That's what's wrong with it. 50% on either beam is lousy. The weapons should be on the centreline so that they can fire on either beam.Captain Seafort wrote:What's wrong with the weapon placement? Each of the main guns is stepped outboard and slightly above the one in front of it, allowing maximum fire to be concentrated forward and above, and 50% on either beam.
I hate the Mon Cal' ships. They just look so damn ugly to me.If only the New Republic could have mass produced MC90s like the imps did ISDs! That would have been great to see! Those are my favorite ships outside of the Venators.
It does reduce the maximum broadside, true, but it would be a simple matter to pivot or rotate the ship to bring the other broadside to bear. The arrangement has the advantage of minimising the distance from the heaviest guns to the main reactor, simplifying the internal arrangements and power supply.GrahamKennedy wrote:That's what's wrong with it. 50% on either beam is lousy. The weapons should be on the centreline so that they can fire on either beam.
There's nowhere to mount them - virtually the entire aft face of the ship is dedicated to propulsion, either the engines themselves or various support gubbins.Aft coverage seems terrible too for that matter.
Um, that would not help. You'd still only be able to fire half the guns at any given time, switching sides now and again does nothing to mitigate that.Captain Seafort wrote:It does reduce the maximum broadside, true, but it would be a simple matter to pivot or rotate the ship to bring the other broadside to bear.
Exactly. And thus, a bad design.There's nowhere to mount them - virtually the entire aft face of the ship is dedicated to propulsion, either the engines themselves or various support gubbins.
Um, you're suggesting that weapon coverage on a warship is a matter of taste?Captain Seafort wrote:I'd say it boils down to a question of taste - concentration of fire (which you must admit is excellent in the forward arc), versus overall coverage.
Yes. Look at the Royal Navy's Nelson-class battleships for example - three turrets, all forward of the superstructure. Their aft coverage was as good as an ISD's, but it had the advantages of being able to concentrate all fire on a target much finer on the bow than most ships, and more importantly reduced the area of armour needed to cover the magazines.GrahamKennedy wrote:Um, you're suggesting that weapon coverage on a warship is a matter of taste?
Why? All it would have to do would be to keep the target at range (which it could if their mobility was equal) and keep the bow pointing the right way. The enemy ship wouldn't be able to outflank it, as the ISD's bow would have a much shorter distance to travel than the enemy ship going round the outside of the sphere.Yes, certainly the ISD has good forward coverage. It's good at fighting things on the bow. That seems to be all it's good at. If it can keep its distance and fight on its own terms, that works. If it is engaging a target that is fleeing, that works. But up against a well designed ship of roughly similar armament that could maneuver as well as it can, it would lose every single time.
Something only done because it was basically forced on them by the Washington treaty - the ships were called the Cherry Tree class because they were "cut down by Washington"! And after that experiment the idea was abandoned for the following King George V class.Captain Seafort wrote:Yes. Look at the Royal Navy's Nelson-class battleships for example - three turrets, all forward of the superstructure. Their aft coverage was as good as an ISD's, but it had the advantages of being able to concentrate all fire on a target much finer on the bow than most ships, and more importantly reduced the area of armour needed to cover the magazines.GrahamKennedy wrote:Um, you're suggesting that weapon coverage on a warship is a matter of taste?
No, actually it couldn't. If two ships are of equal mobility and one heads directly for the other, then the only thing the other can do to maintain the distance is turn and head directly away. Anything else allows the enemy to close. Certainly if it is going to point the bow at the enemy then the ISD can do nothing BUT close... unless it wants to fly around in reverse I suppose.Why? All it would have to do would be to keep the target at range (which it could if their mobility was equal) and keep the bow pointing the right way.
Enemy doesn't need to try and run literal rings. It just goes bow to bow and charges in.The enemy ship wouldn't be able to outflank it, as the ISD's bow would have a much shorter distance to travel than the enemy ship going round the outside of the sphere.
If distance from the reactor is so critical that it is worth taking a 50% loss of firepower, then they have no business building ships of that size to begin with.There's also the question of what constitutes a well-designed ship. If you put all guns on the centreline you increase the distance to the reactor. If you give it decent aft coverage you won't be able to concentrate fire forward. In order to get one capability you have to sacrifice another.
The Nelson design was developed from that of a battlecruiser that was being developed prior to Washington. The treaty limits led to it being only capable of 23kts compared to the planned battlecruisers' 30+, but the main armament layout was identical.GrahamKennedy wrote:Something only done because it was basically forced on them by the Washington treaty - the ships were called the Cherry Tree class because they were "cut down by Washington"! And after that experiment the idea was abandoned for the following King George V class.
The French Dunquerque-class battlecruisers and Richelieu-class battleships both had a pair of quad turrets forward with nothing aft. The RN's Battle and County class destroyers were armed only with a pair of twin turrets forward.In fact that I can find, the Nelsons are the ONLY warship class in history that had a lot of guns and didn't bother to arrange all around coverage. The only reason any ship forgoes all around coverage today is if it only has one gun.
Exactly my point - it reverses. We know from the tactical display of the Imperial fleet rounding Endor that they're capable of decelerating at several thousand G without turning the ship round - they're therefore capable of the same acceleration backwards.No, actually it couldn't. If two ships are of equal mobility and one heads directly for the other, then the only thing the other can do to maintain the distance is turn and head directly away. Anything else allows the enemy to close. Certainly if it is going to point the bow at the enemy then the ISD can do nothing BUT close... unless it wants to fly around in reverse I suppose.
I didn't say it was critical - I simply pointed out that it was an advantage of the ISD design. There's also the fact that the forward half of the ship is full of hangers and storage facilities for the TIE wing and stormtrooper detachment.If distance from the reactor is so critical that it is worth taking a 50% loss of firepower, then they have no business building ships of that size to begin with.
That's one school of thought. Another would be that a ship that cannot symultaneously chase down an enemy ship and bring maximum firepower to bear is a poor design. Given the ISD's role as a COIN platform, chasing down fleeing opponents would be a common occurance, and therefore concentrating fire in the forward arc is important.A design that results in a 50% loss in firepower on two axes and 100% loss of firepower on another can't possibly considered a good one.
