Doesn’t that create a huge vulnerability in that the enemy can just go under the ship and shoot up? Seems like they could have at least put 1 or 2 on the underside.
Because Star Wars spaceships are merely half-hearted extrapolations of Earth ships, which don’t need cannons on the underside.
Ralph McQuarrie designed some really beautiful stuff though.
Considering that ISDs are big capital ships, they often are accompanied by other ships as well. On top of that, the Empire didn’t really need a ship that was heavily armed on all sides until later, the rebels didn’t really have a big fleet for a while.
Additionally, there’s smaller turrets all over the ship to counter smaller fighters and bombers. Shields are also usually applied as a bubble and I think the bottom was more heavily armored than most parts. In case a big ship would be outside of their broadside turbolasers because it was below them, the ISD can also start to rotate.
During the Clone Wars the Venators usually weren’t deployed alone if they were meant to go into fleet combat. Often there were multiple Venators and depending on the job Acclamators, too.
Additionally, there’s smaller turrets all over the ship to counter smaller fighters and bombers.
Right but, if I were captaining a Mon Cala cruiser, I’d position my ship with my main guns towards the hangar side and where their main batteries couldn’t hit me because I was on the other side of the ship.
For the fighters/bombers, the enemy ships have their own escorts of X and Y wings too.
During the Clone Wars the Venators usually weren’t deployed alone if they were meant to go into fleet combat. Often there were multiple Venators and depending on the job Acclamators, too.
Acclamators kinda made sense in their design as they were basically really big landing craft, and they’d need a place for the landing gear to be stored/deployed from, and they’d be escorted by Venators.
But, Venators? They were extra weak on their underside because the hangar to launch fighters was up at the top along the length of the ship (top = side that was opposite from where they’d set down in a ship yard’s dry dock like in Episode 3 where Obi was leaving to confront Grevious).
Right but, if I were captaining a Mon Cala cruiser, I’d position my ship with my main guns towards the hangar side and where their main batteries couldn’t hit me because I was on the othef side of the ship.
I just noticed that you mean the Quad Turbo lasers, the big guns on the top side. Turbolaser are the general combat armaments. Those are quite evenly spread around the ISDs, both above, below and in the “trenches” along their sides, and used for shooting at anything, Asteroids, fighters, ships. The Quad Turbolasers were the heavy armaments they’d use on long range stand-off/line fighting. Usually ships started combat out of range and then moved closer, so getting below the ship without it noticing or rotating was hard, especially so for a ship of the MC-series.
For the fighters/bombers, the enemy ships have their own escorts of X and Y wings too.
That’s also what the turbolasers are for. And the TIEs
But, Venators? They were extra weak on their underside because the hangar to launch fighters was up at the top along the length of the ship
I am not sure this is the case. In Clone Wars we saw a Venator using its underside to shield the top side and hangar against a blockade of Munificent cruisers. While they did most likely angle their shields their as well, it would hardly make sense to even do if the underside was specifically weak.
I just noticed that you mean the Quad Turbo lasers, the big guns on the top side.
Right! The really really big ones. I though they were the turbos and the smaller ones werd just turrets of some sort. My bad!
While they did most likely angle their shields their as well, it would hardly make sense to even do if the underside was specifically weak.
Right, but the shielding is the key word. I wasn’t saying it was weak in that it couldn’t have an inventive use. I meant weak in that it had less offensive capabilities for a line fight like at the start of III. I mean, you could eventually cut someone in half with individual sheets of paper doing paper cuts over and over. But using a saw would be more practical.
Right! The really really big ones. I though they were the turbos and the smaller ones werd just turrets of some sort. My bad!
No worries, the normal turbo laser turrets are relatively small compared to the Quads and especially to the size of an ISD.
Right, but the shielding is the key word. I wasn’t saying it was weak in that it couldn’t have an inventive use. I meant weak in that it had less offensive capabilities for a line fight like at the start of III. I mean, you could eventually cut someone in half with individual sheets of paper doing paper cuts over and over. But using a saw would be more practical.
That’s true, though in that case you move away. Unless both ships have the exact same speed and heading, they’d diverge relatively quickly. Line fighting usually involves constant movement. So unloading a broadside or two probably doesn’t do that much.
Oh, and I just had a quick look at the fight. So apparently the Venators have a big death laser around the lower hangar section. At minute 2:50 it is used to blast a Munificent apart. It might very well be, that it is the same type of weapon used by the Empire for Planetary Bombardments, or purpose built for the Clone Wars.
So apparently the Venators have a big death laser around the lower hangar section. At minute 2:50 it is used to blast a Munificent apart.
The only time I remember seeing a giant gun out the bottom of the capital ship was in the sequels where a Sith Star Destroyer had a miniature Death Star cannon that was used to destroy a plannet. So, forgive me for asking, but what episode are you talking about that 2:50 mark?
Episode 3, during the Space Battle over Coruscant
Oh Right! Its right at the 1:00 mark (film footage time, not including introductory text).
Well, it was more just a weird laser beam (didn’t actually see a cannon barrel), but I’ll give it to you.
And the imps would just rotate their ship.
It’s sort of like old naval battles where you try to out maneuver the other guy to get him in your gunsights while he can’t fire at you, just in 3d space instead of 2d ocean.
And the imps would just rotate their ship.
At first I was hesitant to recognize rotating ships as a valid answer, but then /u/Akagigahara reminded me of that episode from The Clone Wars where the Jedi did exactly that to make a “wall” to shield its fighters from a Seperatist ship. I had forgotten about that one. My bad!
You sorta lost me here. Like I agree spaceships are often wierdly made like ships that are going to be in gravity when they never will so then its like it might as well be a sphere or cube or such and any particular area should be like the others. But the thing about the captain taking advantage of it is looking at it in a vaccum. Of course they would try to position themselves but so will the captain of the star destroyer and its easier to rotate than do a big loop. So everything else being equal its going to be near impossible to get the strategic advantage. Now star trek had a good example for reasoning around its ships. the nacelles as meant to be able to be ejected along with the engineering section. Heck the whole stng saucer seperation came from the orginal concept where the saucer would land and engineering with warp nacelles would land on the planet. They even had guidlines about nacelle placement because the area in between them is dangerous. Its not only why the federation ships were the way they were but also the reason the klingon ships wings went up and down. Seems like after rodenberry died though the designs started ignoring it.
“up” and “under” have no meaning in space.
Yes, but George didn’t really get that at the time… At least not with the big ships.
My point exacly. But, I’m talking the side opposite the bridge.
Also, Star Wars ships had a general up/down in that they had micro-gravity that was generally oriented with the bridge at the top
So you mean the dorsal (bridge) side, as opposed to the ventral (under) side?
ISDs do have turbo lasers on the underside. They are often seen using them for planetary bombardment.
General rule of thumb that I tell myself when I start digging too deep into Star Wars “why’s” is, just think of world war 2 tactics. If you frame most combat encounters into dogfights and ground warfare it helps with brushing off some of the deeper space intricacies
I don’t think I’ve ever once noticed the guns being on only one side, of any Star Wars ship, not just Star Destroyers.
I’ve always seen guns on either side. I’m not sure where you’re getting there’s only one side of guns
The “top” side is what he’s getting at, not left or right
Right, an I mean the really big guns. Video games will sometimes have smaller turrets down on the under belly.
Not port vs. starboard. I’m talking bridge vs. keel.
Yes. Any ship lower then the other would have the advantage.
But there are weapon systems and shields under the ship
Real answer, model making was sloppy back in them days. The Star Destroyers have a ton of turbolasers you just can’t see and the special effects guys just picked random places for the bolts to lance out from.
Just spin the ship.
The Star Destroyer is a sphere.
Spheres only have one side.
Unless it’s a hollow sphere then there’s the outside and the inside. But the Star Destroyer isn’t hollow really, so that doesn’t count.You’re thinking of the Death Star. Star Destroyers are the flying pizza slices.
That’s right! Sorry
