www.ditl.org

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.

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.

Aft coverage seems terrible too for that matter.

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.

I hate the Mon Cal' ships. They just look so damn ugly to me.

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.

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.

Aft coverage seems terrible too for that matter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly. And thus, a bad design.

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. The big guns prioritise the former, the smaller ones prioritise the latter, and when your light guns are more powerful than most nukes and can take out small capital ships I'd say the need for massive firepower in all arcs is reduced somewhat.

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.

Um, you're suggesting that weapon coverage on a warship is a matter of taste?

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.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Um, you're suggesting that weapon coverage on a warship is a matter of taste?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think the ISD-IIs solved this by just loading a massive amount of heavy cannon all over the ship. That is what should have been done in the first place. Also having no aft coverage is a major weakness against a ship that has equal or better speed/turning would be open to attack without a way to fire back. Stay behind and or below the ISD and you'll be able to gain a number of hits in before the ISD could return that favor.

I'm not a big fan of the borg cube, it's a little *stretch yawn* square for my taste.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Um, you're suggesting that weapon coverage on a warship is a matter of taste?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And if it does turn and run, then the enemy is in the big massive blind spot with all sorts of vulnerable engines pointing right at the enemy guns.

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.

Enemy doesn't need to try and run literal rings. It just goes bow to bow and charges in.

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.

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.

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.

Look at the standard layout that evolved for real world battleships; a nine gun ship like the Iowa would have six guns forward, three aft; 66% / 33% in the X axis, and 100% / 100% on the beams. For an ISD the figures are 100% / 0% and 50% / 50%. It scores ahead of an Iowa in one of the four axes, and lags it in every other.

Even the present day Ticonderoga class cruisers have a gun forward and one aft - 50/50 and 100/100, again beating an ISD in every respect except forwards.

IIRC, there were 27 Impstars at Endor. And the Mark-I's only had aft-facing ion cannons. No turbolasers. Although that might have been retconned.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So of all of this, then why not have heavy cannon on the under hull as well? That would double your firepower and give you the ability to hammer a target with 6 turrets at top, bottom, left and right. It would also give you 12 heavy cannon forward. That would have made far more sense. The Imps failed to make the ISD what it should have been. That is what makes it a poor design. There is no reason or half-ass excuse to leave half of your ship without protection of heavy cannon. If the MC's could do it with pleasure ships on short notice then the imps should have been able to do it over 30 years. The ISD is without cause or reason a bad ship design.

The lack of ventral heavy guns is one of only two major weakness in the ISD's design (the other being the bridge tower). Looking at the specs, the problem seems to be that the ventral half of the aft hull is filled with the main reactor and the power cells. There's also the problem that splitting the main armament between the dorsal and ventral surfaces would make concentration of fire more difficult.

Why would you have to split anything? The ISD is just like the Romulan warbird. Looks big and tough but anything well built and half its size can match it.