Worst ship design in sci-fi?

[Deepcrush]

True, but that's more a fault of the crew than the ship.

No, thats just how the weapons were laid out.

Do you mean 'fighter'? If so, they had 72 attack craft on board. Not bad, in my opinion.

72 TIEs is crap. The venator carried over 200 fighter craft.

Those domes aren't shield generators, they're sensor domes.

The lower hull had its sheild generator to the fore of the main reactor bulb and the upper hull had it sitting between to rows of turbolasers. Both making for very loving targets and neither well protected against fighters.

[Sionnach Glic]

No, thats just how the weapons were laid out.

The weapon layout is actualy fairly good. They're able to focus nearly all their firepower to the front of the ship, and a fair amount to port and starboard. The only realy weak area is the back.

72 TIEs is crap. The venator carried over 200 fighter craft.

True, but the ISD is more designed as a warship than a carrier.

The lower hull had its sheild generator to the fore of the main reactor bulb and the upper hull had it sitting between to rows of turbolasers. Both making for very loving targets and neither well protected against fighters.

Well, the fighters would have to get through the shields first (nigh on impossible for fighters, not including the EU stupidity), then through the fairly tough armour. Aproaches to both generators would also be covered by fire-arcs of multiple guns, also.

Out of curiosity, where did you hear that the generators were placed there?

[Deepcrush]

My friend ryan has all of these source books with model graphics and blue print like layouts. Its really cool stuff.

[kostmayer]

One of the most vital and expensive components of an aircraft is the pilot, and the TIE fighter really doesn't look after them does it? The chances of a pilot surviving his first combat must be pretty low, and even for an experienced pilot, which must be pretty rare, one mistake and he's toast.
Always seemed strange to be that the Rebels has fighters that where hugely superior to the Empire. Like, Bryan, I never bought the cost effective explanation.

As wasteful as it might have been, the Empire had access to a lot more personnel and resources then the Rebellion. The Rebellion had fewer pilots and less resources to draw on, so they would have had to rely on technical superiority rather then numbers.

[Sionnach Glic]

My friend ryan has all of these source books with model graphics and blue print like layouts. Its really cool stuff.

Cool.

[Deepcrush]

I know its some really cool stuff. Though he had to point a lot of things out to me that I had never seen before. The Venator seems overall to have a much better thought going into it but lacked the size and overall stomping power needed to really make a solid name sake against other ships of equal size. It started as a good idea but failed to hold up against the MC cruisers that came against it. The Venator's heavy guns were placed in rotating heavily armoured decks, aka massive turrets, and allowed for greater targeting and protection. The ISDs guns were mostly housed in lightly armoured turrets that were easy pickings for a PTW or a couple of CMWs. This meant that a fighter that couldn't take down a ship could disable a number of the weapons on board that allow them to take down another ship and this leaving them open to attack.

[Sionnach Glic]

Good points.

[Reliant121]

I think the Star Destroyer was meant to be a a Frightening sight as much as a frighteningly powerful vessel. The Imperial fleet would likely have thought that people would respect the ISD to much to attack it.

[Deepcrush]

HAD the ISDs replaced their weaker gun turrets with armoured rotating decks when the ISD II's came out then I think my thoughts would be much different. They would have been able to focus their fire much more effectively both forward and broadside. It also would have removed the biggest advantage that the Mon Cals had in up close fighting. A volley would commonly knock out an Imp weapon where the MC's weapons were covered and able to remain in action.

[Reliant121]

true

[Sionnach Glic]

I think the heavy turbolasers on the ISD II were designed as you described.

[Deepcrush]

The two rows of eight yes, but the bulk of the weapons were not.

I think the Star Destroyer was meant to be a a Frightening sight as much as a frighteningly powerful vessel. The Imperial fleet would likely have thought that people would respect the ISD to much to attack it.

This is a very good point but they missed the calling that they could have both a fear howling ship and a powerful warship at the same time. Don't get me wrong, the ISDs are very powerful ships in their own right but with only a little effort they could have been much more so.

[Reliant121]

This is often the case. A very capable design is let down by one ar two major factors. Take the King George V battleships of world war 2. She had 12 heavy cannons (can't remember siz) and was a highly respected and feared ship . Yet the guns were mounted in 3 quad turrets. One bomb could disable a third of the Battleships armemant.

[Deepcrush]

The ISDs here are even worse as only 1/3 of thier guns are even armoured in any respect.

[Reliant121]

A bad case of imperial stupidity.