[headdie]

The thing is tho, on the vast majority of modern warships, the "bridge" as people usually think of it is just a place to drive the ship from.

hence the use of the word navigation preceding the word bridge.  fact is it is the navigation bridge aspect which caused the SSD to crash

[ShivanSpS]

Actually Battlestar Galactica made it right, no fancy windows and the bridges of both the Pegasus and Galactica where very well protected, placing something so important like the command crew so exposed is just stupid, there is nothing cool about it, its just a massive design flaw.

most modern warships still have the navigation bridge high up on the superstructure towards the front

They are not warships designed for space combat, and belive or not, the "tower" super structure of a warship is the safer place howday, missiles are all sea skirmming, on impact they are going to hit the ship just above the water line, no "gun" combat exist today on warships, neither planes can attack them the "old fashion way".
Main combat systems are still below the main deck, means if the ship get hit by a missile if a high chance if will be left out of combat, but there is a chance of save it.

And still, they are not space ships with advanced tecnology, the ISD triangle desing is brillant in terms of firepower, as you can place a vast amount of turrets on the triangle line and while facing the target place them all to bear on a single ship, and the "increasinly fat hull" along the triangle line allows to place even more turrets, a real life ISD could fire all its turrets at the same target if its on front, but placing the bridge exposed is just dumb, its like painting a big bulleye on it.

[Beskargam]

since massive offtopic, split?

[NGTM-1R]

The reason it's stupid is because no other class of ship (not even on the same scale as star destroyers) has giant, exposed shield generators

You don't know that. Nothing in the damn movies has its shield generators conveniently labeled. We can only infer when it comes up. (Oh and the only place it ever comes up was in direct relation to the domes.)

but placing the bridge exposed is just dumb, its like painting a big bulleye on it.

Regardless, it's what's been done, and every time we saw Executor's bridge from the many stations in the crew pits it was obvious that it combined navigation and CIC functions, so you're arguing against the visual evidence of ESB and ROTJ here.

[Dragon]

They are not warships designed for space combat, and belive or not, the "tower" super structure of a warship is the safer place howday, missiles are all sea skirmming, on impact they are going to hit the ship just above the water line, no "gun" combat exist today on warships, neither planes can attack them the "old fashion way".

Wrong, while attacking a modern warship with dumb bombs or cannons is not the best tactic, it's certainly a viable one. I've once sunk an enemy warship (I think a destroyer) in the old Fleet Command, which is a good 'modern' (as long as '99 counts as such) naval combat sim. I was kind of desperate and it was rather close (it did fire missiles, but they got wasted by my CIWS. I was saving mine.), but it could happen in an extended engagement. Also, ballistic missiles hit a ship mostly from the top, while they don't have the "pick a window" accuracy of a sea-skimming cruise missile, they're still in use. Furthermore, some sea-skimming missiles (like Harpoon) perform a "jump" maneuver during the terminal attack phase to avoid CIWS fire. So, the tower is very much at risk of being blown off.

Regarding SSD not having a backup nav bridge, it's because the Empire was afraid of mutiny more than of enemy attacks. Given Vader's style of commanding and their attitude about attacks, this is perfectly understandable. That would also be the reason for concentrating CIC functions on the nav bridge, so that the entire command staff would be handily available and the place would be easy to barricade in case of a mutiny. Empire had every reason to design a ship like that, especially a flagship vessel like SSD, by definition too powerful to be threatened in any sort of combat (and indeed, it's destruction was kind of a fluke).

Regarding placement of the shield generators, both ISD and SSD have exceptionally strong shields, so the projectors are probably required to achieve such strength. The radar domes just provided convenient location to place them. Mon Calmari cruisers also have shield generators mounted on the hull, in some of the blisters (according to the EU).

[ShivanSpS]

Im not arguing that, im just saying its increible dumb to place windows on the bridge AND having a critical component so exposed, the triangular shape its brillant to concrentrate firepower and have a quite good turret coverange, except from the back.

But no one on its right mind will place a critical command structure, with all the command authorities outside of the main hull with windows on it, they did it so the ships looked better for the film, but practicaly speaking, its a big mistake.

BSG was the first series that i see it bring some sence intro space ship building, Baseship, Galactica and Pegasus CIC are not only located inside the main hull, they are deep inside, nowhere near hull armor.

[Luis Dias]

The movie was done in a kind of homage to naval battles in the pacific and so on. Star Destroyers are pretty much Destroyer class warships from the US navy from the 40s and so on with "wings". Of course, they are much more than this, but this is the core design, and the reason they were designed like this was obviously to put the viewer of the late 70s immediately understanding what kind of ship this was, where the command center is, and a really big gut feeling of familiarity. People relate to the SDs precisely because they were so iconicly similar to the battleships of the second world war and so on.

Anything that starts to try to "count" megajoules and anything of the sort in these movies fail so hard to see the obvious fact that all these battles are an illusion concocted for the sake of plot. To argue the mathematics of the turbolasers can be fun, but one should *always* keep in mind that it is an exercise of outright sillyness just as big as discussing magical attributes of magicians as if it is really real and not a coordinated effort of tricks to make a really nice entertainment evening.

[Dragon]

But no one on its right mind will place a critical command structure, with all the command authorities outside of the main hull with windows on it, they did it so the ships looked better for the film, but practicaly speaking, its a big mistake.

Indeed, but keep in mind that in SW, windows are not glass, but transpirasteel, which is pretty much as good for armor as normal plating. Windows are much less of an issue than they seem. Also, I imagine that the CIC placement is the result of design evolution. KDY built ships with a nav bridge tower since long before the Empire, and even ISD could've had it's CIC inside the hull. SSD was supposed to be invincible anyway, so they figured out they could as well give the Admiral (and the important dignitary on board) a good view of the battle, while allowing him to watch the staff (it's possible that orders to combine CIC and Nav Bridge came from the top). Those ships were not designed for practicality. They were designed to look impressive both to their targets and to the command crew. If you look at it that way, an SSD makes much more sense. Remember what kind of regime the Empire is.

[ShivanSpS]

The material of the windows does not really matter, what it implies is what matter, it means that the CIC is, outside of the hull AND nailed directly to the ship armor plating, warships should be designed to take a beating, if a out of control A-wing can take it down something is really wrong there. And yes, it was unshielded, because someone placed the shield generator also outside the hull unprotected....

A good view of the battlefield can be done with both radar and camaras, we can have holograms, but not a radar to display its information on hologram? thats far more usefull that using your eyes.

So bad the Lucifer was not based on SW ships...

[Dragon]

You're still ignoring the fact that nobody even thought that an SSD would lose it's shields. In fact, Tarkin Doctrine assumed it'd hardly be attacked anyway. Remember the Death Star's design (the SSD design predates DS1), "those vents will never be a problem, fighters will never get that close" mentality that caused it's downfall was probably at work here. It's typical Imperial thinking. Also, the bridge probably has the thickest armor of all the ship, and that includes windows (transpirasteel is pretty much armor, too). Not that it helped against the speeding A-W, but it wasn't even out-of-control, it was very precisely flown into the bridge. A kamikaze is a pretty deadly method of attack and A-Ws are dedicated interceptors, meaning they fly very fast.

Also, it wasn't the shield dome destruction that brought down it's shield. According to Wookiepedia, they first broke thought the shield itself with concentrated, point-blank range turbolaser fire, then blew the dome to expose the bridge itself. Normally, those domes seem to be inside the shield.

[Scotty]

That A-Wing was absolutely spinning out of control.  Or rather, was fatally damaged.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Also, it wasn't the shield dome destruction that brought down it's shield. According to Wookiepedia, they first broke thought the shield itself with concentrated, point-blank range turbolaser fire, then blew the dome to expose the bridge itself. Normally, those domes seem to be inside the shield.

Or, to put that another way, the...

...dome exploding was a symptom of the shields being down, not the cause of it.

Which, to bring things back around to the original topic that started this off-topic branch, is that a single X-Wing being able to blow up the domes and then plink a Star Destroyer to death, like they could in the video games, is laughable.

...But then, we already knew that.

[MP-Ryan]

You guys are hilarious.  This thread is hilarious.  All the logical inconsistencies, effects-predominance, and poorly-executed plot-carrying dialogue in the Star Wars films can be neatly summed up in two words:

George Lucas.

But yeah, I've always operated on the premise that said dome was a local shield generator for the bridge area and when it went up in smoke, so did the shields for the bridge... and hence the SSD was effectively taken down by a mortally-wounded A-wing in typical Imperial-engineers-are-overconfident-idiots fashion.

[Dragon]

That A-Wing was absolutely spinning out of control.  Or rather, was fatally damaged.

Those are not the same thing. It's clearly stated on Wookiepedia that while being unrecoverable, it was steerable enough to be aimed. TBH, it'd be a incredible coincidence if it just happened to go straight for the main bridge window.

Which, to bring things back around to the original topic that started this off-topic branch, is that a single X-Wing being able to blow up the domes and then plink a Star Destroyer to death, like they could in the video games, is laughable.

...But then, we already knew that.

Ships could do a lot of funny things in SW video games. In fact, if there were no other factors, a single X-W could, in XWA, just plain shoot it's way through an ISD's shield. In the original X-Wing, if you were good enough, you could kill the ISD you were chasing in every mission it appeared, racking up an obscene amount of point along the way. The games took a lot of liberties regarding capship behavior. Also, XWA allowed you to shoot off turrets and subsystems like they were outside the shield, which obviously isn't be the case in the movies nor in the EU.

[Luis Dias]

You guys are hilarious.  This thread is hilarious.

Oh come on, me too?

George Lucas.

Nah, that's not really true, somewhat unfair actually. The movies are just camp(y) sy fy amazing battleships shooting each other with great visual effects and a lot of sudden plot twists. What matters is the feeling, not the ridiculous hilarious "consistencies" that so many fans clearly indulge themselves in. The movies give you the gist of being inside amazing battles and that's what matters. All these shenanigans are, I agree with you, silly.

[Scotty]

That A-Wing was absolutely spinning out of control.  Or rather, was fatally damaged.

Those are not the same thing. It's clearly stated on Wookiepedia that while being unrecoverable, it was steerable enough to be aimed. TBH, it'd be a incredible coincidence if it just happened to go straight for the main bridge window.

Which, to bring things back around to the original topic that started this off-topic branch, is that a single X-Wing being able to blow up the domes and then plink a Star Destroyer to death, like they could in the video games, is laughable.

...But then, we already knew that.

Ships could do a lot of funny things in SW video games. In fact, if there were no other factors, a single X-W could, in XWA, just plain shoot it's way through an ISD's shield. In the original X-Wing, if you were good enough, you could kill the ISD you were chasing in every mission it appeared, racking up an obscene amount of point along the way. The games took a lot of liberties regarding capship behavior. Also, XWA allowed you to shoot off turrets and subsystems like they were outside the shield, which obviously isn't be the case in the movies nor in the EU.

Please, note the phrasing "fatally damaged".  The way you phrased it before made it sound like the pilot, of his own free will and volition, without any prior damage or expectation to receive such damage, decided to crash himself into the bridge.  That's what I took issue with.

That said, crazier **** has happened, happens today, and will continue to happen until the heat death of the universe.

EDIT: Also thought I might address MP-Ryan with a small but significant detail: George Lucas did not direct the Star Wars original trilogy, merely produced it.  This is why Episodes 4-6 are so much better than 1-3; because he didn't have near the level of strangling creative control over the final cut.

[niffiwan]

EDIT: Also thought I might address MP-Ryan with a small but significant detail: George Lucas did not direct the Star Wars original trilogy, merely produced it.  This is why Episodes 4-6 are so much better than 1-3; because he didn't have near the level of strangling creative control over the final cut.

Well, technically speaking he directed IV, just not V & VI. Otherwise yeah, I always figured in 4-6 that he wasn't such a "legend" that the other production/directing/editing staff felt like they could actually give him advice (and he took it!), rather than just do what he said, because you know, he's George Lucas 

[karajorma]

He had a big part to play in the others.

The difference between the first and second trilogy is not a matter of who directed or who worked on the movie, but instead, it's a great example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without the studio system to keep him in check, Lucas was free to make his Luke Starkiller, 3-CPO/Used car salesman abortion of a movie.

[niffiwan]

 

I thought a big part of 4-6 was Lucas giving the finger to the studios.  Even for minor stuff, like moving credits to the end of the movie, which IIRC earned him & Kershner (sp?) a massive fine after Empire was released?

[karajorma]

Yeah, but like most young idealists who finally get power, it corrupted him.

By the time of the new trilogy he could do whatever he wanted and no one would tell him that he was wrong.