for the ship. the domes themselves are not protected by the shields. the bottom dome is the main reactor.
shield emitters are scattered all across the hull, the domes are sensors domes but they also have a concentration of shield emitter vanes, so they make a good target in either case. Blinding a ship is just as good as taking nearby shields out. I dunno why they's want their reactor hanging outside the ship were it could get shot.
I read this "On the underside of the very tip of the ISD was the navigational deflector generator." from wookipedia - I may have misunderstood this to mean the bottom of the underside dome!
They are actually sensor domes according to behind the scene information. That's why they are located on the top of the ship. Pretty much every ship in Star Wars has its sensors on the top.
"I dunno why they's want their reactor hanging outside the ship were it could get shot". Because ISDs has oversized reactors for its size, giving them superior firepower and shields compared to other ships of its size.
I'd like to see a video on General Battle Tactics Of The Empire. A reenactment of various space battles. Most of the space battles in the movies don't really give an indication of strategy, it's usually just short takes, chaos, a scrambled mess with no apparent strategy to speak of. If you did a mini series on a variety of space battle strategies, that would be a first because no one has done that before. How did the a Empire go about conquering so many world's before it was vanquished by the rebels?
If I recall my old tech manual correctly, that ventral dome is actually the armoured housing of the massive main reactor which powers all those guns! Nice to see an analysis which pays attention to that massive blind spot in the rear. Too many folks fanboy out and forget it's even there!
very rarely would a single ISD be involved in a fight where its weaknesses would be taken advantage of....ships thats size are expensive and require alot of material and time to build....most star destroyers if not working in concert with multiple other ISDs would have a compliment of frigates and corvettes, such as the lancer, for anti starfighter and anti bomber roles...and smaller cruisers like the ones seen in Rebels most of which could either have internal docking bays or exterior Tie racks, but due to the fact that prior to the destruction of the death star the imperial navy didn't consider star fighters a threat...meaning the ISD did not have a point defense system.....there were a few hundred heavy laser emplacements but no anti-star fighter blaster banks....and i remember the ISD having alot more than 60 turbo lasers....it was closer to 4 or 5 THOUSAND....we are talking about a ship thats a MILE LONG!!! their were turbo laser turrets all along the sides as well as the top and bottom sections of the hull and front and back of the command tower...those 6 big gun enplacements along the sides of the raised deck were just the Ion cannons.....just one star destroyer was capable of wiping out all traces of civilization from orbit...hell even a much smaller ex-republic sith destroyer the leviathon was able to render a good chunk of Taris uninhabitable and that was over 3000 years before the ISD came around.....they were also equipped with proton torpedo emplacements, not many but they were there.....i don't know where this 60 turbo laser emplacement number came from but it is way off
brett harvey Your off with turbo lasers, the big number you are thinking of would pertain to the new Resurgent Battle cruiser but the ISD 1 had 60 turbo lasers and 60 ion guns and some other stuff. The ISD 2 has 50 heavy, 50 regular turbo laser batteries and 20 ion guns (again plus extra stuff) but no where near a thousand
Actually, this is highly debatable, while the ISD doesn't have 5,000 turbolasers, there is something to note and it is that the ISD's weapons (many of them) are listed not as individual turrets but as "Batteries" which is a term for a grouping of guns operating as a unit. At minimum there would be four, some go as high as twelve or beyond that even, depending on the nation and time period. Suddenly, going by the 60-90 (disputed) "Batteries" listed on the ISD-I, it doesn't have just 60-90 turbolasers, more like 240-360, same with the allotted Ion Cannon "Batteries" This is further extrapolated on the ISD-II which had about 120 assorted "Batteries" leading up to over 500 turbolasers in exchange for having basically no point defense network This doesn't include the Superheavy guns lining either side of the bridge superstructure of both models. 6 Dual Superheavy XX-10's and a pair of Superheavy Ion Cannons on the ISD-I and 8 Octuple Barbettes on the ISD-II
One major disadvantage you forgot is how exposed the bridge is. The huge bridge structure of the Imperial and Victory class Star Destroyers and all variants is how large and prominent the bridge is. While having such a huge bridge can be imposing, it's also essentially like having a big flashing weak point on your ship, Star Fox style. One thing that's neat about both the Ascendancy Star Destroyer from Legends and the First Order's Resurgent-class Star Destroyer from canon is the reduced profile bridge - on the Ascendancy Star Destroyer, the bridge is located at the front of the superstructure, and on the Resurgence Class it's located right on top of the superstructure. These bridges are far more protected by the ship's hull.
I guess that's a weakpoint the empire is willing to overlook. There are few ships that are able to really do damage to a stardestroyer, so being imposing was probably the more important design aspect. Makes sense for the first order to have that problem fixed though. They have to rely a lot more on the power of a single ship instead of sheer quantity.
True but even if the bridge is destroyed the guns would still be firing at you. Just like the old battleships. I mean yeah you could kamikaze into the very exposed bridge but those massive turrets are still kicking and firing. You would have to do some very serious damage to an ISD before you can all it a non-threat. Either that of the captains just have titanic balls that say "I'm in an ISD. Come and get me!"
it's not just an imperial design flaw but one that is seen in most star wars ship designs. most, if not all, of them have the bridge either on top of the main superstructure or in/near the bow or elsewhere along the surface of the ship. to me it seems as if the SW ship designers are convinced the pilots need to have a front window to see through in order to maneuver their ships properly, whereas logic should tell you that the bridge should be best placed somewhere deep inside the ship, since the flying/piloting is done with Instrument-/sensor-assistance anyway
@@clefsan It's a common sci-fi flaw. Babylon 5 does it, Star trek does it. (And it makes even less sense there, since JJverse nonsense aside, the bridges of Star Trek vessels don't even have windows in any real sense.) Quite why it's designed this way so often in sci-fi... I do know from background information that when TNG was being the developed, the original concept sketch that the Galaxy class ship derives from had no obvious bridge on the model, with the designer reasoning it would be in the centre of the ship, where it's most protected. However, this was vetoed by other people (again, not sure why). Instead, you find the computer core in the location you'd think the bridge would've been...
According to the ship cutaway images that I've seen that dome on the bottom is the ejection port for its primary Solar Ionization Reactor, it's not a shield generator.
To me, a Star Destroyer looks like a giant slice of pizza. LOL! I wouldn't be surprised if George Lucas, or the other ones who designed the Star Destroyer had pizza on their mind when designing it.
The Imperial Star Destroyers didn't have missile batteries? Surely one way to deal with pesky enemy fighters is fire a salvo of guided missiles. I recall the ISDs had missiles in the old Xwing vs TIE Fighter PC game. But they were slow and could be shot out of the sky.
The bulge on the bottom is the lower armour of the main reactor sphere. It is not a shield generator. The ISD was designed around the largest reactor they could find without it becoming unpractical. Which is also why is needs an extensive superstructure, since there is not a lot of room left in the hull for offices and workstations.
One of the issues with it is having all of its heavy guns on the dorsal hull. It means if an enemy in a head-to-head engagement dives below it (from the star destroyer's own reference frame), it's then below the horizon of the main guns, and the whole ship would need to be pitched or rolled to try keeping them locked on. It might actually be a good idea for pairs of ISDs to cover each other by flying belly to belly.
the thing underneath the ISD you have in this video when you talk about shields is not a shield generator.. it is a solar ionization chamber. I'm glad you chose ISDs to talk about i wish you did more reading..but the graphics are pretty awesome.
This is HIGHLY generalised and mostly inaccurate information. ISD I and II were not designed with point defense lasers. The movies and new canon books confirm this. ISDs typically operate with Gozanti and Arquitens-class light cruiser escorts to help make up for the lack of point defense lasers and rely heavily on their TIE fighters to screen against enemy starfighters. This is especially apparent in the novel "Thrawn" where even the Arquitens-class cruisers had difficulty dealing with swarming fighters without TIE fighter help. In the movie "Rouge One", Y-wings from Gold Squadron demonstrated just how vulnerable ISDs are to fighter attack where a group of three landed disabling hits causing the destroyer to lose control and cause a chain reaction of collisions. ISDs were designed primarily to pound the living dog shit out of cruiser sized ships commonly employed by outer rim pirate groups and to bombard planetary targets. Beyond that, they served as a means of projecting the Tarkin Doctrine across the galaxy and were generally glass cannons if caught alone and unawares.
the claim that the wedge shape allows all the guns to focus forward at a single target is false as well.. while the hull is wedge shaped and ought to allow that, the main gun turrets are not placed to follow the wedge shape or with different elevations, meaning that turrets farther aft cannot turn to face forward without another turret blocking its Line of fire. much like casemate turrets on pre-dreadnaught warships before ww1. it is notable that we *never* see those guns used to fire foreward, instead seeing lighter guns fired from locations within the raised deck superstructure and within the edge trench of the wedge. (even the Venator which used a similar main turret placement did not use them for forward firepower) the main turret placement is one designed for broadside operation, again similar to pre-dreadnaught warships. firepower is focused to the side and meant for gunnery duels as you pass a target or while 'crossing the T". however we never see an ISD actually employ such tactics, instead they invariably taker an aggressive front on posture in front of behind their target. indicating that Imperial commander's don;t really understand how to fight ships of comparable size and power. (their lighter forward guns would suffice for dealing with most civilian, pirate, and rebel craft which rarely exceed cruiser size prior to the the events of Scarif, a small fraction of an ISD's size and power.)
I’m not sure if I would call Star Destroyers glass cannons. They were vulnerable to fighters yes, but they were still extremely durable, and were able to take a pounding.
Those two faceted spheres above the bridge are not shield generators. It just so happened that one of those spheres was destroyed at the same time we saw someone on the bridge say: "sir! We just lost our bridge deflector shields." It was the explosion that got the person on the bridge to check the ship's systems and give a quick damage report to the admiral.
While I agree that the wall-formation is pretty effective against single targets a horizontal formation (call it plane for lack of a better term) is fairly effective in a defensive role when smaller support vessels are for some reason not available. The reason is that overlapping fields of fire allow these big ships to significantly better provide covering fire to one another without a lot of maneuvering being necessary. Plus any attacker would need to either spend significant amounts of time flying around the entire formation to get behind it - or face devastating crossfire in an attempt to get streight through the formation.
I think of them as having more of a planetary role. If you have the planet behind the SD, then you need to have something behind you that can be washed in heat and radiation if you decide you need to move. Also, the underhung entry for the fighters means that you can set up with your bay pointing planetward and send stuff down and take it back up.
Skimming the hull also allows fighters to bypass the shields, since the generators are perched high above the main hull. [You can even see this in the beginning of The Force Awakens, when Poe and Finn are able to shoot a destroyer's turrets while up close]
shadowslayer205 I don’t think that’s battle cruisers shields were online though. It was in a backwater system and had zero enemy contact. No reason to have shields up.
Oh and FYI to all the people saying the two bulbs on top of the Star Destroyers bridge you are wrong. Those are Shield Generators, the coms and sensor equipment you are on about is indeed on top of the bridge but housed in the Double T array between the shield generators. It looks like a TT just shorter and longer.
While a wall would be most effective offensively, a staggered on 2 planes line would allow each Star Destroyer to cover the flanks and aft of it's neighbor with minimal risk of cross fire as well as still allowing all the ships of that line to concentrate their fire forwards on a single target. That said, there is a reason for smaller escort ships, be it in space or in the ocean to protect/screen the ships with the biggest guns from smaller, more nimble threats while, in turn the big ships protect these smaller ships from the big guns of the enemy.
Rather good! Also, the bulbs on the top aren't (at least according to the EU) shield generators, they're sensor and communications domes. Them being shield generators is something from the X-Wing series of games and Rogue Squadron ones - for video games they make a nice 'weak point' to use for fighters but otherwise in Legends/EU canon they're not related to shields.
It would also make more sense for the large turrets on either side of the super structure to be staggered and/or superfiring (the one behind is raised to fire over the top of the other).
0:24 To be honest, it's gun plan is more that of a 19th century pre-drednought than a ww2 battleship. Standard WW2 battleship patten was centerline turrets with the bridge in the middle. The only 20th centurt battleship class I can think of that's remotely similar would be the Royal navy's Nelson class, and they were VERY odd ships for their time.
Star Destroyers didn't have a point defence system in the flak-cannon sense, as in a fast-paced but relatively low power cannon that could take out small quick vessels. It relied (to great effect in the main) on smaller turbolaser towers, which tended to work well on older fighters and pirate vessels, but later were shown to be less effective against newer models piloted by living beings, or even droid fighters guided by operators. (See the Thrawn novel, and the original trilogy). For the most part, Star Destroyers relied on their fighter screens to deal with smaller threats whilst they rained down heavy destruction on larger targets. People tend to forget that these ships were designed to work in tandem with other smaller vessels that were capable of taking out fighters, or in large battle groups where swarming tactics could be employed.
You're actually not far off, Star Destroyers are designed for anti-capital ship, anti-station, and planetary bombardment combat. Their heavy weaponry is made for ripping other ships to pieces. However, they don't have a point defense system... that's actually one of their weaknesses. Yes you can compensate with just the sheer volume of turbolaser fire, but that will only do so much. The Ties as well are also used primarily as a supplement to the Star Destroyer, mostly for dealing with small starfighters, and the Empire adopting the idea of quantity over quality. And yes, typically you'd want to deploy them with smaller ships to support them, particularly to protect against faster ships and starfighters
Also I have yet to see a good point defense system in star wars which is why star fighters are so useful and so heavily used in the star wars universe.
mill 27 Well in the instance of Mon Cal star cruisers, their targeting computers are good enough they can track and hit starfighters more efficiently with their turbolasers. And in all actuality, the Executor-class Star Dreadnought does have 500 point defense laser cannons. With the Empire, the Tarkin Doctrine made capital ships focus more on overwhelming firepower and less on starfighters or combatting them. I think the goal was to cutdown the larger ships and installations to break the back of resistance. Buuuuut this left them vulnerable to superior starfighters of the line like the X-Wing and B-Wing.
I don't have videos, but I do have a source right here starwars.wikia.com/wiki/MC80_Liberty_type_Star_Cruiser go into the Offensive and Defensive systems The wonders of superior Mon Cal engineering
I see your point but usually as a whole PDS in Star Wars are not that amazing (there is a reason many capitol ship turrets are operated manually and not by targeting computer and why Starfighters are still prevalent against capitol ships.)
MM that did happen in the Xwing serries sometimes something would jam you when you got too close to a capital ship, but it is only just now resurfacing to memory.
Resurrected Starships The X-Wing series is the only source I take seriously for starfighters. Capital ships are a different story since they were made easier for a starfighter to destroy deliberately for game continuity.
Star destroyers are known for their lack of point defense. They were made for overwhelming force and they provided it I the form of a substantially above-par arsenal heavy weapons, specifically turbolasers, for a ship of its size. TIE fighters were used to defend against other fighters or missiles.
weak shields are still much better than no shields. unlike TIE pilots, rebel pilots can survive smaller in-battle mistakes long enough to actually learn from them and improve over time.
Th. K. that's the point of the empire they recruit good pilots and the ones that survive battles get better craft until they reach Vaders elite squadron of aces using TIE Advanced
Tie Advanced x1 is personal Darth Vader's Ship I don't think Imperial Pilots used that ship, Imperial Inquisitors used Tia Advanced v1 but normal pilots used Tie Interceptors
No the TIE Advanced X1 was used by vader and his elite squadron of aces (Name is either Echelon Squadron or Eclipse squadron or something Ive forgotten)
Imperial-class star destroyers are actually quite fast and maneuverable, so they don't have to worry too much about being out maneuvered by enemies big enough to pose a legitimate threat
Defensively, they could circle the wagons so to speak. Have their engines pointed at each other for a complete firing arc. With more destroyers, and the loveliness of space, a three dementional ball of destroyers facing out. (I call it the death star formation)
It's interesting comparing this to the old X-wing combat sim games - those games did a great job of driving home the fact that while an X-wing will always win against a TIE fighter, direct engagements with capital ships were something the Alliance avoided if at all possible - ambushing corvettes and cargo convoys was the name of the game, Nebulon-B frigates were a force to be reckoned with, and even a single Star Destroyer dropping out of hyperspace was your cue to run for the nearest asteroid belt (unless you're an A-wing running escort for the meeting between the Alliance and Sullustan ambassadors and it's absolutely vital you hold off the TIE bombers long enough for the two sets of delegates to get back aboard their respective ships, and THEN you high-tail it for the nearest asteroid belt, but that's by the by).
Couple of things: 1 - The ventral bulge isn't a shield generator, it's the shell of the main reactor. 2 - I see a lot of two-dimensional thinking in this video. Lot of talk about firing arcs to fore and aft and to the sides, not much about those "above" or "below" the ship. When you bear those in mind you can really see that the Empire went for an all-or-nothing design with the armament. The heavy turbolasers can bring all their firepower to bear on a target directly ahead and in the same axial plane as the ship. They can also bring all their firepower to bear on a target above the ship. But they can't hit at all anything below the ship. The dorsal hull surface is their horizon... if an enemy ship dives below said horizon then the Star Destroyer will need to pitch or roll to bring its heavy turbolasers to bear.
This is way past relevant for the discussion but the part on the bottom is the Solar Ionization Reactor and was, in effect, the power plant for the hyperspace engines as well as powering the ship. It collected ionized particles and combined them with, I assume, some type of anti-matter particle to create energy. I saw this in some blueprints years ago and also in a tech manual as well.
Wouldn't the best tactic be in a V or wedge shape formation and use combination of fighters and frigates and support ships to protect the bottom and back?
Ugh, more people talking shot about the shield generators as if they know some alternate placement. Imperial philosophy dictates the bridge should be where the heaviest shielding is hence the placement of the shield generators. Imperial shield generators aren't as sophisticated as mon Cal shield generators and have to be placed like that so they're placed together to ensure maximum shielding of the generators and bridge.
Well, theres an internet with one of the SFX guys from EP6, where he described it pretty clear: That domes are meant to be radar (sensor) domes, but they also had some shield emitters integrated. The misinterpretion that they are shield generators ONLY came from the unlucky cut, they made in the movie: people saw fighters blowing up the dome, next scene, officer reports loss of bridge shields. People assumed big bulb = shield generator.
the isd 1 and 2 did not have any point defence systems. what most people get wrong about the lasers in star wars is that turbolasers and laser canons are not the same thing. the turbolaser was made for ship to ship combat. the laser canon was made to take out small ships like fighters.
i see you do a lot of rebel and empire videos and they are very helpful battle tactics when i need to use them. have you considered doing CIS or republic battle tactics involving republic venators or confederate providence and lucrehulk ships. im quite lost on what kinda battle tactics to use for these ships and i have been hoping you would make a video on them in the future.
Really Nice Job, are you going to do one on a clone wars era ship? Such as the Lucrehulk Class Battleship from the Clone wars I also like your animations!
Optimal tactic for ISDs would be canted diamond, keep in mid they don't have much rear security. Obviously the lead and tail ship cannot be on the same path one sould be low and the other high to maximize firepower as well as ovelapping fields of fire for point defense They keep some fighters close and behind.
This video was good at covering the overall tactics used by Imperial-class Star Destroyers but some aditional research would have made it a lot more enjoyable
Only the MK1 have point defense lásers, the ISD MK2 only have turbolasers and ion cannons, so it was defenseless against fighters, also the don't have a ventral shield generator, the bulb in the ventral part of the ship is actually the main reactor
I would disagree with comparing the weapon placement of the ISD to a ww2 battleship because the weapons of the ISD (and star wars capital ships in general) more closely resemble the pre-dreadnought layout of lots of small/medium guns (and a few large guns) spread out along the ship. By contrast ww2 ships used the dreadnought layout of a small number of very large turreted guns (with smaller guns as backup) almost exclusively.
A Republic Venator would be cool also, but the Imp 1 has a point defence system but a Imp 2 doesn't have a point defence system and also has 60 ion cannons so the point defence part is off depending in the version your talking about.
Interesting video. There's a lot I'd dispute here, though (if respectably so). 1 - No, ISDs are not armored in a way that similar to typically BB layouts of WW2 era. Dreadnought, the first more "modern-ish" BB we think of, saw more success by having it's heaviest weapons on the center line. HMS Hood followed up with the staple we think of these days. In WW1, there were other BBs with a few turrets on starboard or port sides only, (such as the Konig with the Germans) but this fell out of favor quickly because at no point could you bring all fire power to bear on a target. The ISD suffers the exact same fate, by having it's 8 primary batteries (6 super heavy turbo lasers and 2 super heavy ion cannons) arrange in parallel to the super structure on the flanks. This is a terrible design choice, something that I rectified on a concept ISD I redesigned. 2 - The ISD is poorly balanced in weapons coverage from the Dorsal to Ventral zones. Quite simply, in 3D space, the ISD is a sitting duck from the bottom where it has no primary batteries at all. To make it worse, the bottom also houses the massive hanger bay which is effectively an exposed armor-less zone. A great majority of the vessel is plated in thick Durasteel and better, but the hanger bay makes for an easy spot to strike, not from fighters; but from other warships in general. As a result, the ISD would have to use a chevron wall, approaching enemy formations from a 35 degree angle and usually on descent from an upper elevation. This is the only way to ensure it's aft is covered, at least ONE bank of main batteries are available and to shield it's Ventral hull which lacks ANY main batteries. When one thinks about it, the poor ISD is not a bad design, just has it's armaments poorly placed. My concept redesign has one bank on the dorsal center-line, the other on a the ventral. The fighter hanger is also incorporated into the super structure and the hanger bay entrance is from the rear. These two changes alone make the ISD WAAAAAY more flexible in combat.
The bottom is supposed to be the reactor, but it makes for a more believable shield projector otherwise why not just attack it from below where there are no shields?
Before you take down a shield, does it even matter where you hit a Star Destroyer? Sure, it might have points that are more structurally weaker than others, but as long as the shield is active, does it even matter where you hit it? Or is the game that, until you've expended the shield, you simply just focus fire anywhere on the thing, and then, once the shield is down, start aiming at specific parts?
Yes I think I am going to have to...this one took a lot longer to produce than I had hoped and I was VERY minimal on CG assets but maybe i can streamline the moncal one.
The one being Star Destroyer that could stand up to to Defiance I think I can take it out with one's appliant the skim the surface and blow out the engines so they got the shields down on start beaming over Quantum torpedoes
While I enjoyed the video and consider it well thought out, I must respectfully disagree with you on most thoughts regarding the Imperial Class Star Destroyer. With regards to the armaments, I recognize that the stat of sixty turbolasers comes from the West End Games Star Wars Role Playing Game, but is that still regarded as Canon? I would contest that the book, "Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft," which *is* still officially licensed by LucasFilm, may be a more Canonical source. It depicts the Imperial class Star Destroyer as having six huge, jumbo, honkin' turbolaser turrets and two equally massive ion cannon turrets as the eight discs on the sides of the superstructure. That placement would imply that they're meant for heavy duty planetary bombardment, but would not be able to concentrate much of their firepower forward. Instead, I would suspect, with the Empire only being challenged by a Rebel Alliance that many Imperial officers consider a band of malcontents, that any sort of "Space Combat" that the Imperial Star Destroyer would be expected to engage in would be with smaller, weaker ships, much like what happened in the big space battle of Rogue 1. (BTW: I know that the Empire was undoubtedly aware of the Mon Calamari ships, but according to what I've read, their Canon origin was as luxury liners and exploration ships that had been converted to serve as warships. While they may be comparable in size to the Imperial ships, until the Mon Cal started building purpose designed warships, which did't happen until *after* the Battle of Endor, the Imperials would still consider themselves as pitting their purpose built capital ships up against improvised ships with the occasional lightweight in support.) For all this, IMO, Imperial designers would consider the more limited armaments of the trio of axial turrets, the two quad guns, and an array of smaller weapons along the belt and in the superstructure faces, to be adequate for ship-to-ship combat. With regards to the deployment of TIE fighters, I think both they *and* the bombers would be deployed as a means of delivering surgical strikes against various enemies. These are my opinions, and I'm sure a lot of folks out there are more inclined to agree with you than me. Truth be told, though, I think It would be enjoyable (make that pure fun) to debate this over a couple of brewskis while catching some rays poolside. How about you?
You could be correct about the turbo lasers but I was going by wookiepedia - I am going to have to have a closer look at the cross-section. Your iterpretation would be more like the armament of ww2 battleships.
Having owned the cross sections book myself, I tend to agree that the eight batteries flanking the superstructure is the main heavy guns. Various smaller weapons then flank the sides and cover the top and bottom surfaces. It is also, I must say, a poor layout of the main guns such that they cannot support each other and focus fire forward easily. An option would be to nose down, but that'd present a larger target and wouldn't allow a direct approach.
Another possibility is that the ships are meant to fly alongside enemies and hit them with massive broadsides. While the tactic may date back to the Age of Sail, the lines of British and German Dreadnaughts at Jutland made use of essentially the same maneuver. Later, in World War II, during the Battle of Leyte, Jesse Oldendorf used the same idea with "Capping the Tee" to destroy much of the Japanese Southern Group. Likewise, in "Revenge of the Sith," we saw the Republic ships, in the Battle of Coruscant firing broadsides at the Separatist ships with their massive turbolaser batteries. Still, I really do think that the Empire would not see a need for heavy "Battleship vs. Battleship, Mano-a-mano" fighting; those people who weren't a full part of the Empire were satellite client states who had the power they had with the permission of the Empire (the Corporate Sector Authority comes to mind), and, as such, I still do think the massive broadside guns were meant for bombarding uncooperative planets from orbit.
"Another possibility is that the ships are meant to fly alongside enemies and hit them with massive broadsides". Its wedge shape suggests they are designed to fight with enemy at the front. It's nearly impossible to find a blind spot to the front of an ISD.
Still, in terms of a broadside to broadside engagement with a battle line or battle wall, the ISD's main battery placement is very poor. A better design would likely involve centerline turrets on both upper and lower planes, with the ability to fire on both beams without obstruction. To continue the naval parallel, the early dreadnought battleships of the pre WWI vintage did have wing turrets flanking the superstructure such as the German Nassau class, the namesake of the type HMS Dreadnought and others, however those were later discarded in favor of superfiring turrets on the centerline as pioneered by the american South Carolina class. Of course, I could go on for days about the design flaws of Imperial warship design, but I still do not see the ISD fighting a broadside to broadside battle.
What I don't get about ion cannons, is that given the few times we've seen them used (such as the one the rebels used on Hoth ) they are extremely effective at crippling enemy ships. So... That being the case, if a Star destroyer has so many of the things, why are they never used in combat? Surely if they're that effective you'd be using them alongside the main guns nearly all the time? Otherwise you're just wasting a significant chunk of your firepower. (sure an ion cannon won't destroy a target, but it seems to cripple them pretty effectively, which is useful regardless of your intentions.)
I also consider the raised command bridge to be a incredibly stupid idea. Having a crucial part of the entire ship this exposed can and will lead to many problems in combat. For one it makes the star destroyer a bigger target from the front. Second if ships do get behind it the Destroyer has few guns on it's bridge and rear to defend it. And before you fan boys start defending this by saying "well it has strong armor and shields" let me point something out. The rebels prefer hit and runs more than full on engagements. So all they have to do is get some small, fast, and well armed ship to come in and focus the bridge down while a heavier cruiser distracts it. And all while peppering it down with fighters and bombers! We constantly see lonely star destroyers patrolling the galaxy in star wars so this would have been a essential strategy for the rebellion.
I thought the Star Destroyer was a planetary attack vessel? Designed to jump into a system with very little support and just be the presence of the Empire in local systems. If the system got too hot for a single vessel to handle, they just jumped away and came beck with more firepower. The single most underrated and powerful aspect of the Star Destroyer is its Hyperdrive. In the vast open wilds of space, speed is the way you win. The true strength of the Imperial Navy was never the power of a single ship, it was always part of a series of massive fleets. The Navy had lots of fleets.
I think imperial fleet tactics tended to have patrol and escort cruisers guarding the star destroyers' aft sections. The big thing to remember is that these may be military vessels, but they're mainly meant to fight against rebel(with a lowercase 'R") elements, pirates, and smuggers. Most of the time, a single star destroyer is enough. It wasn't until the rebel alliance really put up a huge fight where they really had to focus on using more than one star destroyer, IIRC.
In historical naval terminology, a cruiser was a ship that was to operate independently. The type, over time, got bigger until the introduction of the dreadnought battleship. Which cruisers came to rivial as, you guessed it, battlecruisers. (Cruiser size, speed, and armor with battleship sized guns). Battleships ruled until air power from carriers made them obsolete.
A star destroyer, combines all of these functions, battlecruiser and carrier. Since the SW universe does have carriers, and small warships such as frigates and corvettes do not normally carry many or any starfighters, it logically follows that star destroyers are intended to be able to operate independently and are thus correctly termed cruisers.
But ships roles are not exactly like from real life in the star wars universe since they seem to rely mostly on capital ships like cruisers and battleships and lots of starfighters. You don't really see any escorts, destroyers, etc. to protect the fleet.
And Resurrected Starships is correct, the ship is designed to maximize its firepower towards a single point (the bow) for use on stationary targets, like planetary defense stations and planets themselves. The Empire needed lots of ships of this type to be able to suppress unruly planets and the star destoryer is designed with occupation and suppression in mind, not fleet actions. Which makes sense since the Empire was really uncontested in the galaxy.
but the SD is a bad design to fight Pirates or Rebels.
we just established that its better suitet as a duell ship and brawling with enemy capital ships over a big distance (not that we ever see that in the movies), and its anti figther capabilities are supposed to be rather limited (wich is pretty dumb, it would be easy to add more and/or better anti fighter weapons).
a star destroyer is better suited to operate in combination with other ships. it is not a Battlestar, wich are more capable of withstanding more diverse situations on their own.
also the most Imperial commander don´t seem to umderstand what their ships excell at.
yes, smuggers
I beg to differ that a Star Destroyer isn't like a Battlestar. And any ship will perform better with support, no matter what the role for which it is intended. And in SW they do use corvettes and frigates for patrol and anti-piracy operations. The Nebulon-B escort frigate is one such vessel.
Starfighters, are also for force projection and they are dangerous even to capital ships, no point defense is impervious, and it is always better to try to shoot down enemy bombers and fighters before you need to rely on your point defense.
jeah a star destroyer is NOT like a battlestar...thats what I said, so...you are basically agreeing with me. great.
I'm pretty sure that bottom bulge is the reactor dome, not a shield generator.
(3:55) I was just going to say the same thing! :P Other than that, great video! :)
Reference: vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/3/3f/Imperial_Star_Destroyer_schematics.jpg
Star Destroyers were meant to operate in groups. And their combat movement in fleet formation was always tip-to-tail opposing formation. There are several scenes in the movies showing groups of SD's moving in opposite directions while engaged in combat. This would eliminate the aft SD vulnerability.
True, but a staggered line, in both plans, would also allow SD to move in the same direction and focus their fire on the same target while still being able to cover each other's flanks and aft, at least to some degree. Escorts would be preferable.
Interesting... Have supporting ships use weapons too small to harm the Star destroyer to "hose it down" when enemy fighters are skimming the surface... Kinda like how tanks will hose down another friendly tank when it's being swarmed by infantry.
That's a brilliant idea, the enemy likely wouldn't expect that and would be taken by surprise.
I believe that's close to how the Lancer Frigates were supposed to be employed. Covering the big ISDs from fighters, while sitting under the protective umbrella of those ships' guns and physical size. Naturally such positions would inevitably lead to hitting the ISDs, but good thing the Lancers only really had a lot of starfighter sized laser cannons.
From my research on this (as i have always been bothered by the lack of any imperial ships other than the ISD in the films) i have discovered that a ISD usually had a Battle squadron formed around it.
A Battle squadron was made up of 1 Star destroyer, 2 attack lines, 1 pursuit line
an attack line consisted of 3 heavy cruisers or 6 light cruisers or frigates. these ships would ships like the Vindicator class heavy cruiser, the Carrack class light cruiser or the Lancer class frigate.
a pursuit line consisted of 4 to 10 Corvette's, ships like the Raider class or the Vigil class
The Battle squadron makes up for the glaring flaws in the ISD design with smaller faster ships protecting its weak areas and (depending on configurations) acting as a fighter screen leaving the TIE/LN's and IN's free to escort the TIE/sa Bombers
Now tbh i can understand why we never get to see these ships, budget cost and such, but I also believe that if we saw an imperial fleet as it should have been, star destroyers with support vessels, that the rebel scum would never have had a chance for victory,
As in the star wars X-wing book series it is mentioned that while the lancer class frigate is slow and easily out run by small fighters it was considered death for multiple fighter squadrons to try to take out 1 lancer class frigate,
My sources are, Imperial Sourcebook, Second Edition, Star Wars: Imperial Handbook: A Commander's Guide, and starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
You see how effective star destroyers are when they have the element of surprise in rogue one. Instantly firing as it emerges. tearing the unprepared ships apart.
Correct! And if you ever read the Thrawn trilogy, thrawn would pull them in from hyperspace using interdictors right on top of unsuspecting targets.
Inge Merete Hansen I think it was a Vader tactic to attack instantly after they got out of Hyperspace.
I think Thrawn's and Vader's tactics are very different Thrawn tried to make it impossible for ships to escape while Vader are taking huge risks like in Rogue one and he also used tactics by taking big risks like when he used the Cloaked Ship against Trench
Fun fact, imperials II don't have point defense, at all.
I was about to point that out.
chris pearson The only point defense they have is a pair of quad laser turret near the hangar.
chris pearson No, the star destroyer had absolutely 0 point defense weapons. It has been mentioned in multiple videos by many star wars lore people, it's on the wiki, I know it was in the EU books and am pretty sure it's mentioned somewhere in the thrawn book. They relied solely on their ties and support ships for anti-fighter. The star destroyer was a great design but it was in the wrong situation. The entire imperial fleet doctrine was based on ships that would cause fear and fighting other capital ships. This would have been fine if say the chiss or hard had attacked them but the rebel alliance had very few capital ships and weren't willing to risk losing them in open warfare except for something critical like scarif or endor. That's why the rebels did so well, their strength was the empire's main weakness, starfighters.
chris pearson Look. You can believe whatever you want to believe in your own head canon but in both official and legends canon, the ISDs have no point defense weaponry and the ISD II is actually slightly larger than the ISD I. (Side note, where did you get the idea that the film's show the ISD II is smaller than the ISD I? They use he exact same model for both ships.)
Daniel Kottcamp
That's insane. Especially given how much damage fighters can, apparently, do to Star Destroyers. Removing the point defense from ISD II would be like stripping all the AA guns off a WWII battleship and relying just on fighters to protect not only themselves, but friendly carriers, from bombers, torpedo planes, or even worse, Kamikaze.
I keep having to say this, but it's like the Empire was designed to be defeated by the Rebels.
Well done, you are more competent than 90% of Imperial admirals.
Two major flaws: 1) misidentification of the shield system: the highlighted ship elements are *not* shield generators or shield projectors, they are comms, sensors, nav modules, and related functions; and 2) star destroyers are actually quite fast and agile, especially for their size - they have difficulty outmaneuvering very small ships, like light freighters and starfighters, but they're perfectly capable of virtually swiveling about in place, given a competent command and crew.
Additionally, while the hind quarter of a Star Destroyer is relatively undefended (as is the underside - the weapons array is actually aimed at a top-forward arc), except for the engine wash, these quarters can be effectively covered in pairs, by orienting the primary arc to cover the auxiliary arc of the other ship. Ideally, the Star Destroyer will keep its top-forward arc facing the enemy, while launching fighters into relative safety, where they can group into formations and flight schedules.
These errors are entirely forgivable though, since they stem from bad data that has so ubiquitously permeated the net, due to the careless observations of fans, compounded by the inattentive attitudes of the toy companies, and the subsequent feedback into Star Wars games, and even movies (Lucas actually gave these things considerable thought for Ep.IV, but somewhat less thought went into the sequels).
You sound just a bit biased there! Anyway, onto my equally biased, dumb ramblings:
So if what you're saying is incorrect/contradicted according to movies, toys and games, than it isn't canon. I'll paste an excerpt of a comment of mine from a different video:
"When the Executor's "RADAR"(as you claim, with minor evidence. Also, there's even a page about the supposed inconsistency on Wookiepedia with only a few shreds of evidence starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sensor_globe ) tower gets destroyed, this exchange happens: "CONTROLLER : Sir, we've lost our bridge deflector shield."
So they were probably intended to be RADAR towers originally because they look just like them, but in all other instances like the canon comics and cartoons, they're shield generators. Maybe they do both, and Star Destroyers are known have sensors scattered everywhere already anyway."
*-End of excerpt*
So what you're saying about the shield generators is probably not canon, because comics, toys, movies, cartoons, and games, many of which are canon, claim those do generate the shields for a star destroyer. So they most definitely are shield generators, you're *wrong* about that if you're claiming otherwise, as you're blatantly contradicting known canon.
Did you know the original Emperor in Episode 5 looked like a damned ape! I guess that MUST be canon as they, and I quote: "stem from bad data that has so ubiquitously permeated the net, due to the careless observations of fans, compounded by the inattentive attitudes of the toy companies, and the subsequent feedback into Star Wars games, and even movies."
So I guess even though in every other release besides the theatrical one, the Emperor looks completely different and has a way better voice, that somehow isn't canon. According to your logic, I guess all depictions of the Emperor were wrong the entire time! WORSHIP THE APE-PEROR!
I just want to see why you're going against canon here, it's bad logic if you accept the emperor the way he looks in every depiction but yet you claim the shield generators aren't shield generators!.
*Okay, sorry, I shouldn't be such an asshole!*
Could I see a source/evidence for 1.6 km long ships being maneuverable and swiveling, that sounds cool. I'd like to read/watch a clip of that.
What do you mean when you say "except for the engine wash, these quarters can be effectively covered in pairs, by orienting the primary arc to cover the auxiliary arc of the other ship."
Do you mean a Star Destroyer causing mass friendly fire by acting as point defense due to turbolasers being much more powerful than a starfighter's, subsequently tearing through the shields of his ally? Ion weaponry, such as what's commonly found on Y-wings could be an amazing counter to that, in addition to it's main role as a bomber. Ion torpedoes or other ion support fire would be a great utility as well. Longer range, or if you're desperate, snubfighters delivering large volleys of proton torpedoes or concussion missiles could wreak havoc on the point defense roles, doubly so with ion torpedoes mixed in. Try performing an Ackbar Slash so the enemy devastates their own shield for you!
I'll quote an excerpt from Armond436 Link to their full comment: www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceFiction/comments/3jqt5l/star_wars_describe_some_tactics_of_space_ship/curreej/
"Against a capital ship, you can have a squadron of 12 snubfighters unload torpedoes on one shielded side. Have a pair make runs at the ship, dodging turbolaser fire along the way; they transmit their lock telemetry to the rest of the squadron, then everyone times their (dual-linked, if possible) proton torpedo launches to land at the same time. This gives a better chance to penetrate shields and hit critical systems in the hull (for example, shield generators, turbolaser batteries, or the bridge). Repeat with new ships that have fresh shields until everyone's out of torps"
[sic, torpedoes]
...
"To counter overwhelming odds in a capital ship battle, Admiral Ackbar used the "Ackbar Slash", where he ran at moderate to high speed between two Star Destroyers focusing fire on him. Their gunners couldn't rotate fast enough to keep up with his cruiser and caused a lot of damage through friendly fire.
Within all this, snubfighters play a significant role: bomber-type ships help focus fire on the primary shield target, while dogfighters defend against enemy bombers. In addition, dogfighters can get under the guns of a capital ship (which will only depress so far) and try to get some damage in.
Oh yeah, and there was that time when Rogue Squadron (or maybe it was Wraith Squadron?) placed a "tick" on top of the command tower of a Star Destroyer, which just got up and blew apart the shield generators when everyone was ready.
Concentrated turbolaser or especially ion fire on an engine system can force a target to surrender their ship to your side.".
*-End of excerpt*
All that really matters here is the objective, what are both sides trying to do. A defensive posture would be very useful if a Star Destroyer fleet is fighting in planetary orbit for example.
But relying on TIEs to defend your Star Destroyer would be much better if you want to annihilate in interdicted rebel fleet that can't use hyperspace.
The wall formation is a great idea for capital ships that are just bombarding a target. I'll excerpt the "Wall" formation from a Homeworld Formations guide, I think it's somewhat relevant here at least.
Link to the guide discussing uses for the "Claw" or "Sphere" formation(I'd say Homeworld tactics are relevant to Star Wars: www.rakrent.com/rtsc/html/hw7.htm
"Think of this either as an artillery line in space or a useful way to organise small groups of bigger ships. Wall formations are primarily designed to unleash a vast amount of concentrated firepower in a specific direction. As a result they're often used with Capital ships or Heavy Corvettes, since these slower moving ship classes can concentrate on just shooting stuff rather than wasting time getting into position. Since there aren't any ships in Homeworld with really long ranges, walls have to move into the action most of the time. Some players set they're walled ships to Evasive and hand-pick their targets. Ships set to Aggressive tend to get distracted by whatever attacks them - not a desirable situation in a slow moving wall.
A wall with only less than half a dozen members in it those is fairly concentrated, and a convenient way to group a few ships together.
There's also a limit to just how big a wall can be before it starts becoming too cumbersome; capital ships in particular have a habit of becoming widely space when in position. Walls with many ships can get so big that ships on the periphery are simply out of firing range for much of the time and the formation will start meandering as vessels try to get into range.
Wall formations can be devastating, but things can get muddled very quickly if the formation suddenly gets flanked and has to suddenly move around and defend itself. Initiative can be quickly lost and leave many ships disadvantaged as they find themselves blocked by their fellows beside them, or worse, getting hit by friendly fire traveling lengthwise along the wall. Like any heavy position, it will need escorts, defenders and due vigilance."
*-End of excerpt*
*The tactic you suggested is a very useful one in some circumstances, and bad in others. This whole post (minus the bit about the fact shield generators are, in fact, shield generators) was basically saying CONTEXT FOR THE BATTLE MATTERS A LOT! What do you and the enemy have and what are you trying to do?* I'd be happy to discuss space stuff. Hooray for TH-cam comment character limits anyway!
1:35 "Most of them are somewhere on the ship" Well of course, it would be a problem if they weren't on the ship.
From what I've understood of the design, the dome ok the lower hull was because of the large main reactor, and the needed armor to protect it. Though a third shield generator to help bolster defense would make a good use too.
the domes on the bridge, 1 for bridge and the other is for the ship. the domes themselves are not protected by the shields. the bottom dome is the main reactor.
I was right
shield emitters are scattered all across the hull, the domes are sensors domes but they also have a concentration of shield emitter vanes, so they make a good target in either case. Blinding a ship is just as good as taking nearby shields out. I dunno why they's want their reactor hanging outside the ship were it could get shot.
I read this "On the underside of the very tip of the ISD was the navigational deflector generator." from wookipedia - I may have misunderstood this to mean the bottom of the underside dome!
They are actually sensor domes according to behind the scene information. That's why they are located on the top of the ship. Pretty much every ship in Star Wars has its sensors on the top.
"I dunno why they's want their reactor hanging outside the ship were it could get shot".
Because ISDs has oversized reactors for its size, giving them superior firepower and shields compared to other ships of its size.
I'd like to see a video on General Battle Tactics Of The Empire. A reenactment of various space battles. Most of the space battles in the movies don't really give an indication of strategy, it's usually just short takes, chaos, a scrambled mess with no apparent strategy to speak of. If you did a mini series on a variety of space battle strategies, that would be a first because no one has done that before. How did the a Empire go about conquering so many world's before it was vanquished by the rebels?
i absolutely love these videos keep them up
SonsGamingHD i
If I recall my old tech manual correctly, that ventral dome is actually the armoured housing of the massive main reactor which powers all those guns!
Nice to see an analysis which pays attention to that massive blind spot in the rear. Too many folks fanboy out and forget it's even there!
Would love to see more videos like this! Please do more Ship tactic videos like this with animations!
very rarely would a single ISD be involved in a fight where its weaknesses would be taken advantage of....ships thats size are expensive and require alot of material and time to build....most star destroyers if not working in concert with multiple other ISDs would have a compliment of frigates and corvettes, such as the lancer, for anti starfighter and anti bomber roles...and smaller cruisers like the ones seen in Rebels most of which could either have internal docking bays or exterior Tie racks, but due to the fact that prior to the destruction of the death star the imperial navy didn't consider star fighters a threat...meaning the ISD did not have a point defense system.....there were a few hundred heavy laser emplacements but no anti-star fighter blaster banks....and i remember the ISD having alot more than 60 turbo lasers....it was closer to 4 or 5 THOUSAND....we are talking about a ship thats a MILE LONG!!! their were turbo laser turrets all along the sides as well as the top and bottom sections of the hull and front and back of the command tower...those 6 big gun enplacements along the sides of the raised deck were just the Ion cannons.....just one star destroyer was capable of wiping out all traces of civilization from orbit...hell even a much smaller ex-republic sith destroyer the leviathon was able to render a good chunk of Taris uninhabitable and that was over 3000 years before the ISD came around.....they were also equipped with proton torpedo emplacements, not many but they were there.....i don't know where this 60 turbo laser emplacement number came from but it is way off
brett harvey Your off with turbo lasers, the big number you are thinking of would pertain to the new Resurgent Battle cruiser but the ISD 1 had 60 turbo lasers and 60 ion guns and some other stuff. The ISD 2 has 50 heavy, 50 regular turbo laser batteries and 20 ion guns (again plus extra stuff) but no where near a thousand
Actually, this is highly debatable, while the ISD doesn't have 5,000 turbolasers, there is something to note and it is that the ISD's weapons (many of them) are listed not as individual turrets but as "Batteries" which is a term for a grouping of guns operating as a unit. At minimum there would be four, some go as high as twelve or beyond that even, depending on the nation and time period.
Suddenly, going by the 60-90 (disputed) "Batteries" listed on the ISD-I, it doesn't have just 60-90 turbolasers, more like 240-360, same with the allotted Ion Cannon "Batteries"
This is further extrapolated on the ISD-II which had about 120 assorted "Batteries" leading up to over 500 turbolasers in exchange for having basically no point defense network
This doesn't include the Superheavy guns lining either side of the bridge superstructure of both models. 6 Dual Superheavy XX-10's and a pair of Superheavy Ion Cannons on the ISD-I and 8 Octuple Barbettes on the ISD-II
great strategic / tactical investigation of capital ship abilities
One major disadvantage you forgot is how exposed the bridge is. The huge bridge structure of the Imperial and Victory class Star Destroyers and all variants is how large and prominent the bridge is. While having such a huge bridge can be imposing, it's also essentially like having a big flashing weak point on your ship, Star Fox style.
One thing that's neat about both the Ascendancy Star Destroyer from Legends and the First Order's Resurgent-class Star Destroyer from canon is the reduced profile bridge - on the Ascendancy Star Destroyer, the bridge is located at the front of the superstructure, and on the Resurgence Class it's located right on top of the superstructure. These bridges are far more protected by the ship's hull.
I guess that's a weakpoint the empire is willing to overlook. There are few ships that are able to really do damage to a stardestroyer, so being imposing was probably the more important design aspect. Makes sense for the first order to have that problem fixed though. They have to rely a lot more on the power of a single ship instead of sheer quantity.
True but even if the bridge is destroyed the guns would still be firing at you. Just like the old battleships. I mean yeah you could kamikaze into the very exposed bridge but those massive turrets are still kicking and firing. You would have to do some very serious damage to an ISD before you can all it a non-threat.
Either that of the captains just have titanic balls that say "I'm in an ISD. Come and get me!"
it's not just an imperial design flaw but one that is seen in most star wars ship designs. most, if not all, of them have the bridge either on top of the main superstructure or in/near the bow or elsewhere along the surface of the ship. to me it seems as if the SW ship designers are convinced the pilots need to have a front window to see through in order to maneuver their ships properly, whereas logic should tell you that the bridge should be best placed somewhere deep inside the ship, since the flying/piloting is done with Instrument-/sensor-assistance anyway
@@clefsan It's a common sci-fi flaw.
Babylon 5 does it, Star trek does it. (And it makes even less sense there, since JJverse nonsense aside, the bridges of Star Trek vessels don't even have windows in any real sense.)
Quite why it's designed this way so often in sci-fi...
I do know from background information that when TNG was being the developed, the original concept sketch that the Galaxy class ship derives from had no obvious bridge on the model, with the designer reasoning it would be in the centre of the ship, where it's most protected.
However, this was vetoed by other people (again, not sure why). Instead, you find the computer core in the location you'd think the bridge would've been...
According to the ship cutaway images that I've seen that dome on the bottom is the ejection port for its primary Solar Ionization Reactor, it's not a shield generator.
To me, a Star Destroyer looks like a giant slice of pizza. LOL!
I wouldn't be surprised if George Lucas, or the other ones who designed the Star Destroyer had pizza on their mind when designing it.
George Lucas actually had german battleships on his mind.
+Dovah Chief
So German battleships looked like giant slices of pizza too?
it makes sense since the empire is based off the nazis
I thought it was based on the British Empire.
IMO they look like a North Carolina class BB.
The Imperial Star Destroyers didn't have missile batteries? Surely one way to deal with pesky enemy fighters is fire a salvo of guided missiles. I recall the ISDs had missiles in the old Xwing vs TIE Fighter PC game. But they were slow and could be shot out of the sky.
The bulge on the bottom is the lower armour of the main reactor sphere. It is not a shield generator.
The ISD was designed around the largest reactor they could find without it becoming unpractical. Which is also why is needs an extensive superstructure, since there is not a lot of room left in the hull for offices and workstations.
This is excellent.
One of the issues with it is having all of its heavy guns on the dorsal hull. It means if an enemy in a head-to-head engagement dives below it (from the star destroyer's own reference frame), it's then below the horizon of the main guns, and the whole ship would need to be pitched or rolled to try keeping them locked on.
It might actually be a good idea for pairs of ISDs to cover each other by flying belly to belly.
the thing underneath the ISD you have in this video when you talk about shields is not a shield generator.. it is a solar ionization chamber. I'm glad you chose ISDs to talk about i wish you did more reading..but the graphics are pretty awesome.
ISD for life!
This is HIGHLY generalised and mostly inaccurate information. ISD I and II were not designed with point defense lasers. The movies and new canon books confirm this. ISDs typically operate with Gozanti and Arquitens-class light cruiser escorts to help make up for the lack of point defense lasers and rely heavily on their TIE fighters to screen against enemy starfighters. This is especially apparent in the novel "Thrawn" where even the Arquitens-class cruisers had difficulty dealing with swarming fighters without TIE fighter help. In the movie "Rouge One", Y-wings from Gold Squadron demonstrated just how vulnerable ISDs are to fighter attack where a group of three landed disabling hits causing the destroyer to lose control and cause a chain reaction of collisions. ISDs were designed primarily to pound the living dog shit out of cruiser sized ships commonly employed by outer rim pirate groups and to bombard planetary targets. Beyond that, they served as a means of projecting the Tarkin Doctrine across the galaxy and were generally glass cannons if caught alone and unawares.
You're right, although it did have 40 point defense lasers in Legends. (ISD 1)
the claim that the wedge shape allows all the guns to focus forward at a single target is false as well.. while the hull is wedge shaped and ought to allow that, the main gun turrets are not placed to follow the wedge shape or with different elevations, meaning that turrets farther aft cannot turn to face forward without another turret blocking its Line of fire. much like casemate turrets on pre-dreadnaught warships before ww1. it is notable that we *never* see those guns used to fire foreward, instead seeing lighter guns fired from locations within the raised deck superstructure and within the edge trench of the wedge. (even the Venator which used a similar main turret placement did not use them for forward firepower)
the main turret placement is one designed for broadside operation, again similar to pre-dreadnaught warships. firepower is focused to the side and meant for gunnery duels as you pass a target or while 'crossing the T".
however we never see an ISD actually employ such tactics, instead they invariably taker an aggressive front on posture in front of behind their target. indicating that Imperial commander's don;t really understand how to fight ships of comparable size and power. (their lighter forward guns would suffice for dealing with most civilian, pirate, and rebel craft which rarely exceed cruiser size prior to the the events of Scarif, a small fraction of an ISD's size and power.)
I’m not sure if I would call Star Destroyers glass cannons. They were vulnerable to fighters yes, but they were still extremely durable, and were able to take a pounding.
Those two faceted spheres above the bridge are not shield generators. It just so happened that one of those spheres was destroyed at the same time we saw someone on the bridge say: "sir! We just lost our bridge deflector shields." It was the explosion that got the person on the bridge to check the ship's systems and give a quick damage report to the admiral.
While I agree that the wall-formation is pretty effective against single targets a horizontal formation (call it plane for lack of a better term) is fairly effective in a defensive role when smaller support vessels are for some reason not available. The reason is that overlapping fields of fire allow these big ships to significantly better provide covering fire to one another without a lot of maneuvering being necessary. Plus any attacker would need to either spend significant amounts of time flying around the entire formation to get behind it - or face devastating crossfire in an attempt to get streight through the formation.
The shape on the bottom is the bottom of the reactor, not shield generators.
Indeed, I shall try to make a correction when I do another one like this.
I think of them as having more of a planetary role.
If you have the planet behind the SD, then you need to have something behind you that can be washed in heat and radiation if you decide you need to move.
Also, the underhung entry for the fighters means that you can set up with your bay pointing planetward and send stuff down and take it back up.
Skimming the hull also allows fighters to bypass the shields, since the generators are perched high above the main hull. [You can even see this in the beginning of The Force Awakens, when Poe and Finn are able to shoot a destroyer's turrets while up close]
shadowslayer205 I don’t think that’s battle cruisers shields were online though. It was in a backwater system and had zero enemy contact. No reason to have shields up.
Oh and FYI to all the people saying the two bulbs on top of the Star Destroyers bridge you are wrong. Those are Shield Generators, the coms and sensor equipment you are on about is indeed on top of the bridge but housed in the Double T array between the shield generators. It looks like a TT just shorter and longer.
Dont you mean when the star destroyers drop out of hyperspace and not hyperdrive?
While a wall would be most effective offensively, a staggered on 2 planes line would allow each Star Destroyer to cover the flanks and aft of it's neighbor with minimal risk of cross fire as well as still allowing all the ships of that line to concentrate their fire forwards on a single target. That said, there is a reason for smaller escort ships, be it in space or in the ocean to protect/screen the ships with the biggest guns from smaller, more nimble threats while, in turn the big ships protect these smaller ships from the big guns of the enemy.
Loved the video! It win me over to subbing. Excellent job!
Rather good! Also, the bulbs on the top aren't (at least according to the EU) shield generators, they're sensor and communications domes. Them being shield generators is something from the X-Wing series of games and Rogue Squadron ones - for video games they make a nice 'weak point' to use for fighters but otherwise in Legends/EU canon they're not related to shields.
It would also make more sense for the large turrets on either side of the super structure to be staggered and/or superfiring (the one behind is raised to fire over the top of the other).
0:24 To be honest, it's gun plan is more that of a 19th century pre-drednought than a ww2 battleship. Standard WW2 battleship patten was centerline turrets with the bridge in the middle. The only 20th centurt battleship class I can think of that's remotely similar would be the Royal navy's Nelson class, and they were VERY odd ships for their time.
Another good one. Hope you do Mon Calamari vessels.
Star Destroyers didn't have a point defence system in the flak-cannon sense, as in a fast-paced but relatively low power cannon that could take out small quick vessels. It relied (to great effect in the main) on smaller turbolaser towers, which tended to work well on older fighters and pirate vessels, but later were shown to be less effective against newer models piloted by living beings, or even droid fighters guided by operators. (See the Thrawn novel, and the original trilogy).
For the most part, Star Destroyers relied on their fighter screens to deal with smaller threats whilst they rained down heavy destruction on larger targets.
People tend to forget that these ships were designed to work in tandem with other smaller vessels that were capable of taking out fighters, or in large battle groups where swarming tactics could be employed.
You're actually not far off, Star Destroyers are designed for anti-capital ship, anti-station, and planetary bombardment combat.
Their heavy weaponry is made for ripping other ships to pieces. However, they don't have a point defense system... that's actually one of their weaknesses. Yes you can compensate with just the sheer volume of turbolaser fire, but that will only do so much. The Ties as well are also used primarily as a supplement to the Star Destroyer, mostly for dealing with small starfighters, and the Empire adopting the idea of quantity over quality.
And yes, typically you'd want to deploy them with smaller ships to support them, particularly to protect against faster ships and starfighters
Also I have yet to see a good point defense system in star wars which is why star fighters are so useful and so heavily used in the star wars universe.
mill 27
Well in the instance of Mon Cal star cruisers, their targeting computers are good enough they can track and hit starfighters more efficiently with their turbolasers.
And in all actuality, the Executor-class Star Dreadnought does have 500 point defense laser cannons.
With the Empire, the Tarkin Doctrine made capital ships focus more on overwhelming firepower and less on starfighters or combatting them. I think the goal was to cutdown the larger ships and installations to break the back of resistance. Buuuuut this left them vulnerable to superior starfighters of the line like the X-Wing and B-Wing.
Thanks for the information. However I just need to see it to believe it. Can you provide video?
I don't have videos, but I do have a source right here
starwars.wikia.com/wiki/MC80_Liberty_type_Star_Cruiser
go into the Offensive and Defensive systems
The wonders of superior Mon Cal engineering
I see your point but usually as a whole PDS in Star Wars are not that amazing (there is a reason many capitol ship turrets are operated manually and not by targeting computer and why Starfighters are still prevalent against capitol ships.)
In legends skimming too close to the hull of a Star destroyer put you at risk of beam weapons like tractor beams and electronic countermeasures
MM that did happen in the Xwing serries sometimes something would jam you when you got too close to a capital ship, but it is only just now resurfacing to memory.
Resurrected Starships The X-Wing series is the only source I take seriously for starfighters. Capital ships are a different story since they were made easier for a starfighter to destroy deliberately for game continuity.
Star destroyers are known for their lack of point defense. They were made for overwhelming force and they provided it I the form of a substantially above-par arsenal heavy weapons, specifically turbolasers, for a ship of its size. TIE fighters were used to defend against other fighters or missiles.
The dine on the bottom of the Star destroyer is the reactor dome.
The dome*
X wing ships haven't good shields either two shots and they are blown up
Darth Vader be careful because you're assuming those ships were being shot at at full health. It's likely they took damage to shields off screen.
weak shields are still much better than no shields. unlike TIE pilots, rebel pilots can survive smaller in-battle mistakes long enough to actually learn from them and improve over time.
Th. K. that's the point of the empire they recruit good pilots and the ones that survive battles get better craft until they reach Vaders elite squadron of aces using TIE Advanced
Tie Advanced x1 is personal Darth Vader's Ship I don't think Imperial Pilots used that ship, Imperial Inquisitors used Tia Advanced v1 but normal pilots used Tie Interceptors
No the TIE Advanced X1 was used by vader and his elite squadron of aces (Name is either Echelon Squadron or Eclipse squadron or something Ive forgotten)
The dome undernieth is the reactor dome
They also have next to no defenses on their underside. So if you come at them from below you can have free range to attack it.
Imperial-class star destroyers are actually quite fast and maneuverable, so they don't have to worry too much about being out maneuvered by enemies big enough to pose a legitimate threat
Defensively, they could circle the wagons so to speak. Have their engines pointed at each other for a complete firing arc. With more destroyers, and the loveliness of space, a three dementional ball of destroyers facing out. (I call it the death star formation)
It's interesting comparing this to the old X-wing combat sim games - those games did a great job of driving home the fact that while an X-wing will always win against a TIE fighter, direct engagements with capital ships were something the Alliance avoided if at all possible - ambushing corvettes and cargo convoys was the name of the game, Nebulon-B frigates were a force to be reckoned with, and even a single Star Destroyer dropping out of hyperspace was your cue to run for the nearest asteroid belt (unless you're an A-wing running escort for the meeting between the Alliance and Sullustan ambassadors and it's absolutely vital you hold off the TIE bombers long enough for the two sets of delegates to get back aboard their respective ships, and THEN you high-tail it for the nearest asteroid belt, but that's by the by).
Couple of things:
1 - The ventral bulge isn't a shield generator, it's the shell of the main reactor.
2 - I see a lot of two-dimensional thinking in this video. Lot of talk about firing arcs to fore and aft and to the sides, not much about those "above" or "below" the ship. When you bear those in mind you can really see that the Empire went for an all-or-nothing design with the armament. The heavy turbolasers can bring all their firepower to bear on a target directly ahead and in the same axial plane as the ship. They can also bring all their firepower to bear on a target above the ship. But they can't hit at all anything below the ship. The dorsal hull surface is their horizon... if an enemy ship dives below said horizon then the Star Destroyer will need to pitch or roll to bring its heavy turbolasers to bear.
This is way past relevant for the discussion but the part on the bottom is the Solar Ionization Reactor and was, in effect, the power plant for the hyperspace engines as well as powering the ship. It collected ionized particles and combined them with, I assume, some type of anti-matter particle to create energy. I saw this in some blueprints years ago and also in a tech manual as well.
Wouldn't the best tactic be in a
V or wedge shape formation and use combination of fighters and frigates and support ships to protect the bottom and back?
Yeah I think if there is danger of being outmanuevered something like a wedge/wall combination would offer the best coverage.
Ugh, more people talking shot about the shield generators as if they know some alternate placement. Imperial philosophy dictates the bridge should be where the heaviest shielding is hence the placement of the shield generators.
Imperial shield generators aren't as sophisticated as mon Cal shield generators and have to be placed like that so they're placed together to ensure maximum shielding of the generators and bridge.
Well, theres an internet with one of the SFX guys from EP6, where he described it pretty clear: That domes are meant to be radar (sensor) domes, but they also had some shield emitters integrated.
The misinterpretion that they are shield generators ONLY came from the unlucky cut, they made in the movie: people saw fighters blowing up the dome, next scene, officer reports loss of bridge shields. People assumed big bulb = shield generator.
the isd 1 and 2 did not have any point defence systems. what most people get wrong about the lasers in star wars is that turbolasers and laser canons are not the same thing. the turbolaser was made for ship to ship combat. the laser canon was made to take out small ships like fighters.
I THINK the ISD II mostly relied on light turbolasers for fighter defence - and quite badly.
Bendix Holsen Fosmark Actually the ISD 1 had point defense
i see you do a lot of rebel and empire videos and they are very helpful battle tactics when i need to use them. have you considered doing CIS or republic battle tactics involving republic venators or confederate providence and lucrehulk ships. im quite lost on what kinda battle tactics to use for these ships and i have been hoping you would make a video on them in the future.
TIEs have shields. We see them quite visibly in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ.
What about dorsal and ventral sides? I see the belly of the Star Destroyers as the location of its biggest weakspot with the open hanger bay.
Really Nice Job, are you going to do one on a clone wars era ship?
Such as the Lucrehulk Class Battleship from the Clone wars
I also like your animations!
Optimal tactic for ISDs would be canted diamond, keep in mid they don't have much rear security. Obviously the lead and tail ship cannot be on the same path one sould be low and the other high to maximize firepower as well as ovelapping fields of fire for point defense They keep some fighters close and behind.
The star destroyer you talked about was an imperial class star destroyer.
This video was good at covering the overall tactics used by Imperial-class Star Destroyers but some aditional research would have made it a lot more enjoyable
how do you do your animation for your ships.
Only the MK1 have point defense lásers, the ISD MK2 only have turbolasers and ion cannons, so it was defenseless against fighters, also the don't have a ventral shield generator, the bulb in the ventral part of the ship is actually the main reactor
the biggest weakness of the imperial I and II was they had reduced anti fighter capabilities but were absolute beasts in ship to ship combat.
Not a bad assessment. Don't forget in the tv and movies. We can see very well a lot of what they do and how they operate there as well
Please tell me you will do a Warhammer 40k related video in the future. Not specifically a "vs" battle but some thing similar to this.
I would disagree with comparing the weapon placement of the ISD to a ww2 battleship because the weapons of the ISD (and star wars capital ships in general) more closely resemble the pre-dreadnought layout of lots of small/medium guns (and a few large guns) spread out along the ship. By contrast ww2 ships used the dreadnought layout of a small number of very large turreted guns (with smaller guns as backup) almost exclusively.
A Republic Venator would be cool also, but the Imp 1 has a point defence system but a Imp 2 doesn't have a point defence system and also has 60 ion cannons so the point defence part is off depending in the version your talking about.
Interesting video. There's a lot I'd dispute here, though (if respectably so). 1 - No, ISDs are not armored in a way that similar to typically BB layouts of WW2 era. Dreadnought, the first more "modern-ish" BB we think of, saw more success by having it's heaviest weapons on the center line. HMS Hood followed up with the staple we think of these days. In WW1, there were other BBs with a few turrets on starboard or port sides only, (such as the Konig with the Germans) but this fell out of favor quickly because at no point could you bring all fire power to bear on a target. The ISD suffers the exact same fate, by having it's 8 primary batteries (6 super heavy turbo lasers and 2 super heavy ion cannons) arrange in parallel to the super structure on the flanks. This is a terrible design choice, something that I rectified on a concept ISD I redesigned. 2 - The ISD is poorly balanced in weapons coverage from the Dorsal to Ventral zones. Quite simply, in 3D space, the ISD is a sitting duck from the bottom where it has no primary batteries at all. To make it worse, the bottom also houses the massive hanger bay which is effectively an exposed armor-less zone. A great majority of the vessel is plated in thick Durasteel and better, but the hanger bay makes for an easy spot to strike, not from fighters; but from other warships in general. As a result, the ISD would have to use a chevron wall, approaching enemy formations from a 35 degree angle and usually on descent from an upper elevation. This is the only way to ensure it's aft is covered, at least ONE bank of main batteries are available and to shield it's Ventral hull which lacks ANY main batteries. When one thinks about it, the poor ISD is not a bad design, just has it's armaments poorly placed. My concept redesign has one bank on the dorsal center-line, the other on a the ventral. The fighter hanger is also incorporated into the super structure and the hanger bay entrance is from the rear. These two changes alone make the ISD WAAAAAY more flexible in combat.
What about the Bottom? Most of the guns seem to be on top, so aren't they weaker on their bottom side?
Ah the dome on the bottom isn't a shield generator but the main reactor.
yea back in the 90's when there was a lot of star wars games out i did just that with an xwing took the whole thing out by myself with some luck
What program do you use to create your CG animations?
I feel like an imperial recruit taking classes on ships and strategies
Hey can you do like the vulture droid versus tie fighter and tri droid versus imperial interceptor pls
The bottom is supposed to be the reactor, but it makes for a more believable shield projector otherwise why not just attack it from below where there are no shields?
Before you take down a shield, does it even matter where you hit a Star Destroyer?
Sure, it might have points that are more structurally weaker than others, but as long as the shield is active, does it even matter where you hit it?
Or is the game that, until you've expended the shield, you simply just focus fire anywhere on the thing, and then, once the shield is down, start aiming at specific parts?
Dreadnought cruiser? You mean from the Katana Fleet?
According to the official star wars fact file, the bit at the bottom is a solar ionisation reactor
Will you do Mon Calamari?
Yes I think I am going to have to...this one took a lot longer to produce than I had hoped and I was VERY minimal on CG assets but maybe i can streamline the moncal one.
Could they do the flying cone wedge?
The imperial mk2 star destroyer had removed all its point defense cannons in favor of adding more turbolasers
The one being Star Destroyer that could stand up to to Defiance I think I can take it out with one's appliant the skim the surface and blow out the engines so they got the shields down on start beaming over Quantum torpedoes
You should do the Warhammer 40k Space Marine BattleBarge
Except I know nothing baout them :P perhaps I should get into that universe .
While I enjoyed the video and consider it well thought out, I must respectfully disagree with you on most thoughts regarding the Imperial Class Star Destroyer.
With regards to the armaments, I recognize that the stat of sixty turbolasers comes from the West End Games Star Wars Role Playing Game, but is that still regarded as Canon? I would contest that the book, "Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft," which *is* still officially licensed by LucasFilm, may be a more Canonical source. It depicts the Imperial class Star Destroyer as having six huge, jumbo, honkin' turbolaser turrets and two equally massive ion cannon turrets as the eight discs on the sides of the superstructure. That placement would imply that they're meant for heavy duty planetary bombardment, but would not be able to concentrate much of their firepower forward.
Instead, I would suspect, with the Empire only being challenged by a Rebel Alliance that many Imperial officers consider a band of malcontents, that any sort of "Space Combat" that the Imperial Star Destroyer would be expected to engage in would be with smaller, weaker ships, much like what happened in the big space battle of Rogue 1.
(BTW: I know that the Empire was undoubtedly aware of the Mon Calamari ships, but according to what I've read, their Canon origin was as luxury liners and exploration ships that had been converted to serve as warships. While they may be comparable in size to the Imperial ships, until the Mon Cal started building purpose designed warships, which did't happen until *after* the Battle of Endor, the Imperials would still consider themselves as pitting their purpose built capital ships up against improvised ships with the occasional lightweight in support.)
For all this, IMO, Imperial designers would consider the more limited armaments of the trio of axial turrets, the two quad guns, and an array of smaller weapons along the belt and in the superstructure faces, to be adequate for ship-to-ship combat.
With regards to the deployment of TIE fighters, I think both they *and* the bombers would be deployed as a means of delivering surgical strikes against various enemies.
These are my opinions, and I'm sure a lot of folks out there are more inclined to agree with you than me. Truth be told, though, I think It would be enjoyable (make that pure fun) to debate this over a couple of brewskis while catching some rays poolside. How about you?
You could be correct about the turbo lasers but I was going by wookiepedia - I am going to have to have a closer look at the cross-section. Your iterpretation would be more like the armament of ww2 battleships.
Having owned the cross sections book myself, I tend to agree that the eight batteries flanking the superstructure is the main heavy guns. Various smaller weapons then flank the sides and cover the top and bottom surfaces. It is also, I must say, a poor layout of the main guns such that they cannot support each other and focus fire forward easily. An option would be to nose down, but that'd present a larger target and wouldn't allow a direct approach.
Another possibility is that the ships are meant to fly alongside enemies and hit them with massive broadsides. While the tactic may date back to the Age of Sail, the lines of British and German Dreadnaughts at Jutland made use of essentially the same maneuver. Later, in World War II, during the Battle of Leyte, Jesse Oldendorf used the same idea with "Capping the Tee" to destroy much of the Japanese Southern Group.
Likewise, in "Revenge of the Sith," we saw the Republic ships, in the Battle of Coruscant firing broadsides at the Separatist ships with their massive turbolaser batteries.
Still, I really do think that the Empire would not see a need for heavy "Battleship vs. Battleship, Mano-a-mano" fighting; those people who weren't a full part of the Empire were satellite client states who had the power they had with the permission of the Empire (the Corporate Sector Authority comes to mind), and, as such, I still do think the massive broadside guns were meant for bombarding uncooperative planets from orbit.
"Another possibility is that the ships are meant to fly alongside enemies and hit them with massive broadsides".
Its wedge shape suggests they are designed to fight with enemy at the front. It's nearly impossible to find a blind spot to the front of an ISD.
Still, in terms of a broadside to broadside engagement with a battle line or battle wall, the ISD's main battery placement is very poor. A better design would likely involve centerline turrets on both upper and lower planes, with the ability to fire on both beams without obstruction. To continue the naval parallel, the early dreadnought battleships of the pre WWI vintage did have wing turrets flanking the superstructure such as the German Nassau class, the namesake of the type HMS Dreadnought and others, however those were later discarded in favor of superfiring turrets on the centerline as pioneered by the american South Carolina class. Of course, I could go on for days about the design flaws of Imperial warship design, but I still do not see the ISD fighting a broadside to broadside battle.
"Use a wall formation."
Oh, so use them as oversized Ion Cannon Frigates from Homeworld.
The star destroyer, or as I like to call it, the “death wedge.”
The domes are sensor-domes, not shield-domes. The Executors sensor dome that got taken out damanged the shield-grid.
How would it fare against a Missile Barrage?
its not obscure as to where they are..the specs are online for each model of ISD
The one on the bottom is actually a hyper matter Annihilator
What I don't get about ion cannons, is that given the few times we've seen them used (such as the one the rebels used on Hoth ) they are extremely effective at crippling enemy ships.
So... That being the case, if a Star destroyer has so many of the things, why are they never used in combat?
Surely if they're that effective you'd be using them alongside the main guns nearly all the time?
Otherwise you're just wasting a significant chunk of your firepower. (sure an ion cannon won't destroy a target, but it seems to cripple them pretty effectively, which is useful regardless of your intentions.)
Why do people get the Executor's name wrong? It does not sound right when you look at the printed name.
its funny how you mark the life support red when youre talking about shields lol
Its strange how you never see the ion cannons in use and there was quite a few times where it would of made use of them
I also consider the raised command bridge to be a incredibly stupid idea. Having a crucial part of the entire ship this exposed can and will lead to many problems in combat. For one it makes the star destroyer a bigger target from the front. Second if ships do get behind it the Destroyer has few guns on it's bridge and rear to defend it. And before you fan boys start defending this by saying "well it has strong armor and shields" let me point something out. The rebels prefer hit and runs more than full on engagements. So all they have to do is get some small, fast, and well armed ship to come in and focus the bridge down while a heavier cruiser distracts it. And all while peppering it down with fighters and bombers! We constantly see lonely star destroyers patrolling the galaxy in star wars so this would have been a essential strategy for the rebellion.
I thought the Star Destroyer was a planetary attack vessel? Designed to jump into a system with very little support and just be the presence of the Empire in local systems. If the system got too hot for a single vessel to handle, they just jumped away and came beck with more firepower. The single most underrated and powerful aspect of the Star Destroyer is its Hyperdrive. In the vast open wilds of space, speed is the way you win.
The true strength of the Imperial Navy was never the power of a single ship, it was always part of a series of massive fleets. The Navy had lots of fleets.