Worst ship design in sci-fi?

[Captain Seafort]

Though many people don't know this you don't always have to use every weapon you have. By having more cannon you allow a greater field of fire. If the imps can't solve power problems or the reactor is already at its best then you would use the lower and upper cannon to allow you to pick your targets. You could (with the extra cannon) even out your weapons and force anyone who wishes to engage you to try to stay behind you as that would be your only remaining blind spot.

I've pointed out several times that there's nowhere else to put extra guns. The Tector-class probably solves the coverage issue by mounting ventral HTLs.

I would but I don't have the movie here so I was using someone else's numbers. The Home One's from what I've seen of only had two there. Though I've heard that there was a third one but I'm not sure. I only remember seeing 6 MC80's in the battle. There may have been more as you pointed out but the ISDs still outnumbered them, had more fighters, had the DSII, had the Emperor, had a SSD, God knows what else. Even if both an MC80 and an ISD were even the odds are still very badly stacked. It was also the first time those ships had met in a large battle and like you said, the ISDs produce a good morale beater. In the end, rebels won, stats show that the ISD2s as surpassing the MC80s which forced the New Rep to build the MC90s. In end, the ISD was a great idea but poorly produced.

Endor should have been an Imperial curbstomp, but thanks to the Emperor's arrogance it ended up going the other way.

What do you mean when you say the ISD was "a great idea but poorly produced"?

[Deepcrush]

I've pointed out several times that there's nowhere else to put extra guns. The Tector-class probably solves the coverage issue by mounting ventral HTLs.

This has been a point that I've been trying to make for awhile now.

Endor should have been an Imperial curbstomp, but thanks to the Emperor's arrogance it ended up going the other way.

This is true, but still they had so much going for them and they lost. Tells that their advantage wasn't what either side thought it was.

What do you mean when you say the ISD was "a great idea but poorly produced"?

I mean EVERYTHING THAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. They ISD was a great multipurpose vessel. But, it failed to meet the growing abilities of the Rebels. The ISD wasn't built to face off against ships that were their equal. If they could mass produce them then they should have spent some extra time working out the weak points. The only major problem I have with the ISD is that it's not properly covered. If they would have had better weapon arcs then the Rebels would have never lasted five minutes.

[Captain Seafort]

This has been a point that I've been trying to make for awhile now.

What, that there's nowhere to put extra guns?

This is true, but still they had so much going for them and they lost. Tells that their advantage wasn't what either side thought it was.

The defeat at Endor, despite Imperial superiority, was mainly due to the following factors

1) Poor defence of the shield generator.

The Imps should have cleared the area around both the front and rear entrances to the bunker, and established fixed defensive positions to cover said entrances. By scattering into the forrest after the Ewoks they reduced the concentration available at the critical point and allowed Chewie's AT-ST to defeat their forces in detail.

2)Failure of the Imperial Fleet to engage the Rebel ships at range.

This was on the direct orders of the Emperor (not the sort of bloke you want to argue with) since he wanted to show off his fancy new toy. They should have used long-range turbolaser fire to destroy the Rebels' capital ships, attriting them before they could close to point-blank range (and negating the Imperials' numerical superiority. As an addition to this point, the superlaser should have taken out the Home One-type ships first, rather than the comparitively insignificant Liberty-types.

3)Loss of the Emperor

This was the critical blow. Without the active coordination the Emperor was providing, the fleet lost cohesion, and suffered an appalling drop in morale and efficiency. Thrawn attributed the loss of the Executor, six Star Destroyers and the Death Star itself to this loss - none of which would (in his opinion) have occured had the Emperor not died.

4) Premature retreat

Linked to pont 3), since it was largely as a result of the confusion and demoralisation ensuing from the Emperor's death that the retreat occured. At that point the Imperial Fleet still had the Rebels trapped against Endor, and possesed superior numbers and firepower. An able and determined subordinate commander could have rallied the fleet and destroyed the bulk of the Rebel Alliance, even after the destruction of the Death Star. Instead conflicting orders from several sources led to the bulk of the fleet following the Chimera's instructions to withdraw from the Endor system.

I mean EVERYTHING THAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. They ISD was a great multipurpose vessel. But, it failed to meet the growing abilities of the Rebels. The ISD wasn't built to face off against ships that were their equal. If they could mass produce them then they should have spent some extra time working out the weak points. The only major problem I have with the ISD is that it's not properly covered. If they would have had better weapon arcs then the Rebels would have never lasted five minutes.

All ships can face off against their equals - that's the definition of "equal". If you're saying it isn't a perfect design, then sure, nothing is. It's a comprimise between the roles of starfighter carrier, assault ship, and ship-to-ship combat. It does pretty well at all three. Sure, it isn't the most effective ship-to-ship design for its size, but its still superior to the Mon Cals under normal circumstances. The circumstances of Endor were anything but normal, as I've pointed out above.

[Deepcrush]

What, that there's nowhere to put extra guns?

This is one of the problems that should have been worked out in the design phase.

The defeat at Endor, despite Imperial superiority, was mainly due to the following factors

1) Poor defence of the shield generator.

The Imps should have cleared the area around both the front and rear entrances to the bunker, and established fixed defensive positions to cover said entrances. By scattering into the forrest after the Ewoks they reduced the concentration available at the critical point and allowed Chewie's AT-ST to defeat their forces in detail.

2)Failure of the Imperial Fleet to engage the Rebel ships at range.

This was on the direct orders of the Emperor (not the sort of bloke you want to argue with) since he wanted to show off his fancy new toy. They should have used long-range turbolaser fire to destroy the Rebels' capital ships, attriting them before they could close to point-blank range (and negating the Imperials' numerical superiority. As an addition to this point, the superlaser should have taken out the Home One-type ships first, rather than the comparitively insignificant Liberty-types.

3)Loss of the Emperor

This was the critical blow. Without the active coordination the Emperor was providing, the fleet lost cohesion, and suffered an appalling drop in morale and efficiency. Thrawn attributed the loss of the Executor, six Star Destroyers and the Death Star itself to this loss - none of which would (in his opinion) have occured had the Emperor not died.

4) Premature retreat

Linked to pont 3), since it was largely as a result of the confusion and demoralisation ensuing from the Emperor's death that the retreat occured. At that point the Imperial Fleet still had the Rebels trapped against Endor, and possesed superior numbers and firepower. An able and determined subordinate commander could have rallied the fleet and destroyed the bulk of the Rebel Alliance, even after the destruction of the Death Star. Instead conflicting orders from several sources led to the bulk of the fleet following the Chimera's instructions to withdraw from the Endor system.

These are all very good points. It should have been a cake walk, but it wasn't. The MC's held up (at the least for a while) against the ISDs. The MC's had better fire arcs which allowed them to pick a target and work together against a single ship. The rebel fighters and pilots were far far better then what the empire had with them.

All ships can face off against their equals - that's the definition of "equal". If you're saying it isn't a perfect design, then sure, nothing is. It's a comprimise between the roles of starfighter carrier, assault ship, and ship-to-ship combat. It does pretty well at all three. Sure, it isn't the most effective ship-to-ship design for its size, but its still superior to the Mon Cals under normal circumstances. The circumstances of Endor were anything but normal, as I've pointed out above.

Ok, I can understand what you mean. What I was trying to get across was that the Empire never planned for someone building a ship to match their own. I never said it wasn't perfect, though no ship is perfect. Now that we have BOTH said it was a MULTIPURPOSE ship, that at hand the MCs still faired well against an enemy that shouldn't have even had to think in order to win. The empire may have better cannon but in the end they fought a battle that was in truth suited to the MCs. A drawn out battle where the MCs who had far better shields and weapons arcs meant that the ISDs were fighting an up hill battle. Though this is all in hindsight of the Battle of Endor.

[Graham Kennedy]

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.

"The grouping of main armament forward allows for a minimum length of armoured citadel with maximum protection to hull and magazines, and is considered to fully compensate for the loss of fire astern. The design is therefore peculiar, in that it is governed more by constructional than tactical principles." - Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II

And the Dunquerque and Richelieu class were based on the Nelson design. True regarding the Battle and County class, though the County class was a missile ship where gun placement was not nearly so important.

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.

I'll believe an ISD can reverse when I see one do it. Certainly it's not a tactic we have ever observed, and no ship that wants to close with an ISD has ever been shown to have trouble doing so; the Rebel fleet in ROTJ got in amongst them and exchanged fire on the beams easily as soon as it chose to do so.

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.

Another would be that a ship that cannot symultaneously chase down an enemy ship and bring maximum firepower to bear is a poor design.

If that's the role they are designed for that would be reasonable; label them as some sort of "pursuit ship" that's only really good when it's chasing another vessel, as we see in the beginning of ANH. More like a coastguard cutter than a serious warship. But as a general purpose serious warship their design is flawed. And the same principle applies to any ship using that sloped hull triangle design.

[Captain Seafort]

"The grouping of main armament forward allows for a minimum length of armoured citadel with maximum protection to hull and magazines, and is considered to fully compensate for the loss of fire astern. The design is therefore peculiar, in that it is governed more by constructional than tactical principles." - Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II

In that the concentration of the main armament was done in order to maximise protection, true. That very quote, however, shows that coverage is not the be-all and end-all of battleship design, and other considerations (such as protection) may superceed it.

I'll believe an ISD can reverse when I see one do it. Certainly it's not a tactic we have ever observed, and no ship that wants to close with an ISD has ever been shown to have trouble doing so; the Rebel fleet in ROTJ got in amongst them and exchanged fire on the beams easily as soon as it chose to do so.

At Endor the fleet was hiding behind the moon until after the Rebels came out of hyperspace, then circled it in a few minutes to cut off their retreat. This feat requires fantasic speed, and equally fantastic acceleration. Once they were round the moon, visibly orientated with bows towards the Rebels, they had to decelerate hard in order to hold their position outside attack range (as Piett ordered). This means that they must be able to accelerate backwards.

If that's the role they are designed for that would be reasonable; label them as some sort of "pursuit ship" that's only really good when it's chasing another vessel, as we see in the beginning of ANH. More like a coastguard cutter than a serious warship. But as a general purpose serious warship their design is flawed. And the same principle applies to any ship using that sloped hull triangle design.

Pursuit is the most common role we've seen the ISD perform - of the Tantive IV in the opening of ANH, of the Falcon after it lifted off from Mos Eisley, and of the Falcon again for much of ESB. We've also seen them interdicting a planet in ESB, when the dagger profile allowed all guns to be directed towards the origin point of escaping ships.

For larger ships using the wedge shape (such as the Ex), a line of heavy guns along the midline would be able to cover more than 50% of a sphere. Whether the main guns are positioned there we don't know, since they're far too small to distinguish on such a large vessel.

[Deepcrush]

Seafort, we can all tell that you have a strong love of the ISD-1. If we gave you the choice to improve it at all. Could you tell us what things might you change? So that we may better understand your point of view.

[Captain Seafort]

Improve it in what way? Given it's role its about as close to a perfect design as you can get. You can't mount a line of HTL batteries along the midline (upper or lower) because the forward hull is full of hangers and the aft hull has the main reactor. You can't mount them on the lower-aft hull (mirroring the existing batteries) because that area's full of power cells and the main engines. The wedge shape means that all guns are mounted slightly inboard and below those directly aft of them, allowing maximum concentration of fire forward.

The only serious flaw to fix is the main bridge - for some reason KDY feel the need to place it at the front of the tower, with windows facing into space. While the tower is a good idea, so as to mount the sensor domes and comm array clear of the hull to achieve maximum coverage, putting the bridge there is not. If they want to be able to visually inspect targets they should have an auxiliary control centre there for the purpose - the bridge should be deep inside the ship, probably between the reactor spaces and the hangers.

Incidentally, I don't really differentiate between the Mk 1 and the Mk 2 - the differences are slight enough that the latter could easily be a refit of the former. Indeed, if I had to choose between the two designs I prefer the Deuce - mainly because of the lower comm array and the blue-grey colour scheme.

[Deepcrush]

Now that we have beaten this horse to death so many times over. We need a new ship to pick on. Anyone got any ideas? I was thinking maybe the TIE fighter! That was a hunk of dung in perfect form!

[Graham Kennedy]

Well at risk of harping on a single issue... most Starfleet ships suck in terms of weapon placement as well. Not as bad as an ISD, they do tend to have all around fire at least, but once again weapons are placed so that many can only fire on one beam. Arrays help with that though.

I vote for the Miranda overall though. A good ship in its day perhaps, but the apparently huge hull life led to many of them still being on the front lines in the 2370s... and they seemed to go BANG with a depressing regularity in the Dominion war. Not a terrible design as such, but kept around way beyond their usefulness.

[Deepcrush]

I don't think the Miranda is that bad. I think it out lived its time. In its day it served well enough to last for a hundred years. Much like the Excelsior without the upgrade ability.

[Graham Kennedy]

Really it's more a criticism of Starfleet than the Miranda. I know they were at war and all, but using the Miranda as they did was just not something they should have done.

[Captain Seafort]

Indeed - the Mirandas would probably have been better off being used in a similar way to how the Royal Navy used its 4-stacker US destroyers during WW2. Convoy escort, 3rd and 4th-line defences, and keeping any eye on quiet borders, to free up more modern ships for the front line.

[Sionnach Glic]

The Miranda was a very good design as of TOS, and seems to be one of the few Starfleet ships designed anywhere near competantly. The fact that they were getting swatted out of the sky like flies a century later says more about the idiots who ordered outdated ships onto the front line than the ship itself.

[colmquinn]

Well maybe they kept all the old ships on and sent them to the front "sure thing mr President - we just sent 100 ships to sector abcd to hold the line" rather than admit that all the resources of the past 50 years allocated to the fleet were paying off Kirk's paternity law suits