I must point out something that was left out here: the ISD was designed during the Clone Wars. It wasn't supposed to REPLACE the Venator, it was supposed to SUPPORT it. Just like the other KDY/Rothana ships of the era, they were supposed to fight as a group: the Acclamator was the troop transport with a full legion and relative vehicles ready to land as soon as the path was cleared (with enough weapons to support opening the way to the target), the Tector (same size as the ISD, no fighters or troops, all guns) was the heavy hitter, the Venator the carrier that would support the group with fighters from behind (as it was more vulnerable it was better kept behind, so any attacker would have to get past the far heavier ships to get it), the Victor(y) was supposed to support the landing and escort the Venator, the Acclamator II and Victory II were vanguard ships with more guns than their other version, and the Imperator (later Imperial I) was a generalist design supposed to serve as a flagship for a battlegroup (possibly including the other Kuati-designed ships) or solo missions. Then the Empire took over just as the Imperators were entering service, and with the Venator being so popularly linked to the Jedi the carrier was scrapped and the doctrine reworked around the newly renamed Imperial Star Destroyers. The ship was fine, the use was shit.
When I modded my Star Wars Empire at War, I made it so earlier levels were Clone Wars era vehicles like the Venator(with V-Wings) and then "replaced" with Victory and Imperial Stardestroyers. The V-Wings had shields but made them overall less powerful than TIE Fighters but also made all Stardestroyers carry the proper amount of aircraft. I would use the Venator for sheer numbers of fighters to overwhelm the enemies while deploying the Imperial Stardestroyers to pound the enemy Space Station and larger enemy ships(because they're battleships and have better fire power and shields) and use the Victory Stardestroyers and TIE Fighters to hunt down fleeing or outflanking enemy corvettes and fighters. Occasionally having Tartan Patrol Cruisers help provide support against enemy fighters that might get too close to my Imperial and Venator Stardestroyers. They definitely have their ups and downs and really work better together than separate.
Very well said as all of the main imperial capital ships were build in or during the clone wars and were never designed to operate independently, but as part as a massive fleet in assigned roles. Which why both victory and imperial class were so vulnerable when they came up against threats they were equipped or built to handle.
@@wedgeantillies66 , old expanded universe, a handful of Victory Stardestroyers and at least one Imperator Stardestroyer(the operational prototype to the Imperial Stardestroyer) were at the Battle of Coruscant. The Quasar Fire-Class Cruiser-Carrier is just not as great as the Venator. Serves a similar purpose as a carrier, but even Venator Stardestroyers were better designed for close combat than the Quaser. You don't want that junk anywhere near a combat zone. The others work really well together, and definitely a flaw of the Empire to abandon the Venator Stardestroyer design. I could see them maybe having to make some modifications or a slight redesign to carry TIE Fighters, but completely dumping the design was bad.
@@MehrumesDagon Yes, a whole fleet against just TWO ISDs. Two ships exhausting an entire fleet goes to show how good the ISD is, don't you think? Wonder how the battle would've fared if the defenders on Scarif had three. Vader would've been unnecessary.
Super Star Destroyer: "You see you're not dealing with the average Star Destroyer anymore." Rebel Alliance: "I feel like we've been here before. Have we been here before?"
Super Star Destroyer: "Not quite, there are no super-lazers or convenient exhaust ports for you to shoot a torpedo through this time!" Rebel Alliance: Destroys one of the bridge deflector shield turrets before an A-Wing kamikaze's through the bridge section causing the Super Star Destroyer to crash into the neerest moon sized object.
The problem with dreadnoughts is the question. Where are you going to service it? While a cruiser can be serviced at a hundred ports. A StarDestroyer can only be serviced in ten of those. A Super Star Destroyer would only be serviced one or two of those ports.
The Super Star Destroyer was intended to be a mobile logistical base complete with full repair facilities. Allowing the Empire to control large areas. Even though they were capable of it they were not intended to be used as front line combat units. Imperial doctrine led to a war winning weapon being misused.
The biggest reason for the ISD was to be a central point of the navy, the problem was they just didn't use it well. They still kept carriers and point ships around showing they knew they had a capability and resource hole with it
They replaced a good carrier that can still hold its own in a close fight, with the Quasar Fire-Class Cruiser-Carrier, which falls a lot shorter on capabilities and a lot squishier than the Venators.
Ideally, you'd keep the Venators for patrols and general peacekeeping like you've stated, and have a smaller core of ISDs for when you need a hammer blow or a nice show of force.
Another thing the star destroyer lacks is force projection. A Star Destroyer HAS to be in the same location as the conflict, if the conflict moves, it has to move with it. If a second conflict occurs at the same time the Star Destroyer is unable to respond. A Venator Class, has force projection, its hyperdrive capable fighters and other vehicles mean you can park the ship in empty space and still respond. If the conflict moves, the Venator does not have to, it simply retasks some of its ships, if a second conflict breaks out then the Venator can respond with other ships. Overall the Venator offers more flexible deployments.
@@jakegrant5698 The emperor didn't want hyperspace capable fighters, he didn't trust his soldiers. This is the same emperor that has the ISB listen to every conversation every stormtrooper has to sniff out traitors. The TIE fighter lacks shields, hyperdrive, or heavy weapons because it was meant to be a cheap, mass producable, and expendable as possible. They didn't even pressurize.
@@jakegrant5698your maths isn't all that good. An ISD carried 6 squadrons of TIEs, usually 12 bombers, 12 interceptors and 48 TIE l/n and exactly FIVE hyperspace capable assault gunboats. A single Venator carried more than 400 fighters of various classes. That's 5 to 6 times as much of a strike wing.
@@daveharrison61 an ISD's hangar is nearly as big as a Venator's. It can carry nearly as much stuff, especially if you remove the ground vehicles. The actual volume and engineering of the ship is more important than the stats made up by goofy ass nerds
I've always believed that if the US Navy was able to get a Star Wars vessel for a spaceborne fleet, they'd want a Venator because it would fit with the carrier task force mindset
@@jakegrant5698 I agree. However I believe the USN would probably want to use it differently than how the imperials would use it. Something like how the Venator or our super carriers are used but on a far larger scale. And might use it as a repair and resource extraction vessel so assets can be repaired, replaced and manufactured. Though I do think many in the navy or at least the coast guard would definitely see the value in a Venator class as well.
@@darth_nihilus_ the executor can physically fit multiple venators inside its hangar. It can easily hold thousands of fighters on a normal load and tens of thousands of small interceptors
@@sirjaroid4725 By the time the rebels were organized enough to get one the empire had either scrapped them or in the process of doing so. Yeah, palpy really wanted to get rid of the venator.
Alan has to be the most OG star wars content creator. Hes definitely my favorite. Love the rediculous style of humor and calling characters the wrong name like baby gogurt 😆😆😆😆
Yes, Allen I agree with the point you are making. As a third generation Naval Service veteran I have always thought that having larger numbers of smaller well equipped combat ships can be as effective as a Carrier and her battle group. The point of cost is not lost on me. Yes, a carrier battle group has tremendous flexibility and firepower, but purchasing larger numbers of Frigates and Destroyers, or other smaller class of warships, for the resources and cost of said carrier is a consideration that I have often pondered. Thanks again for your awesome channel and the thought-provoking work you are doing. (:
If I am not mistaken I think the navy is considering more smaller carrier strike groups after how expensive these new Gerald Ford carriers are as well as littoral combat ships focusing on shallow water patrolling. (This isn’t starwars where your starfighters have an unlimited range pretty much) Maybe something more akin to the america-class amphibious assault ships but without the well-deck. Kind of like what South Korea’s planned CVX carrier will be. Also as Thomas Jefferson was weary of a standing army he was a big supporter of a navy. I think we should focus more on navy and coast guard budget than army bases abroad anyway. Coast guard is completely overwhelmed by drugs and immigrant smuggling. I think more smaller ships is a great idea.
@@GAJake With the F35s STOVL-capabilities, I think mini-carriers like those used by the Marines (or the Koreans) will become a much more prudent choice for most assignments. Having a 5th gen aircraft assigned to what, essentially, used to be a helicopter-carrier, will be a huge force multiplier for those ships, while only requiring a fraction of the investment. It should be simple math: if you can get a third of the airborn firepower for a fifth of the price, it's a no-brainer. Same way how in Star Wars, a carrier group made up of Quasar, Gozanti, and Arquitens could've handled 95% of all mission profiles, with only the Mon Calamari ships requiring the sort of beating that an ISD can dish out.
my uncle was a tech head on the F35 program when it was first being built i'm proud to be related to him as he made the frame of the F35 33% lighter and the stiffer
The ISD is still my favorite capital ship, but my God, was it flawed all over. Good thing the Resurgence class SD corrected mostly everything about it. Second favorite capital ship btw.
Something we saw more of in CW and that I’d like to see even more in Star Wars is variety in the army/navy. Irl, a naval fleet usually consists of a variety of ships: carriers, destroyers, patrol craft, submarines, etc. Each class of naval craft is purpose-built, and operations may involve the use of more than just one type of ship. I’d love to see this reflected in Star Wars and see tacticians mix and match the ships and troops under their command for missions.
I get the feeling the ISD was designed around fighting something like the Malevolence. The Venators chasing it didn't seem to have the fire power to finish it off in a timely manner.
Have you watched the Tie Fighter short film by Otaking? I loved that the 1980s style Star wars anime showcased the Imperials having a competent commander, numerous tie fighter aces, and using their advantages to completely beat down the rebel alliance.
I generally prefer something smaller than either the Imperial Class or Venator Class Star Destroyer. My favorite is the Acclamator Class Star Destroyer, it was small, had a lot of inter space and could be modified for use as a starfighter carrier. Best of all it had a fast hyperspace drive that allowed it to move to where it needed to be. If I was setting up a sector defense force, I'd like something like that.
I see what's going on here, Alan and his anti-dolphin agenda. What's next, forcing dolphins to wear badges identifying them as dolphins? Edit: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Even the farsighted Emperor Palpatine was victim to polarized thinking. Replace aircraft carriers with battleships, trade versatility for power. Whatever it takes to hold absolute power, or attain UNLIMITED POWAH.
This is actually one of my head-cannons on why the Empire rejected more capable, jump-fighters, because of Sith ideology. Giving a powerful, jump-capable fighter to your pilots, it giving them power and independence of their carrier and putting power in turn into the hands of their immediate commanders. Thus, Imperial Navy doctrine is centred are forced interdependence to make sure the commanders can never turn on the Emperor
For me, the best class of star destroyers was Victory, both I and II. Smaler than both Imperial class, but three of them were equal in cost to one Imperial class star destroyer.
Venetors were aircraft carriers used like battleships in a war that could have used battleships. Star destroyers were battleships in a war that needed aircraft carriers. Both would actually have been good if they switched wars
As a Fan of Battleships of World War II. You're absolutely right, The ISD would get it's business worked by the Venator if it was used as it was designed, as a Carrier. Especially since you could easily replace the ARCs with T-65s if you were so inclined to. And since the Y-Wings didn't change too much from the Republic era. Yeah the ISDs would be boned.
Except for the fact that ISD where still a massive threat, I feel everyone here forgets that the mon calamari cruiser was made for a reason. To go toe to toe with star destroyers as smaller ships had no hope of beating them in a direct conflict outside of those smaller ships having a protagonist on/piloting it.
An ISD is much bigger than a Venator. It's just as fast and much more powerful. If configured correctly, it can carry an adequate defensive screen to fully negate the Venator's (rather slim) strike package
@@jakegrant5698 That's just not historically accurate when you compare its usual "Fleet" compliment in the Movies. And even in the TV series the Empire rarely assigned a massive screen to them. The only time we see that with Capable Admirals like Thrawn or Massive Operations like Defending the DS-2. The standard Fleet protocol was a single ISD or a few to a sector. They genuinely didn't have a proper screen against fighters. This is why The Rebel alliance could destroy them with Y wing Strikes with Escorts. You'd have more than Venator with Hundreds more Starfighters including the Lethal Y wing on top of their Strike Fighter Escorts. Again you're mistaking an Ideal fleet from how the Empire actually fought. Also did you call 420 fighters ranging from Bombers, Strike fighters, to Interceptors a slim strike package? Compared to the standard 72 tie fighters? Which again if we slap T-65s and A Wings in a Venator would again be one: More Numerous and 2 on the same tech level. Also as for speed the ISD had a slower Hyperdrive rating of 2.0 versus the Venator's 1.0. good luck keeping up to it as it just out jumps you.
@@Airsickword except we've seen even Star Fighter Squads wipe out ISDs. Their Point Defense is trash and their flight wing compared to a Venator is laughably small. ISDs are historically antiquated and poorly designed for the time they were being used. If the ISD was used during the one Wars where they were often trading Broadsides sure. But you're acting like the Venator when used correctly is going to be swapping Broadsides. If you think so you missed Alan's entire point.
@@AstralLordOmawhether the ISD's standard complement of fighters is so large is irrelevant. All that matters is the maximum amount it can carry, which approaches the Venator very closely. The standard was about 1-2 squadrons of ISDs to a sector. The Empire had a much more extensive fleet of support ships and fighters to screen against enemy fighters than the Republic did. The idea that a single squadron of fighters or bombers can realistically take down a capital ship is dumbfounded and ridiculous. It's only done for theatrical effect and it isn't practical. If it was, then millennia of Galaxy-Spanning factions wouldn't have invested quintillions of credits on direct combatants. The ISD is a well designed ship, as is the Venator. Because the ISD is larger, it always has the edge in a 1 on 1 combat.
The whole fighter-overdose thing is a legacy from Curtis Saxton getting to write then-canonical reference books. Don't let fanboys dictate the basic rules of the universe.
It's not just that the Venators is cheaper and more practical than the ISD. When the Empire formed they had thousands of Venators, full of crews who were trained and experienced with them, tactics developed for their use, etc. They saw that wealth of equipment and experience and just threw it on the junk pile.
Venators with ISDs screening against capitol ship attacks would seem to make the most sense. Imagine a handful of ISDs screening three or for Venators with a large compliment of Tie Defenders. The tactical options would be insane.
Watching this I kept thinking "WWTD" - What would Thrawn do? I'm glad you touched on it, but I think you could go deeper. Your criticism is the same one Thrawn had regarding Project Stardust in favour of the Tie Defender Project. Just as he developed the defender for his own use, you would think he would modify the Chimera to be more adapted to purpose.
One does not simply "modify" a Star Destroyer. That thing is a beast, a monster, a behemoth! When they changed the design from the Mk I to the Mk II (The Duce) they made more than a million changes, of various degree. It is pretty much better to just build a new ship than make any drastic changes.
As a die-hard Imperial-Class Star Destroyer fanboi, I personally don't simp for the ship because it's practical or effective no none of the logical nonsense this is the Empire we're talking about, I will love and defend the ISD to my dying breath because of it's absolutely gorgeous form paired with that iconic Imperial light gray. No other capital ship could even come close to the beauty of the ISD, not even the Executor-class or Eclipse-class both of which are also one of the best looking ships in Star Wars imo. I mean c'mon, the Venator literally looks like Jar Jar's head, what more reasoning do I need? Also god damn that SU-35 vs F-35 wiki article at the beginning of the video gave me and frankly any aviation enthusiast severe headaches. In simple terms, if a person says that a 4th gen fighter is better than a 5th gen fighter that is the time you should stop listening to them because it's clear they have no idea what they're about, it's honestly insane how much people underestimate the F-35, it may carry fewer missiles and have a shorter range when on it's stealth configuration but it would effortlessly wipe out any 4th gen aircraft in the sky thanks to it's stealth capabilities alone, no amount of extra missiles or superior agility would save your SU-35 from rapidly colliding with an AIM-120 air-to-air missile fired from an F-35 you didn't even know was there because again, stealth capabilities.
Yeah, now that you think about it, everyone that says the Venator loses to the ISD is because it would be a standard battle where firepower and armor trump the Venator. However the Venator could simply avoid getting too close when it deploys its starfighters or so what Ahsoka did at Ryloth. Even Thrawn replicated that tactic.
it was lose ,the ISD nukes the venator before it deploys its fighters. also notice how you venator simps only Argument is "but my fighters"? you realize that the ISD has 72 of them an entire fighter wing also the Empire has dedicated carrier that are cheaper and do these Scenarios exactly the same as your old venator rust bucket. it was outdated and phased out by the end of the clone wars and for the carrier role the empire has better options. you keep mentioning the battleship vs aircraft carrier thing but what modern carrier is designed to broadside with cruisers from ww1 today? because that is literally the Venator
@@laisphinto6372 The carrier argument is eliminated because the debate is just between the two star destroyers. If we were talking about navies, that would be a whole other thing. And the Venator has multiple hangars, not just the big main one we always see. Not to mention, are Venators really going to deploy their starfighters in range of an ISD? Maybe they have no choice on the defense, but on the offense, the Venator simply has to deploy starfighters right after they jump out of hyperspace before getting into range. We even see this on the Clone Wars show. The Venators when attacking launch their fighters before the battle actually begins. Outdated? Really? The Venator along with the rest of the navy and army were three years old. How do you classify that as outdated? And I doubt any modern carrier would be made to fight a battleship because that’s what aircraft it deploys are for. Do you know about the Bismarck, Yamato, and the Battle of Midway? All won mostly by bombers. A modern carrier would detect a battleship miles away and just deploy bombers to hit it. And if you want to bring up complement numbers, we all know Venators have more fighters and bombers, most of which can go into hyperspace, have more weapons, and even shields. Sure, the ISD would win a broadside battle. It’s proven itself in Canon like at Atollon. But that’s always if the Venator fights conventionally. Even though an ISD can also pull the same moves, a Venator can divide up its fighters for attack and defense and the Tie Fighters still would be outnumbered. Even if you wanted to bring in the Quasar Carrier, it has less room on board for fighters and shares the Venator’s exposed hangar problem without any alternative ways for ships to leave it. It would lose in a one-on-one fight. Granted though, the Imperial carrier is cheaper. So yes, the Venator loses in broadside engagements. We see this with the Malevolence and when Grievous ambushed Obi-Wan. But if the Venator avoids the conditions for such a battle to happen, it has the advantage. Heck, the Malevolence is an example of this. One squadron of bombers crippled the warship and sent it running allowing the Venators to chase it. Star Wars has shown how valuable and essential Starfighters and Bombers are in its wars. Small package, heavy payload.
@@tristankawatsuma8962 you severly downplaying the imperial fighter wing and you now compare not the star destroyers but the starfighters where the heavy republic fighters have a severe problem combating the TIEs that have the advantage in dogfight capabilities ,if you dont believe me rewatch the battle of yavin and the battle of coruscant where TIEs shred through y wings and xwings a fighter that is more advanced than the arc 170 that was really bad in battle of coruscant in dogfights.
@@laisphinto6372 I question this dogfighting advantage. Yes, Tie Interceptors most likely lived up to their name. However, there’s also plenty of battles where Rebel starfighters cut through Imperial Ties and Republic starfighters are able to take on Vultures. It’s just in the case of the Separatists, they really win the numbers game. There’s no faction that can ever outnumber them. However, droids can be quite predictable and be outthought, which we see so many times throughout Star Wars. I mean, for crying out loud Star Wars basically highlights how much of a difference the Tie Defender would have made in the war. It’s basically designed like a Republic or Rebel starfighter with powerful weapons and shields. Yes, Tie Fighters are among the fastest starfighters. Honestly, I would think only Rebel fighters can compete with them on that front. But speed is there only advantage. Hell, the Arc 170 and the Y-Wing have turrets and other guns to shoot anybody that’s behind them. Also at Yavin, the amounts of fighters were about the same. 72 Ties vs about 400 Republic fighters and bombers or just about 200 if they’re divided to attack and defend is kind of clear how unfair the fight between starfighters would be. And back to the Venator Vs Imperial Star Destroyer, of course we have to also talk about their complements. I mean, any ships with starfighters is going to use them of course. Now yes, the Venator by itself is definitely outgunned. Even if shields and armor plating are the same, the Venator would be torn apart without fighters. It’s thus what makes fighters the key part of the debate. If the Venator has great fighters in mass numbers, the odds are more even.
Since you've done two videos going over the weaknesses of an ISD compared to a venator i would love to see a video explaining its strengths. For example say an ISD was going one vs one against a venator but Admiral Thrawn was in charge of the ISD, how could he use the ISD's strengths to counter the venator and win.
ISD better armoured and better shielded. Far superior firepower for direct engagements of other capital vessels and surface bombardment. And it had an organic ability to deploy massive quantities of troops including heavy weapons and equipment and prefabricated fortifications. The Venator is a far superior carrier, and provided it can stay out of direct fire range, it will wipe the floor with an ISD. And the economics of war mean that if you sent a full deck strike against the isd and lost 50 or 100 fighters, you have lost a maximum of 200 lives and a few million credits worth of equipment compared to the far more millions of capital ship, 37,000 trained crew and nearly 10,000 troops. How would Thrawn win? By not fighting that battle. In all the legends stuff Thrawn was the only imperial admiral until Pelleaon (who was trained by Thrawn as his flag captain) who understands that war is a team sport (first rule of war). Even in 1906 with the launching of HMS Dreadnought that triggered the Dreadnought arms race that was partly responsible for the first world war, every single naval strategist understood you needed cruisers for trade protection and fleet scouting, torpedo boats for carrying out harassing attacks against slower and more expensive capital ships, destroyers to keep torpedo boats away from your expensive battleships, and then there was new technologies like submarines and aircraft to be integrated into your doctrine and strategies. Thrawn created fleets with multiple different ship types because he knew no one ship class could do everything even vaguely competently. In conclusion, the empire shouldn't have sent fleets of ISDs to carry out operations alone. A battleground should have been centred on an ISD or two with carrier support (either a Venator or two or half a dozen tropsabour class escort carriers - and I hope I've spelled that class name correctly), with several lighter cruisers and frigates. The lighter ships can hold their own for most patrols and are better suited to act as pickets and point defence for the heavies. If serious opposition is located THAT'S when you deploy the big boys, to smash up high value targets and to engage hardened defences while it's supporting forces compliment it. Preferably using the clever placement of interdict 11:58 ion gravity wells to drop them out at point blank mailing rage of their target from hyperspace in an offensive ambush. Second rule of war, you don't get bonus points for fighting fair.
Arguing for an ISD to do everything while arguing against ships like the Venator is like favoring the IJN Yamato battleship to successfully defeat an Essex-class aircraft carrier.
Remember that the inhabitants of the tiny island called Britannia had over 800 years of experience over larger forces ( Roman empire occupation ) a thousand years of understanding effective use of minimum resources over larger areas ( from the constant assaults from invasion fleets to global conflicts learning how to resource management was important on the ground floor despite the leadership being from the last generation of fighting forces with older equipment) 😁 in summary they learnt from history
The ISD, one of the most iconic science fiction ships. Does it have a place in the Imperial Navy? Yes. Is it used properly in the Imperial Navy? No. The ISD is a great choice as a command ship for a fleet, a great choice as the initial wave of attacks for a planetary invasion, a great choice for a head-on assault against another fleet of capital ships, and a great choice for intimidation. The biggest weakness of the ISD is the inflexibility of its design, a design focused on planetary assaults and slugfests with capital ships with fighters intended to act as a screening force rather than a multi-role, multi-capable ship design. The Venator is a more flexible ship, capable of most any mission, while the ISD is only capable of acting as a command ship and heavy hitter. The ISD is not a bad design, nor is it a waste by itself, the Imperial doctrines that use it as the backbone of the Navy make it a waste. If both ships, the ISD and Venator were taken together, putting Venators around an ISD (or a few ISDs), you would have an extremely capable, powerful, flexible fleet able to take on almost anything. The ship itself is not a waste, only the doctrines that put it as the backbone of the Imperial Navy.
Yes carriers replaced battleships in WW2 but recently it is thought that a missile-carrying destroyer can take on a modern carrier fleet. Not just a carrier but all its accompanying fleet too. Missiles can have the range of manned aircraft simply because they need half the fuel; they're not coming back.
Isn’t that missile carrier ship the russian flagship? The one that they claimed could take on a carrier group, but got sunk by a single missile because it’s defenses were off?
Why do i think the ISD is better? How many times has an ISD won a ship to ship battle and how many times has the venator class got their ass kicked in the clone wars?
The Real problem is Disney made Star Destroyers a joke, there is no threat to them what so ever anymore. In original trilogy everyone was afraid of them and took combined firepower to take one down.
I never understood where all the clone wars ships just disappeared to. The idea thatvthey just scrapped so many venators and all that equipment is nuts no military scraps perfectly good equipment cuz they are not in a war anymore. They would have kept it around or at least repurpose it for other uses but it never made sense that all the clone wars equipment just dissapears all of a sudden after order 66
I completely agree, which is why if I was in control the 7th Fleet (at least 25 ISD's & 6 Victory class destroyers), I would replace all of my ISD's with Lancer class frigates, Arquitens-class command cruisers, and Imperial Gozanti-class cruisers. This is because of several reasons: 1. Cost/Crew: The Lancers only cost 4,760,000 credits each and has a crew of 850 (including gunners), the Arquitens (Imperial variant, which by this point in time would be more prominent in comparison to the Republic one) costs 5 million credits each and has a crew of 850 (includes 100 passengers [used for Stormtroopers because of their importance as command vessels]), and Imperial Gozanti-class cruisers cost 200,000 credits and has a crew of 22 (includes 10 Stormtroopers [used for anti-boarding], but not passengers). With the money needed to buy an ISD (1's and 2's cost 150 million credits), I could instead buy 30 Lancers/Arquitens or 750 Gozantis; and with an ISD (1 & 2) crew of over 37,000, I could instead crew 43.5 Lancers/Arquitens, or 1681 Gozantis. 2. Usefulness: The Lancers are extremely useful against enemy starfighters (if Wedge Antilles is scared of facing one of these ships, they're doing something right), the Arquitens are very useful against larger ships like frigates or corvettes (not cruisers and other heavy hitters like those of the Mon Calamari, but that's what my remaining Victory Class Star Destroyers are for), and the Gozanti-class cruisers are useful for deploying/rearming standard TIE variants (useful for patrols as 10 Gozantis could cover more space than 1 ISD, whilst having a far lesser risk to my operations should they be destroyed) & acting as light freighters (great for resupply convoys). 3. Size: With the size of these ships (250 meters for the Lancer, 230 meters for the Arquitens [Imperial variant], and almost 64 meters for the Gozanti), I don't need to worry about ship management, repairs, or rearmament nearly as much since they are relatively small. With the exception of the smallest ones, any shipyard can accommodate several of these ships at once. Plus, it would be cheaper overall to resupply a handful of these ships than a single ISD which needs a dedicated shipyard. The cost & materials needed to build & sustain any shipyard would be a lot, as opposed to my new ships which I could (mostly) just point to an empty spit of land, say "land over there", and be done with it. 4. Morale: My new ships are not symbols of the Empire's might like an ISD. So, even if I do manage to lose a ton of these ships while fighting the Rebels, it wouldn't matter to Imperial Command since losing those wouldn't be nearly as debilitating in terms of manpower, expenses, and Imperial propaganda/morale as me losing a single ISD. Not to mention that since no one would care if I lost some of these ships to the Rebels, I won't have to worry about getting Force-choked. My losing ships would also show everyone that I'm doing my job and actually fighting them; the fact that I'm using 'lesser' ships would be my shield/excuse to explain away why I keep losing so many. The same goes for the Rebellion. Sure, winning against a small task force of Gozantis and Arquitens may raise the morale of the average grunt, but to anyone higher up it wouldn't be nearly as impressive as beating an ISD since one of those has far more firepower than an entire fleet of Arquitens. 5. Fighter/Cargo Capacity: An ISD carries 72 standard TIE variants (fighters, bombers, and interceptors), which 18 Gozantis, 24 Arquitens, or 36 Lancers (in Legends, they can carry 2 shuttles, so why not 2 TIE's) can carry. With my Lancers, the Empire's plan to overwhelm the enemy with swarms of TIE's is useless to me, so I wouldn't have as big a need for them. Still, even with the overall uselessness of the TIE line, I can still use them as a limited form of force projection (and human sandbags to protect my larger ships as they engage at longer range). Thanks to the cheaper cost & smaller crew size of a Gozanti, I could easily assign all 1800 standard TIE's that the 25 ISD's would carry to 450 Gozantis. This is great since they are pretty good for convoy duty. Really, I could replace all 25 of my ISD's (3,750,000,000 credits, 925,000 personnel, & 1800 TIE's) with 60 Arquitens (300,000,000 credits, 51,000 personnel, & 180 TIE's), 300 Lancers (1,428,000,000 credits, 255,000 personnel, & 600 TIE's), and 3,000 Gozantis (600,000,000 credits, 66,000 personnel, & 12,000 TIE's). Costing a total of 2,328,000,000 credits for all my new ships, that still leaves me with 1,422,000,000 credits for me to play around with. Though I'd want to save at least 1/3 of this wealth (474,000,000 credits) for replacement parts/ships, that still gives me a lot of room to maneuver. I could purchase more Tibanna gas (which I would need for my new ships), build more TIE's (something I'd regretfully need since my fleet's new size would require a far larger number [12,780] than the 25 ISD's had), and secure funding for the Defender line (I'd replace all the awful TIE's assigned to my 6 very important Victory's [144 total] for TIE Defenders [so worth it since that only costs 43,200,000 credits total]). With a much lower crew requirement of 372,000 personnel to pay/feed/clothe (literally less than half the personnel needed for the 25 ISD's), I can afford to give my minions bigger paychecks & better rations (a well-paid & fed minion is a happy & loyal minion, and it's not like I'd be overspending anyway). This leaves my 6 remaining Victory's (plus 144 TIE defenders) to each have a support fleet of 10 Arquitens (with 30 standard TIE's assigned to them), 50 Lancers (with 100 standard TIE's assigned to them), and 500 Gozantis (with 2,000 standard TIE's assigned to them). In total, that's 3,510 FTL capable ships with 12,780 standard TIE's in my new fleet, as opposed to the 31 FTL capable ships with 1800 TIE's of the original fleet.
That would be a shockingly bad decision. Why on earth would you swap a Destroyer for a few Lancers? That totally undermines your troop landing capabilities, your fighting capabilities against units larger than a frigate, and your ability to subjugate a system. Not to mention the Gozantis. Christ, they're literally armed merchants. They are NOT a replacement for destroyers at all.
@@jakegrant5698 Well, how many battalions do the Rebels have? Remember, the Rebellion is only really a great threat to the Empire when operating in space (giving the people hope as they mop the floor of 'superior' Imperial assets with their ramshackle ships). On the ground, the Empire has a far better chance at victory, especially against the early Rebellion who were still a scattered collection of small groups. I need fast ships for patrol duties, not ships that Rebel fighters can run rings around & can't hit for shit. Besides, ground operations isn't my main job anyway. If the Rebels have boots on the ground, that's the local planetary defense's problem, not mine. Their job is supposed to have the troops necessary to beat rebel insurgents using their superior firepower & numbers, if they can't handle a couple people with old blasters, then that's their fault. My job is to quickly grind the Rebels' most important assets, their fleet, into dust before they can increase recruitment enough to even have an army in the first place (essentially, I'm supposed to destroy Rebel Cells before they can grow large enough to be a problem for the Imperial Army to handle). By doing this, it prevents the Rebels from gaining much support, to the point where powerful groups like the Mon Calamari would be more hesitant to actively join. Also, don't forget that I still have my 6 Victory class Star Destroyers, each one having 1600 troops and 10 AT-AT's, 15 AT-ST's, & 10 Juggernaut Tanks (quoting MetaNerdz for those latter numbers). If needed, I can just send these assets in to supplement the planetary forces already engaging the Rebels. Most early Rebel Cells are mostly stuck using snub fighters and larger ships with little high-tonnage firepower, so why shouldn't I use several quick Lancers instead of one slow ISD? Yes, it would be quicker to destroy those larger ships, but the Rebels don't have very many of those in the first place, and "Rebels" already showed that those ships are not that durable against the firepower of standard TIE's, so the weapons onboard a Lancer should be at least as effective. Not to mention the fact that not many Cells even have the firepower on the ground to go up against Walkers or tanks in the first place, for those that do I can just send my Victory's in to deal with them while my Lancers protect them from enemy fighters. As for the Gozantis, well again I mostly had them as freighters and light patrol craft anyway, so it's not like I'm wasting their potential. The Empire is huge, with millions of star systems that Rebel groups could hide in, and I'm no Thrawn. Having small FTL capable ships with the ability to quickly deploy 4 TIE's is pretty good for scanning through systems for Rebel activity, or acting as bait for Rebel groups who think they are looking at an easy score (using one of these ships as bait is far more effective than an ISD, since the Cells [if they're smart] would at least think twice before willingly going up against all those guns). Especially if I send a small task unit since I'm not really wasting anything either way. My fleet has 3000 of these ships, so if I send out 3-ship task units, then I could check for Rebel activity on a thousand different star systems at a time (way faster than using the ISD's as they would only allow me to scan a few dozen of those systems at a time). If I don't find anything, that's fine, I got more systems to look through. If my ships come under attack (with that amount of cargo space and light defenses, you can bet they'd be attacked) that's fine too since that means I either found a Rebel base or am getting close to finding one. If I lose a task unit, that's only 3 small ships and 66 lives lost, acceptable numbers in the Empire. Replacing them wouldn't be nearly as time-consuming as replacing the crew of an ISD. Hell, even a Lancer would be more expensive to replace than several Gozantis, so again I'm not really losing much here if I assign them to patrol duties.
honestly, the ISD could have been a good ship to escort Venators if they had outfitted it differently (mainly more defensive weapons), like how the Iowa Class battleships were used to escort Essex class carriers
I forever love the ISD, a beautiful starship. Powerful, imposing, simple. But she was never designed for the Empire, but for the Republic. I shall explain. Other than the real fact it was indeed designed by model makers to depict a stark contrast for the films, in the lore it was designed at the end of the Clone Wars, and even took part in the battle over Courosaunt. The Republic had a huge problem with the Venator, yes, it's an excellent carrier but a terrible battleship. The droid ships were already more numerous than the Republic capital ships, but also better carriers and better battleships. The Starfighter compliment on board the Venators rarely were able to solely engage separatist capital ships but did tie up the droid fighters, leaving the scene open for capital ship duels. And here the Venators suffered. The Imperator was designed to battle here for the Venators. The carriers could focus more on servicing the flight wing, screening enemy fighters, and flank guarding while the Imperator could carry its own fighter compliment for self defence and focus on engaging separatist capital ships head on. With the Imperator even the giant Lucerhulk has to compute twice when deciding to engage or not. Not to mention in legends the clone were super gung-ho and aggressive and would throw away many advantages to engage droids more directly, the ISD just fit their combat style better. The ISD is the big SOB you tote out when shit gets real. The Venator is the go to solution for most of your problems.
the real goats were the ISDs operated under the Legends New Republic, repainted and refitted with x-wings as well as Thrawn's ISDs equipped with TIE Defenders
almost like the ISDs was never bad to begin with and this is just a dumb grandpa that swears up and down that his old """reliable""" venator was so much better even though they get beat the shit out of by CIS ships that were smaller than them and they are a glorified ton falk carrier
I hope we get to see an early Rebel cell using a Venator, we saw that in Rebels the Pheonix group had a repurposed medical frigate until Vader came into the picture so others might be the same.
I always thought we should see alot more republic and empire ships and equipment being used by the rebels especially the smaller stuff thats easy to steal. I want to see stories about some of the clones rebelling etc that would be good stuff
Agreed, I'd like to see a Venator being used by the Rebels somewhere. If you recall, in some canon material there have been examples of CW era stuff being appropriated: the Rebel One repurposed Providence that got smoked right away, Hera had command of both an Acclamator and a Lucrehulk at different points, and Legends has even more examples.
No, it's a large multi-role destroyer focused on fighting equally sized units Vs a small multi role / support destroyer not focused on fighting equally sized units. The ISD wins almost every time
Is it? I don't think so. ISDs are not that much larger than Venators. Only about 3-4× the size and designed for a similar role, just with different characteristics
But I’d also carry through with the Nebulan B program, as the imperial version envisioned by FractalSpunge, as two squadrons of fighter per frigate, and it only costs twice that of an Arquitens, yet carries 8 times the fighter compliment.
A Gozanti-class cruiser could easily accommodate two or more like four full squads of vulture droids. So a good system patrol could be eight ARC-170 star fighters and 2 Gozanti-class cruisers. One with 4 squads of powered-down vulture droids in racks. The Gozanti-class cruiser were equipped with a couple of medium turbolasers and a couple of heavy ion cannons, this would be a very formidable systems defense / policing force. The second Gozanti-class cruiser would be decked out as a support ship that could rotate out vulture droids for recharging and maintenance, and act as home base for the ARC-170s (with the ability to dock with four ships at once, and probably do light maintenance in the cargo hold). This would be a very formidable force.
What was crazy is that how after the empire came out all republic tech was scrapped basically eliminated any chance of rebels to get tech to fight back
Perfectly applicable quote from SG1 by O'Neill: *Holds up staff weapon* "This, is a weapon of terror. It's made to intimidate the enemy." *Casually tosses it aside and holds up P90* "This, is a weapon of war. It's made to kill your enemy." Tarkin, having lived a life of wealth and privilege, was incapable of imagining any scenario where a person would have nothing to lose by attacking a seemingly overwhelming foe.
thats so wrong , why do you think the VSD and ISD was designed? ots because the venator was shit that they are outgunned by regular cruisers and they were way too weak .
One star destroyer and 5 venetors along with around 25 arquitens would be one of the best all around functional fleets. Fighter swarms for advanced coverage and assault, a brawler to deal with any tough or close by problems, and a wall of versatile ships for added unstoppability.
@@jakegrant5698 You clearly know nothing of Thrawns fleet tactics. 25 Arquitens with 6 destroyers providing battery and armor, along with thousands of fighters... Destroyers will be toast. This is a superb fleet composition..
@@RexTenebrarum it's fine, but it's not a good idea to include such vulnerable ships in a formation rocking destroyers. Also may I add that your fleet severely lacks firepower with only a single Star Destroyer, not even a half squadron of proper Line Destroyers. This fleet also is not uniform in speed or manoeuvrability, so turning and fighting as one would be a challenge.
@@RexTenebrarum by the way, arquitens are not versatile. They're small, pretty slow and cheap picket Corvettes not suited for open battle with large ships. It would be a waste to include them in your battle Line. Corvettes as a whole don't really belong in anything other than a planetary defense force
150M credits sounds quite affordable considering the F35 mentioned can cost upwards of $135M depending on the varient. I know credits and dollars don't readily correlate but if Han wants 10K just to fly 2 passengers and their droids and Obi-Wan casually bumps it to 17K credits they aren't worth the disparity that would exist between 150M credits for a massive Star Destroyer and $10B cost of a comparatively tiny US Aircraft Carrier. Luke sold his beat up landspeeder for at least 2000 credits which would put it at a comperable price to a used Ford Pinto that year. I don't think Star Wars: Starships and Speeders was being very realistic with that 150M credit price, either that or the cost of a single cup of caf is comparatively ungodly expensive in the Star Wars universe. Heck, in Andor they stole 80M credits and that was just a portion of a single, lightly populated, sector's monthly payroll. With 1,000 sectors in the Star Wars universe the cost of a 150M Star Destroyer would be a drop in the bucket next to the Empire's monthly payroll.
Im wondering where these numbers come from, in real militaries there is a huge difference between the cost needed to buy equipment, the cost needed to get it operational, and the total lifetime cost of that equipment.
Considering that they could have bought an unmodified and used ship for those 10K credits I'd say the 150M credits are on the level. You don't hire a smuggler to avoid 'Imperial entanglements' if you can make the trip legally and Han knew he had those two over a barrel. So, travelling with a regular passenger ship would have been cheaper. Much, much cheaper.
I absolutely love the ISD!!! However after hearing what I did in this video,. I think I will take the many vinegar glass star destroyers. I could get for one Imperial class start a strider and all those fighters and reconnaissance ships that go along with the! Absolutely awesome? Video. Thank you very much for all your hard work in producing them and. Posting them absolutely love everything you do.
The thing about the F-35 and when people say it sucks, literally almost every information about it is still classified and what information we do know about it is either basically russian propaganda channels like russia today and people like pierre spray trying to discredit the F-35 or some forms of speculation by military enthusiast or from the bits of things they could say like how F-35 can pretty much communicate with other F-35 from other countries even but other than that most information about the F-35 is still highly classified
The regular Imperial Star Destroyer has a place: taking down enemy capital ships or a small army of medium sized ships. However, it was often disproportionate for responses. I wonder if ISD groups would be a better idea? (1 Imperial Star Destroyer surrounded by screens of medium sized ships and an interdictor).
But the vendor could do that for much cheaper. But I do agree, in a proper fleet, you'd have both, with the isd being your "tanks" and protecting the venators to let their starlight wreck enemy capitol ships.
@jakegrant5698 sometimes. But fighters are made to slip past the defenses and get out with taking less damage. Sure, you can go slug it out with an isd against another capitol ship nearly the same size, and win. But even against another much small capitol ship, you will take tons of damage and have massive repair costs and lives lost. Trading broadside just hurts everyone. But having a ship with lots of fighters, including bombers, to cause tons of damage first, then go in to finish the enemy is easier. And spares you tons in repairs and lives. Even better when you do it in a proper fleet. And have your bigger ships protect your more vuranable carriers. While the fighters and bombers soften up the enemy, then go in for the kill. There is a reason carries are how real navies mostly function now a days. And really, it should be the same in star wars We know all these tactics actually work.
Yea the empire should have just built a more menacing version of the Venitor mixed with a star destroyer. A ship with the carrier capability mixed with the ability to drop your opponent in a few hits. Hell if they didn’t wish to do that then just keep the Venitor and pack it full of tie fighter/bombers/interceptors/defenders. Then have a group of 3 ISD and smaller support ships to defend it
Fear itself was the enemy of the Empire. If instead Tarkin had fleets of dozens of smaller ships, the Empire probably would have not been perceived as oppressive, but as a police force. You’re right, massive shows of force only make more resistance.
I like to imagine that the Rebel Alliance had one Venator-class Star Destroyer... just *one...* that they used to drive the Imperials crazy. The Empire would commit multiple Imperial-class Star Destroyers to hunting it, but they would never even SEE it. It would fly a secret route, regularly changing, with rendezvous and drop-off points. It would jump in somewhere secluded, probably deep space, offload a bunch of hyperdrive-equipped starfighters, possibly shuttles with assault teams, whatever the mission required, and then jump out. A short hop from the target system,. but never anywhere near any detection nets. The teams would hyperspace jump the rest of the way, conduct the mission, then scatter. They'd make for one of the preset rendezvous points to get picked up. Even if the Imperials managed to get one set of coordinates, the Venator would be running scouts ahead of itself, and if the scouts didn't give the all clear, it would simply skip that part of the route. The hard part would be keeping a ship that big supplied and maintained.
Tarkin had a point. Fear is a very powerful deterrent and it is a very powerful statement to park an ISD over top a planet or city. The problem is fear is also a very temporary thing. I don't buy into jedi dogma much but they did get some things right, namely that fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate. Once you're hated instead of feared your fear inducing product has become useless and you'd better have something to absorb and respond to the eventual haymaker heading your way or you're gonna wind up on your ass.
It's basically a fleet that thrawn would push for, lol. He wanted a fighter that was more durable and hyperspace capable, and so he developed the tie defender
I would love to see Thrawn in Ahsoka using some form of using smaller more practical vessels similar to how he used the Dark Force in the Thrawn trilogy. Old retired venators or dreadnaughts would be awesome to see in live action
When you calculated the price for the Venator did that cost also include the starfighters? Just curious since even though it can carry hundreds of more starfighters would that not increase the price, especially if you upgrade from TIE fighters to other fighters, and is it still cheaper than an ISD at that point?
You should cover Super Star Destroyers & Star Dreadnaugts next. The Imperial Navy’s collection of Executor class SSDs and other models like the Eclipse and Vengeance are certainly 10 times more costly than an average ISD.
I think that a combination of both venators and star destroyers with the right combination of support ships would be vastly superior to the standard imperial fleet. Kind regards from Daniel Harman.
The ISD is not antiquated. Is just the wrong tool in the shed for most Imperial missions. Likewise, starfighter doctrine fails if the opponent has superior starfighter suppression systems. (Can't be "one size fits all".) The optimal choice of assets should be determined by taking advantage of an opponent's deficiencies. Flexibility is key. Gravity generating ego leads to folly.
I guess this is why Palpatine wanted the Death Star because he knew that keep mass-producing the Star Destroyers will not be a good idea in the long run and definitely is not a good option for his plan of mobile base of operation. So the Death Star will make the perfect sense from the certain point of view by looking it as a mobile fortress that Palpatine can used to travel around regularly and can also be used to suppress the uprisings easily by exploding a planet up in one shot. Huh. I guess Palpatine and Thrawn make some good points through their own eyes.
In a 'What if' story where the Rebels lost at Yavin the Death Star was renamed to the 'Justice Star' and it would have carried the central government of the Empire, so that every star system had a chance of the pleasure to be visited by the government. Yoda used the Force to get a guided tour through the Justice Star and had the crew land it on top of Palpatine's palace.
I had brain stormed a fleet of Clone Wars Era ships for use in latter eras as a reserve unit. 1x Venator (Flag ship and sole capital ship of this formation) 4x Munificent Frigate (Good way to make use of leftovers) 4x Arqunitens (Clone Wars Era) 4x various models of corvettes (Number and model may vary) 1-2x Acclimator (Troop or cargo carrier) I think it is a well balanced if a bit light of a force, only having one capital ship.
The ISD would've worked well against an organized military power like the CIS. You know what would work well against Rebels with a bunch of fighters? The Venator. Dump out those 400 high quality fighters and see the rebels' day ruined.
I'm curious, as to how the imperial navy, would react to someone flying threw space, in an a wing style ship only for it to pull an osprey menuver and turn into a robot. Later, the robot, shoots a hole in their ship using a laser similar to that of the death star. I'm calling this, Kaiju pattern alpha.
Eh, here we have the caricature of Tarkin from expanded universe being a Idiot again because he literally designed every single piece of imperial hardware down to stormtrooper blaster (The only "Tarkin doctrine" from films is when Tarkin is talking about the Death Star specifically, which is like 15 minutes after arriving to system to destruction of an entire planet). I like to think that ISD is more like the perfect ship for clone wars, and the final refinement of Republic ship design. Absolutely able to take down Separatist heavier vessels in role Venators actually were used for (Episode III, Venator is shown to have cannons specifically for engaging in broadsides, which it does with Invisible hand), (In clone wars, you usually see Venators engaging CIS ships with their turbolasers from battle line). (Also Venators are not really ever shown operating with more fighter squadrons than an ISD, which indicates, that either starfighter or pilot shortages or something else made Venator's main advantage largely irrelevant in practice.) ISD is much better match for the actual republic Venator tactics. However, would properly operated Venator Fleet with Empire-tier resources and proper tactics been a better match for Imperial Navy's role in the galaxy? Absolutely! But this is not the "actually existing" Venator.
I know what you mean, it seems like the ISD should have been made only as an Elite Unit, meant to be the core of a large battle fleet or as a quick reaction force. They should have built more small patrol craft.
I must point out something that was left out here: the ISD was designed during the Clone Wars. It wasn't supposed to REPLACE the Venator, it was supposed to SUPPORT it. Just like the other KDY/Rothana ships of the era, they were supposed to fight as a group: the Acclamator was the troop transport with a full legion and relative vehicles ready to land as soon as the path was cleared (with enough weapons to support opening the way to the target), the Tector (same size as the ISD, no fighters or troops, all guns) was the heavy hitter, the Venator the carrier that would support the group with fighters from behind (as it was more vulnerable it was better kept behind, so any attacker would have to get past the far heavier ships to get it), the Victor(y) was supposed to support the landing and escort the Venator, the Acclamator II and Victory II were vanguard ships with more guns than their other version, and the Imperator (later Imperial I) was a generalist design supposed to serve as a flagship for a battlegroup (possibly including the other Kuati-designed ships) or solo missions.
Then the Empire took over just as the Imperators were entering service, and with the Venator being so popularly linked to the Jedi the carrier was scrapped and the doctrine reworked around the newly renamed Imperial Star Destroyers.
The ship was fine, the use was shit.
the meat riding is insane
What I wouldn’t give to see a battle fleet comprised of these vessels and others fight against an imperial fleet, win and put them to shame.
When I modded my Star Wars Empire at War, I made it so earlier levels were Clone Wars era vehicles like the Venator(with V-Wings) and then "replaced" with Victory and Imperial Stardestroyers. The V-Wings had shields but made them overall less powerful than TIE Fighters but also made all Stardestroyers carry the proper amount of aircraft. I would use the Venator for sheer numbers of fighters to overwhelm the enemies while deploying the Imperial Stardestroyers to pound the enemy Space Station and larger enemy ships(because they're battleships and have better fire power and shields) and use the Victory Stardestroyers and TIE Fighters to hunt down fleeing or outflanking enemy corvettes and fighters. Occasionally having Tartan Patrol Cruisers help provide support against enemy fighters that might get too close to my Imperial and Venator Stardestroyers. They definitely have their ups and downs and really work better together than separate.
Very well said as all of the main imperial capital ships were build in or during the clone wars and were never designed to operate independently, but as part as a massive fleet in assigned roles. Which why both victory and imperial class were so vulnerable when they came up against threats they were equipped or built to handle.
@@wedgeantillies66 , old expanded universe, a handful of Victory Stardestroyers and at least one Imperator Stardestroyer(the operational prototype to the Imperial Stardestroyer) were at the Battle of Coruscant. The Quasar Fire-Class Cruiser-Carrier is just not as great as the Venator. Serves a similar purpose as a carrier, but even Venator Stardestroyers were better designed for close combat than the Quaser. You don't want that junk anywhere near a combat zone. The others work really well together, and definitely a flaw of the Empire to abandon the Venator Stardestroyer design. I could see them maybe having to make some modifications or a slight redesign to carry TIE Fighters, but completely dumping the design was bad.
Is the Star Destroyer practical? No, at least not for fighting the rebels
Is it cool to warrant being one of my favourite Star Wars ships? Yes
perfectly valid
I'm sure it was proven to be practical when Vader used one ISD to decimate a whole Rebel Fleet on Scarif.
@@HolyknightVader999 after that fleet already took losses and managed to destroy two ISDs...
@@MehrumesDagon Yes, a whole fleet against just TWO ISDs. Two ships exhausting an entire fleet goes to show how good the ISD is, don't you think? Wonder how the battle would've fared if the defenders on Scarif had three. Vader would've been unnecessary.
It might've been pretty good if the Empire was in a Clone Wars style war.
Super Star Destroyer: "You see you're not dealing with the average Star Destroyer anymore."
Rebel Alliance: "I feel like we've been here before. Have we been here before?"
But this implies the rebel alliance is Frieza. The power dynamics is flipped 😮
Super Star Destroyer: "Not quite, there are no super-lazers or convenient exhaust ports for you to shoot a torpedo through this time!"
Rebel Alliance: Destroys one of the bridge deflector shield turrets before an A-Wing kamikaze's through the bridge section causing the Super Star Destroyer to crash into the neerest moon sized object.
The problem with dreadnoughts is the question. Where are you going to service it? While a cruiser can be serviced at a hundred ports. A StarDestroyer can only be serviced in ten of those. A Super Star Destroyer would only be serviced one or two of those ports.
The Super Star Destroyer was intended to be a mobile logistical base complete with full repair facilities. Allowing the Empire to control large areas.
Even though they were capable of it they were not intended to be used as front line combat units. Imperial doctrine led to a war winning weapon being misused.
Yes, yes we have, now arm the ion torpedoes and fall into attack formation epsilon.
Alan is growing back his trademark beard.
Good it's very flattering on him.
The attempt on his beard left him smoothfaced
Good, cause something about clean shaven Alan was bothering me.
Yay
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography Right?! XD
The biggest reason for the ISD was to be a central point of the navy, the problem was they just didn't use it well. They still kept carriers and point ships around showing they knew they had a capability and resource hole with it
If only they had more carriers and more efficient fighters.
They replaced a good carrier that can still hold its own in a close fight, with the Quasar Fire-Class Cruiser-Carrier, which falls a lot shorter on capabilities and a lot squishier than the Venators.
Well, that's why Tarkin was a grand moff of Empire - he shared Palpatine's military doctrine: Dreadful over efficient.
More like he influenced Palpi.
The greatest victory in war is one that ends without a fight.
Fear is really, really important in winning without fighting.
Ideally, you'd keep the Venators for patrols and general peacekeeping like you've stated, and have a smaller core of ISDs for when you need a hammer blow or a nice show of force.
ISDs are peacekeeping ships for peacetime. Venators are literally emergency build Destroyers
@@jakegrant5698 But as just outlined, ISDs are not good for general peacekeeping.
@@WPSent they are literally designed for peacekeeping
@@jakegrant5698they are designed for fear, which is arguably a good way of keeping "peace", but overall that's not what it's meant for
@@jakegrant5698 Over built, too costly, too inefficient.
They are NOT built for peacekeeping.
Another thing the star destroyer lacks is force projection. A Star Destroyer HAS to be in the same location as the conflict, if the conflict moves, it has to move with it. If a second conflict occurs at the same time the Star Destroyer is unable to respond. A Venator Class, has force projection, its hyperdrive capable fighters and other vehicles mean you can park the ship in empty space and still respond. If the conflict moves, the Venator does not have to, it simply retasks some of its ships, if a second conflict breaks out then the Venator can respond with other ships. Overall the Venator offers more flexible deployments.
An ISD's internal hangar is nearly as big as a Venators. Why can't it carry hyperspace capable fighters such ase the TIE hunter
@@jakegrant5698 The emperor didn't want hyperspace capable fighters, he didn't trust his soldiers. This is the same emperor that has the ISB listen to every conversation every stormtrooper has to sniff out traitors. The TIE fighter lacks shields, hyperdrive, or heavy weapons because it was meant to be a cheap, mass producable, and expendable as possible. They didn't even pressurize.
@@jakegrant5698your maths isn't all that good. An ISD carried 6 squadrons of TIEs, usually 12 bombers, 12 interceptors and 48 TIE l/n and exactly FIVE hyperspace capable assault gunboats. A single Venator carried more than 400 fighters of various classes. That's 5 to 6 times as much of a strike wing.
@@daveharrison61 an ISD's hangar is nearly as big as a Venator's. It can carry nearly as much stuff, especially if you remove the ground vehicles. The actual volume and engineering of the ship is more important than the stats made up by goofy ass nerds
@@daveharrison61 also, the majority of a Venator's complement are light interceptors. Not good for attack, and not good for bomber escort.
I've always believed that if the US Navy was able to get a Star Wars vessel for a spaceborne fleet, they'd want a Venator because it would fit with the carrier task force mindset
They'd want a supercarrier such as an Executor
@@jakegrant5698
I agree. However I believe the USN would probably want to use it differently than how the imperials would use it.
Something like how the Venator or our super carriers are used but on a far larger scale. And might use it as a repair and resource extraction vessel so assets can be repaired, replaced and manufactured.
Though I do think many in the navy or at least the coast guard would definitely see the value in a Venator class as well.
@@grisom5863 coast guard would never ever operate something as massive as a Venator. A small low-end Corvette maybe, but not a Destroyer
@@jakegrant5698 The executor class SSD carries 144 fighters/bombers etc. the Venator carries 420.
@@darth_nihilus_ the executor can physically fit multiple venators inside its hangar. It can easily hold thousands of fighters on a normal load and tens of thousands of small interceptors
Galactic Empire: *throws away Venators*
Rebel Alliance: "It's a free real estate."
idk why the rebels didn't immediately snatch up all of the venators they could
@@sirjaroid4725 I was quite sure that there was already vid answering that one....
@@sirjaroid4725Fallen order showed that 99.9% of them were dismantled and destroyed
@@sirjaroid4725
By the time the rebels were organized enough to get one the empire had either scrapped them or in the process of doing so. Yeah, palpy really wanted to get rid of the venator.
@@doorcf Not to mention that Rebels probably didn't have the manpower to command many of them. Let alone one.
Alan has to be the most OG star wars content creator. Hes definitely my favorite. Love the rediculous style of humor and calling characters the wrong name like baby gogurt 😆😆😆😆
Yes, Allen I agree with the point you are making. As a third generation Naval Service veteran I have always thought that having larger numbers of smaller well equipped combat ships can be as effective as a Carrier and her battle group. The point of cost is not lost on me. Yes, a carrier battle group has tremendous flexibility and firepower, but purchasing larger numbers of Frigates and Destroyers, or other smaller class of warships, for the resources and cost of said carrier is a consideration that I have often pondered. Thanks again for your awesome channel and the thought-provoking work you are doing. (:
If I am not mistaken I think the navy is considering more smaller carrier strike groups after how expensive these new Gerald Ford carriers are as well as littoral combat ships focusing on shallow water patrolling. (This isn’t starwars where your starfighters have an unlimited range pretty much) Maybe something more akin to the america-class amphibious assault ships but without the well-deck. Kind of like what South Korea’s planned CVX carrier will be.
Also as Thomas Jefferson was weary of a standing army he was a big supporter of a navy. I think we should focus more on navy and coast guard budget than army bases abroad anyway. Coast guard is completely overwhelmed by drugs and immigrant smuggling. I think more smaller ships is a great idea.
@@GAJake With the F35s STOVL-capabilities, I think mini-carriers like those used by the Marines (or the Koreans) will become a much more prudent choice for most assignments. Having a 5th gen aircraft assigned to what, essentially, used to be a helicopter-carrier, will be a huge force multiplier for those ships, while only requiring a fraction of the investment.
It should be simple math: if you can get a third of the airborn firepower for a fifth of the price, it's a no-brainer. Same way how in Star Wars, a carrier group made up of Quasar, Gozanti, and Arquitens could've handled 95% of all mission profiles, with only the Mon Calamari ships requiring the sort of beating that an ISD can dish out.
@@McKay1108 My thoughts exactly
Hell, even subs can take on the roles we've been using carriers for, largely
The ISD is the star wars equvalent of the Tiger 1 tank. Was it practical? No. Was it cool? Definitly Yes.
wrong the ISDs worked they never had maintence issues and did their job well.
For the Record the Tiger was pretty practical as a Mid-War tank
So... don't ever let Maho Nishizumi captain an ISD.
Or she'll smoke the Rebellion.
Think Char 2C… or Maus.
Executor was the Ratte.
Nah I’d say Tiger 2 even qualifies. The suspension and transmission could hardly support the Tiger 1, and they used the same for the 2.
Reminds me a lot of the battle of the midway. A battle in which the carriers involved were never within eyesight of each other
my uncle was a tech head on the F35 program when it was first being built i'm proud to be related to him as he made the frame of the F35 33% lighter and the stiffer
Sick man
The ISD is still my favorite capital ship, but my God, was it flawed all over. Good thing the Resurgence class SD corrected mostly everything about it. Second favorite capital ship btw.
Something we saw more of in CW and that I’d like to see even more in Star Wars is variety in the army/navy.
Irl, a naval fleet usually consists of a variety of ships: carriers, destroyers, patrol craft, submarines, etc. Each class of naval craft is purpose-built, and operations may involve the use of more than just one type of ship.
I’d love to see this reflected in Star Wars and see tacticians mix and match the ships and troops under their command for missions.
I get the feeling the ISD was designed around fighting something like the Malevolence. The Venators chasing it didn't seem to have the fire power to finish it off in a timely manner.
Malevolence would have had a field day with ISDs just like it toyed with Venators
This is by a long stretch one of the best Star Wars channels on RUclips
Have you watched the Tie Fighter short film by Otaking? I loved that the 1980s style Star wars anime showcased the Imperials having a competent commander, numerous tie fighter aces, and using their advantages to completely beat down the rebel alliance.
I still wish that was made into a series. Far superior than anything Disney has come out with over the last decade.
I generally prefer something smaller than either the Imperial Class or Venator Class Star Destroyer. My favorite is the Acclamator Class Star Destroyer, it was small, had a lot of inter space and could be modified for use as a starfighter carrier. Best of all it had a fast hyperspace drive that allowed it to move to where it needed to be. If I was setting up a sector defense force, I'd like something like that.
Venator is still my absolute favorite star wars ship. So excited to get the UCS lego version this fall
I see what's going on here, Alan and his anti-dolphin agenda. What's next, forcing dolphins to wear badges identifying them as dolphins?
Edit: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Even the farsighted Emperor Palpatine was victim to polarized thinking. Replace aircraft carriers with battleships, trade versatility for power. Whatever it takes to hold absolute power, or attain UNLIMITED POWAH.
This is actually one of my head-cannons on why the Empire rejected more capable, jump-fighters, because of Sith ideology. Giving a powerful, jump-capable fighter to your pilots, it giving them power and independence of their carrier and putting power in turn into the hands of their immediate commanders. Thus, Imperial Navy doctrine is centred are forced interdependence to make sure the commanders can never turn on the Emperor
Once again Palpatine failed because he drank too much of the Sith Kool-Aid.
What would be the perfect Star Wars Army from vehicles, Troopers, weapons, and all that is in between
The F-35B is a VTOL craft for the marines while the A is for the Air Force and the C is for the Navy
For me, the best class of star destroyers was Victory, both I and II. Smaler than both Imperial class, but three of them were equal in cost to one Imperial class star destroyer.
There are police departments across America buying military vehicles and equipment, they are not deploying it “yet”
What about the Galleon Star Frigate, which was built from the ground up as a carrier.
It's literally a flying box designed to house Tie Fighters
Venetors were aircraft carriers used like battleships in a war that could have used battleships. Star destroyers were battleships in a war that needed aircraft carriers. Both would actually have been good if they switched wars
As a Fan of Battleships of World War II. You're absolutely right, The ISD would get it's business worked by the Venator if it was used as it was designed, as a Carrier. Especially since you could easily replace the ARCs with T-65s if you were so inclined to. And since the Y-Wings didn't change too much from the Republic era. Yeah the ISDs would be boned.
Except for the fact that ISD where still a massive threat, I feel everyone here forgets that the mon calamari cruiser was made for a reason. To go toe to toe with star destroyers as smaller ships had no hope of beating them in a direct conflict outside of those smaller ships having a protagonist on/piloting it.
An ISD is much bigger than a Venator. It's just as fast and much more powerful. If configured correctly, it can carry an adequate defensive screen to fully negate the Venator's (rather slim) strike package
@@jakegrant5698 That's just not historically accurate when you compare its usual "Fleet" compliment in the Movies. And even in the TV series the Empire rarely assigned a massive screen to them. The only time we see that with Capable Admirals like Thrawn or Massive Operations like Defending the DS-2. The standard Fleet protocol was a single ISD or a few to a sector. They genuinely didn't have a proper screen against fighters. This is why The Rebel alliance could destroy them with Y wing Strikes with Escorts. You'd have more than Venator with Hundreds more Starfighters including the Lethal Y wing on top of their Strike Fighter Escorts. Again you're mistaking an Ideal fleet from how the Empire actually fought.
Also did you call 420 fighters ranging from Bombers, Strike fighters, to Interceptors a slim strike package? Compared to the standard 72 tie fighters? Which again if we slap T-65s and A Wings in a Venator would again be one: More Numerous and 2 on the same tech level. Also as for speed the ISD had a slower Hyperdrive rating of 2.0 versus the Venator's 1.0. good luck keeping up to it as it just out jumps you.
@@Airsickword except we've seen even Star Fighter Squads wipe out ISDs. Their Point Defense is trash and their flight wing compared to a Venator is laughably small. ISDs are historically antiquated and poorly designed for the time they were being used. If the ISD was used during the one Wars where they were often trading Broadsides sure. But you're acting like the Venator when used correctly is going to be swapping Broadsides. If you think so you missed Alan's entire point.
@@AstralLordOmawhether the ISD's standard complement of fighters is so large is irrelevant. All that matters is the maximum amount it can carry, which approaches the Venator very closely.
The standard was about 1-2 squadrons of ISDs to a sector.
The Empire had a much more extensive fleet of support ships and fighters to screen against enemy fighters than the Republic did.
The idea that a single squadron of fighters or bombers can realistically take down a capital ship is dumbfounded and ridiculous. It's only done for theatrical effect and it isn't practical. If it was, then millennia of Galaxy-Spanning factions wouldn't have invested quintillions of credits on direct combatants.
The ISD is a well designed ship, as is the Venator. Because the ISD is larger, it always has the edge in a 1 on 1 combat.
The whole fighter-overdose thing is a legacy from Curtis Saxton getting to write then-canonical reference books. Don't let fanboys dictate the basic rules of the universe.
Imagine if Thrawn had 31,500 TIE Defenders to command.
It's not just that the Venators is cheaper and more practical than the ISD.
When the Empire formed they had thousands of Venators, full of crews who were trained and experienced with them, tactics developed for their use, etc. They saw that wealth of equipment and experience and just threw it on the junk pile.
Venators with ISDs screening against capitol ship attacks would seem to make the most sense. Imagine a handful of ISDs screening three or for Venators with a large compliment of Tie Defenders. The tactical options would be insane.
Watching this I kept thinking "WWTD" - What would Thrawn do? I'm glad you touched on it, but I think you could go deeper. Your criticism is the same one Thrawn had regarding Project Stardust in favour of the Tie Defender Project. Just as he developed the defender for his own use, you would think he would modify the Chimera to be more adapted to purpose.
One does not simply "modify" a Star Destroyer. That thing is a beast, a monster, a behemoth! When they changed the design from the Mk I to the Mk II (The Duce) they made more than a million changes, of various degree.
It is pretty much better to just build a new ship than make any drastic changes.
As a die-hard Imperial-Class Star Destroyer fanboi, I personally don't simp for the ship because it's practical or effective no none of the logical nonsense this is the Empire we're talking about, I will love and defend the ISD to my dying breath because of it's absolutely gorgeous form paired with that iconic Imperial light gray. No other capital ship could even come close to the beauty of the ISD, not even the Executor-class or Eclipse-class both of which are also one of the best looking ships in Star Wars imo. I mean c'mon, the Venator literally looks like Jar Jar's head, what more reasoning do I need?
Also god damn that SU-35 vs F-35 wiki article at the beginning of the video gave me and frankly any aviation enthusiast severe headaches. In simple terms, if a person says that a 4th gen fighter is better than a 5th gen fighter that is the time you should stop listening to them because it's clear they have no idea what they're about, it's honestly insane how much people underestimate the F-35, it may carry fewer missiles and have a shorter range when on it's stealth configuration but it would effortlessly wipe out any 4th gen aircraft in the sky thanks to it's stealth capabilities alone, no amount of extra missiles or superior agility would save your SU-35 from rapidly colliding with an AIM-120 air-to-air missile fired from an F-35 you didn't even know was there because again, stealth capabilities.
You know, sometimes I doubt Tarkin's commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Yeah, now that you think about it, everyone that says the Venator loses to the ISD is because it would be a standard battle where firepower and armor trump the Venator. However the Venator could simply avoid getting too close when it deploys its starfighters or so what Ahsoka did at Ryloth. Even Thrawn replicated that tactic.
it was lose ,the ISD nukes the venator before it deploys its fighters. also notice how you venator simps only Argument is "but my fighters"? you realize that the ISD has 72 of them an entire fighter wing also the Empire has dedicated carrier that are cheaper and do these Scenarios exactly the same as your old venator rust bucket. it was outdated and phased out by the end of the clone wars and for the carrier role the empire has better options. you keep mentioning the battleship vs aircraft carrier thing but what modern carrier is designed to broadside with cruisers from ww1 today? because that is literally the Venator
@@laisphinto6372 The carrier argument is eliminated because the debate is just between the two star destroyers. If we were talking about navies, that would be a whole other thing. And the Venator has multiple hangars, not just the big main one we always see. Not to mention, are Venators really going to deploy their starfighters in range of an ISD? Maybe they have no choice on the defense, but on the offense, the Venator simply has to deploy starfighters right after they jump out of hyperspace before getting into range. We even see this on the Clone Wars show. The Venators when attacking launch their fighters before the battle actually begins.
Outdated? Really? The Venator along with the rest of the navy and army were three years old. How do you classify that as outdated? And I doubt any modern carrier would be made to fight a battleship because that’s what aircraft it deploys are for. Do you know about the Bismarck, Yamato, and the Battle of Midway? All won mostly by bombers. A modern carrier would detect a battleship miles away and just deploy bombers to hit it. And if you want to bring up complement numbers, we all know Venators have more fighters and bombers, most of which can go into hyperspace, have more weapons, and even shields. Sure, the ISD would win a broadside battle. It’s proven itself in Canon like at Atollon. But that’s always if the Venator fights conventionally. Even though an ISD can also pull the same moves, a Venator can divide up its fighters for attack and defense and the Tie Fighters still would be outnumbered. Even if you wanted to bring in the Quasar Carrier, it has less room on board for fighters and shares the Venator’s exposed hangar problem without any alternative ways for ships to leave it. It would lose in a one-on-one fight. Granted though, the Imperial carrier is cheaper.
So yes, the Venator loses in broadside engagements. We see this with the Malevolence and when Grievous ambushed Obi-Wan. But if the Venator avoids the conditions for such a battle to happen, it has the advantage. Heck, the Malevolence is an example of this. One squadron of bombers crippled the warship and sent it running allowing the Venators to chase it. Star Wars has shown how valuable and essential Starfighters and Bombers are in its wars. Small package, heavy payload.
@@tristankawatsuma8962 you severly downplaying the imperial fighter wing and you now compare not the star destroyers but the starfighters where the heavy republic fighters have a severe problem combating the TIEs that have the advantage in dogfight capabilities ,if you dont believe me rewatch the battle of yavin and the battle of coruscant where TIEs shred through y wings and xwings a fighter that is more advanced than the arc 170 that was really bad in battle of coruscant in dogfights.
@@laisphinto6372 I question this dogfighting advantage. Yes, Tie Interceptors most likely lived up to their name. However, there’s also plenty of battles where Rebel starfighters cut through Imperial Ties and Republic starfighters are able to take on Vultures. It’s just in the case of the Separatists, they really win the numbers game. There’s no faction that can ever outnumber them. However, droids can be quite predictable and be outthought, which we see so many times throughout Star Wars. I mean, for crying out loud Star Wars basically highlights how much of a difference the Tie Defender would have made in the war. It’s basically designed like a Republic or Rebel starfighter with powerful weapons and shields. Yes, Tie Fighters are among the fastest starfighters. Honestly, I would think only Rebel fighters can compete with them on that front. But speed is there only advantage. Hell, the Arc 170 and the Y-Wing have turrets and other guns to shoot anybody that’s behind them. Also at Yavin, the amounts of fighters were about the same. 72 Ties vs about 400 Republic fighters and bombers or just about 200 if they’re divided to attack and defend is kind of clear how unfair the fight between starfighters would be.
And back to the Venator Vs Imperial Star Destroyer, of course we have to also talk about their complements. I mean, any ships with starfighters is going to use them of course. Now yes, the Venator by itself is definitely outgunned. Even if shields and armor plating are the same, the Venator would be torn apart without fighters. It’s thus what makes fighters the key part of the debate. If the Venator has great fighters in mass numbers, the odds are more even.
Since you've done two videos going over the weaknesses of an ISD compared to a venator i would love to see a video explaining its strengths. For example say an ISD was going one vs one against a venator but Admiral Thrawn was in charge of the ISD, how could he use the ISD's strengths to counter the venator and win.
All thrawn would have to do is engage. The ISD is equal or superior in every regard
ISD better armoured and better shielded. Far superior firepower for direct engagements of other capital vessels and surface bombardment. And it had an organic ability to deploy massive quantities of troops including heavy weapons and equipment and prefabricated fortifications.
The Venator is a far superior carrier, and provided it can stay out of direct fire range, it will wipe the floor with an ISD. And the economics of war mean that if you sent a full deck strike against the isd and lost 50 or 100 fighters, you have lost a maximum of 200 lives and a few million credits worth of equipment compared to the far more millions of capital ship, 37,000 trained crew and nearly 10,000 troops.
How would Thrawn win? By not fighting that battle. In all the legends stuff Thrawn was the only imperial admiral until Pelleaon (who was trained by Thrawn as his flag captain) who understands that war is a team sport (first rule of war). Even in 1906 with the launching of HMS Dreadnought that triggered the Dreadnought arms race that was partly responsible for the first world war, every single naval strategist understood you needed cruisers for trade protection and fleet scouting, torpedo boats for carrying out harassing attacks against slower and more expensive capital ships, destroyers to keep torpedo boats away from your expensive battleships, and then there was new technologies like submarines and aircraft to be integrated into your doctrine and strategies. Thrawn created fleets with multiple different ship types because he knew no one ship class could do everything even vaguely competently.
In conclusion, the empire shouldn't have sent fleets of ISDs to carry out operations alone. A battleground should have been centred on an ISD or two with carrier support (either a Venator or two or half a dozen tropsabour class escort carriers - and I hope I've spelled that class name correctly), with several lighter cruisers and frigates. The lighter ships can hold their own for most patrols and are better suited to act as pickets and point defence for the heavies. If serious opposition is located THAT'S when you deploy the big boys, to smash up high value targets and to engage hardened defences while it's supporting forces compliment it. Preferably using the clever placement of interdict 11:58 ion gravity wells to drop them out at point blank mailing rage of their target from hyperspace in an offensive ambush. Second rule of war, you don't get bonus points for fighting fair.
Arguing for an ISD to do everything while arguing against ships like the Venator is like favoring the IJN Yamato battleship to successfully defeat an Essex-class aircraft carrier.
Totally agree. It's like the Brits against the French and Spanish. They had bigger ships, we generally kicked their butts.
Remember that the inhabitants of the tiny island called Britannia had over 800 years of experience over larger forces ( Roman empire occupation ) a thousand years of understanding effective use of minimum resources over larger areas ( from the constant assaults from invasion fleets to global conflicts learning how to resource management was important on the ground floor despite the leadership being from the last generation of fighting forces with older equipment) 😁 in summary they learnt from history
The ISD, one of the most iconic science fiction ships. Does it have a place in the Imperial Navy? Yes. Is it used properly in the Imperial Navy? No. The ISD is a great choice as a command ship for a fleet, a great choice as the initial wave of attacks for a planetary invasion, a great choice for a head-on assault against another fleet of capital ships, and a great choice for intimidation. The biggest weakness of the ISD is the inflexibility of its design, a design focused on planetary assaults and slugfests with capital ships with fighters intended to act as a screening force rather than a multi-role, multi-capable ship design. The Venator is a more flexible ship, capable of most any mission, while the ISD is only capable of acting as a command ship and heavy hitter. The ISD is not a bad design, nor is it a waste by itself, the Imperial doctrines that use it as the backbone of the Navy make it a waste. If both ships, the ISD and Venator were taken together, putting Venators around an ISD (or a few ISDs), you would have an extremely capable, powerful, flexible fleet able to take on almost anything.
The ship itself is not a waste, only the doctrines that put it as the backbone of the Imperial Navy.
Star Destroyers are not battleships. It's in the name.
Yes carriers replaced battleships in WW2 but recently it is thought that a missile-carrying destroyer can take on a modern carrier fleet. Not just a carrier but all its accompanying fleet too. Missiles can have the range of manned aircraft simply because they need half the fuel; they're not coming back.
Isn’t that missile carrier ship the russian flagship? The one that they claimed could take on a carrier group, but got sunk by a single missile because it’s defenses were off?
The Star Destroyer isn't a modern missile-boat. It is an old-school Dreadnought Battleship, the kind which always fared poorly against fighter wings.
The thing is, you can only use a missile once. A manned fighter is re-usable.
Why do i think the ISD is better? How many times has an ISD won a ship to ship battle and how many times has the venator class got their ass kicked in the clone wars?
The Real problem is Disney made Star Destroyers a joke, there is no threat to them what so ever anymore. In original trilogy everyone was afraid of them and took combined firepower to take one down.
I never understood where all the clone wars ships just disappeared to. The idea thatvthey just scrapped so many venators and all that equipment is nuts no military scraps perfectly good equipment cuz they are not in a war anymore. They would have kept it around or at least repurpose it for other uses but it never made sense that all the clone wars equipment just dissapears all of a sudden after order 66
Venators were not suitable for the peacetime navy
I completely agree, which is why if I was in control the 7th Fleet (at least 25 ISD's & 6 Victory class destroyers), I would replace all of my ISD's with Lancer class frigates, Arquitens-class command cruisers, and Imperial Gozanti-class cruisers. This is because of several reasons:
1. Cost/Crew: The Lancers only cost 4,760,000 credits each and has a crew of 850 (including gunners), the Arquitens (Imperial variant, which by this point in time would be more prominent in comparison to the Republic one) costs 5 million credits each and has a crew of 850 (includes 100 passengers [used for Stormtroopers because of their importance as command vessels]), and Imperial Gozanti-class cruisers cost 200,000 credits and has a crew of 22 (includes 10 Stormtroopers [used for anti-boarding], but not passengers). With the money needed to buy an ISD (1's and 2's cost 150 million credits), I could instead buy 30 Lancers/Arquitens or 750 Gozantis; and with an ISD (1 & 2) crew of over 37,000, I could instead crew 43.5 Lancers/Arquitens, or 1681 Gozantis.
2. Usefulness: The Lancers are extremely useful against enemy starfighters (if Wedge Antilles is scared of facing one of these ships, they're doing something right), the Arquitens are very useful against larger ships like frigates or corvettes (not cruisers and other heavy hitters like those of the Mon Calamari, but that's what my remaining Victory Class Star Destroyers are for), and the Gozanti-class cruisers are useful for deploying/rearming standard TIE variants (useful for patrols as 10 Gozantis could cover more space than 1 ISD, whilst having a far lesser risk to my operations should they be destroyed) & acting as light freighters (great for resupply convoys).
3. Size: With the size of these ships (250 meters for the Lancer, 230 meters for the Arquitens [Imperial variant], and almost 64 meters for the Gozanti), I don't need to worry about ship management, repairs, or rearmament nearly as much since they are relatively small. With the exception of the smallest ones, any shipyard can accommodate several of these ships at once. Plus, it would be cheaper overall to resupply a handful of these ships than a single ISD which needs a dedicated shipyard. The cost & materials needed to build & sustain any shipyard would be a lot, as opposed to my new ships which I could (mostly) just point to an empty spit of land, say "land over there", and be done with it.
4. Morale: My new ships are not symbols of the Empire's might like an ISD. So, even if I do manage to lose a ton of these ships while fighting the Rebels, it wouldn't matter to Imperial Command since losing those wouldn't be nearly as debilitating in terms of manpower, expenses, and Imperial propaganda/morale as me losing a single ISD. Not to mention that since no one would care if I lost some of these ships to the Rebels, I won't have to worry about getting Force-choked. My losing ships would also show everyone that I'm doing my job and actually fighting them; the fact that I'm using 'lesser' ships would be my shield/excuse to explain away why I keep losing so many. The same goes for the Rebellion. Sure, winning against a small task force of Gozantis and Arquitens may raise the morale of the average grunt, but to anyone higher up it wouldn't be nearly as impressive as beating an ISD since one of those has far more firepower than an entire fleet of Arquitens.
5. Fighter/Cargo Capacity: An ISD carries 72 standard TIE variants (fighters, bombers, and interceptors), which 18 Gozantis, 24 Arquitens, or 36 Lancers (in Legends, they can carry 2 shuttles, so why not 2 TIE's) can carry. With my Lancers, the Empire's plan to overwhelm the enemy with swarms of TIE's is useless to me, so I wouldn't have as big a need for them. Still, even with the overall uselessness of the TIE line, I can still use them as a limited form of force projection (and human sandbags to protect my larger ships as they engage at longer range). Thanks to the cheaper cost & smaller crew size of a Gozanti, I could easily assign all 1800 standard TIE's that the 25 ISD's would carry to 450 Gozantis. This is great since they are pretty good for convoy duty.
Really, I could replace all 25 of my ISD's (3,750,000,000 credits, 925,000 personnel, & 1800 TIE's) with 60 Arquitens (300,000,000 credits, 51,000 personnel, & 180 TIE's), 300 Lancers (1,428,000,000 credits, 255,000 personnel, & 600 TIE's), and 3,000 Gozantis (600,000,000 credits, 66,000 personnel, & 12,000 TIE's). Costing a total of 2,328,000,000 credits for all my new ships, that still leaves me with 1,422,000,000 credits for me to play around with. Though I'd want to save at least 1/3 of this wealth (474,000,000 credits) for replacement parts/ships, that still gives me a lot of room to maneuver. I could purchase more Tibanna gas (which I would need for my new ships), build more TIE's (something I'd regretfully need since my fleet's new size would require a far larger number [12,780] than the 25 ISD's had), and secure funding for the Defender line (I'd replace all the awful TIE's assigned to my 6 very important Victory's [144 total] for TIE Defenders [so worth it since that only costs 43,200,000 credits total]). With a much lower crew requirement of 372,000 personnel to pay/feed/clothe (literally less than half the personnel needed for the 25 ISD's), I can afford to give my minions bigger paychecks & better rations (a well-paid & fed minion is a happy & loyal minion, and it's not like I'd be overspending anyway).
This leaves my 6 remaining Victory's (plus 144 TIE defenders) to each have a support fleet of 10 Arquitens (with 30 standard TIE's assigned to them), 50 Lancers (with 100 standard TIE's assigned to them), and 500 Gozantis (with 2,000 standard TIE's assigned to them). In total, that's 3,510 FTL capable ships with 12,780 standard TIE's in my new fleet, as opposed to the 31 FTL capable ships with 1800 TIE's of the original fleet.
That would be a shockingly bad decision. Why on earth would you swap a Destroyer for a few Lancers? That totally undermines your troop landing capabilities, your fighting capabilities against units larger than a frigate, and your ability to subjugate a system.
Not to mention the Gozantis. Christ, they're literally armed merchants. They are NOT a replacement for destroyers at all.
@@jakegrant5698 Well, how many battalions do the Rebels have? Remember, the Rebellion is only really a great threat to the Empire when operating in space (giving the people hope as they mop the floor of 'superior' Imperial assets with their ramshackle ships). On the ground, the Empire has a far better chance at victory, especially against the early Rebellion who were still a scattered collection of small groups. I need fast ships for patrol duties, not ships that Rebel fighters can run rings around & can't hit for shit. Besides, ground operations isn't my main job anyway.
If the Rebels have boots on the ground, that's the local planetary defense's problem, not mine. Their job is supposed to have the troops necessary to beat rebel insurgents using their superior firepower & numbers, if they can't handle a couple people with old blasters, then that's their fault. My job is to quickly grind the Rebels' most important assets, their fleet, into dust before they can increase recruitment enough to even have an army in the first place (essentially, I'm supposed to destroy Rebel Cells before they can grow large enough to be a problem for the Imperial Army to handle). By doing this, it prevents the Rebels from gaining much support, to the point where powerful groups like the Mon Calamari would be more hesitant to actively join. Also, don't forget that I still have my 6 Victory class Star Destroyers, each one having 1600 troops and 10 AT-AT's, 15 AT-ST's, & 10 Juggernaut Tanks (quoting MetaNerdz for those latter numbers). If needed, I can just send these assets in to supplement the planetary forces already engaging the Rebels.
Most early Rebel Cells are mostly stuck using snub fighters and larger ships with little high-tonnage firepower, so why shouldn't I use several quick Lancers instead of one slow ISD? Yes, it would be quicker to destroy those larger ships, but the Rebels don't have very many of those in the first place, and "Rebels" already showed that those ships are not that durable against the firepower of standard TIE's, so the weapons onboard a Lancer should be at least as effective. Not to mention the fact that not many Cells even have the firepower on the ground to go up against Walkers or tanks in the first place, for those that do I can just send my Victory's in to deal with them while my Lancers protect them from enemy fighters.
As for the Gozantis, well again I mostly had them as freighters and light patrol craft anyway, so it's not like I'm wasting their potential. The Empire is huge, with millions of star systems that Rebel groups could hide in, and I'm no Thrawn. Having small FTL capable ships with the ability to quickly deploy 4 TIE's is pretty good for scanning through systems for Rebel activity, or acting as bait for Rebel groups who think they are looking at an easy score (using one of these ships as bait is far more effective than an ISD, since the Cells [if they're smart] would at least think twice before willingly going up against all those guns). Especially if I send a small task unit since I'm not really wasting anything either way. My fleet has 3000 of these ships, so if I send out 3-ship task units, then I could check for Rebel activity on a thousand different star systems at a time (way faster than using the ISD's as they would only allow me to scan a few dozen of those systems at a time). If I don't find anything, that's fine, I got more systems to look through. If my ships come under attack (with that amount of cargo space and light defenses, you can bet they'd be attacked) that's fine too since that means I either found a Rebel base or am getting close to finding one.
If I lose a task unit, that's only 3 small ships and 66 lives lost, acceptable numbers in the Empire. Replacing them wouldn't be nearly as time-consuming as replacing the crew of an ISD. Hell, even a Lancer would be more expensive to replace than several Gozantis, so again I'm not really losing much here if I assign them to patrol duties.
honestly, the ISD could have been a good ship to escort Venators if they had outfitted it differently (mainly more defensive weapons), like how the Iowa Class battleships were used to escort Essex class carriers
Venators would be escorting the ISD or working as crude squadron-mates
I forever love the ISD, a beautiful starship. Powerful, imposing, simple. But she was never designed for the Empire, but for the Republic. I shall explain.
Other than the real fact it was indeed designed by model makers to depict a stark contrast for the films, in the lore it was designed at the end of the Clone Wars, and even took part in the battle over Courosaunt. The Republic had a huge problem with the Venator, yes, it's an excellent carrier but a terrible battleship. The droid ships were already more numerous than the Republic capital ships, but also better carriers and better battleships. The Starfighter compliment on board the Venators rarely were able to solely engage separatist capital ships but did tie up the droid fighters, leaving the scene open for capital ship duels. And here the Venators suffered. The Imperator was designed to battle here for the Venators. The carriers could focus more on servicing the flight wing, screening enemy fighters, and flank guarding while the Imperator could carry its own fighter compliment for self defence and focus on engaging separatist capital ships head on. With the Imperator even the giant Lucerhulk has to compute twice when deciding to engage or not.
Not to mention in legends the clone were super gung-ho and aggressive and would throw away many advantages to engage droids more directly, the ISD just fit their combat style better.
The ISD is the big SOB you tote out when shit gets real. The Venator is the go to solution for most of your problems.
the real goats were the ISDs operated under the Legends New Republic, repainted and refitted with x-wings as well as Thrawn's ISDs equipped with TIE Defenders
almost like the ISDs was never bad to begin with and this is just a dumb grandpa that swears up and down that his old """reliable""" venator was so much better even though they get beat the shit out of by CIS ships that were smaller than them and they are a glorified ton falk carrier
I thought the Imperial Navy solved the scouting problem by sending probe droids instead of scout ships.
I hope we get to see an early Rebel cell using a Venator, we saw that in Rebels the Pheonix group had a repurposed medical frigate until Vader came into the picture so others might be the same.
I always thought we should see alot more republic and empire ships and equipment being used by the rebels especially the smaller stuff thats easy to steal. I want to see stories about some of the clones rebelling etc that would be good stuff
@@Darthdoodoo yeah, I hope that some of the free clone commandeer a Venator or two out of the clutches of the Empire.
Agreed, I'd like to see a Venator being used by the Rebels somewhere. If you recall, in some canon material there have been examples of CW era stuff being appropriated: the Rebel One repurposed Providence that got smoked right away, Hera had command of both an Acclamator and a Lucrehulk at different points, and Legends has even more examples.
@@cd5sircoupe indeed, those are nice and nostalgic ships.
The ISD vs a Venator is like Japan's Yamato Battleship vs the USA's Enterprise Aircraft Carrier
No, it's a large multi-role destroyer focused on fighting equally sized units Vs a small multi role / support destroyer not focused on fighting equally sized units. The ISD wins almost every time
I totally agree with your assessment on the venator class vs. an ISD. A carrier will beat a battleship any day of the week
That Battleship vs Assault carrier analogy between the ISD and the VCD is spot on.
Is it? I don't think so. ISDs are not that much larger than Venators. Only about 3-4× the size and designed for a similar role, just with different characteristics
That’s why I choose to build my fleet based upon the Gladiator class star destroyer. Which logically should carry 10x as many tie fighters.
But I’d also carry through with the Nebulan B program, as the imperial version envisioned by FractalSpunge, as two squadrons of fighter per frigate, and it only costs twice that of an Arquitens, yet carries 8 times the fighter compliment.
@@davidblalock9945 nebulon Bs are smaller than arquitens
You know, I’d say the real nail in the coffin for the galactic empire was being the bad guys in a movie trilogy where the good guys win
A Gozanti-class cruiser could easily accommodate two or more like four full squads of vulture droids. So a good system patrol could be eight ARC-170 star fighters and 2 Gozanti-class cruisers. One with 4 squads of powered-down vulture droids in racks. The Gozanti-class cruiser were equipped with a couple of medium turbolasers and a couple of heavy ion cannons, this would be a very formidable systems defense / policing force. The second Gozanti-class cruiser would be decked out as a support ship that could rotate out vulture droids for recharging and maintenance, and act as home base for the ARC-170s (with the ability to dock with four ships at once, and probably do light maintenance in the cargo hold). This would be a very formidable force.
What was crazy is that how after the empire came out all republic tech was scrapped basically eliminated any chance of rebels to get tech to fight back
Thanks for the video.
Perfectly applicable quote from SG1 by O'Neill:
*Holds up staff weapon*
"This, is a weapon of terror. It's made to intimidate the enemy."
*Casually tosses it aside and holds up P90*
"This, is a weapon of war. It's made to kill your enemy."
Tarkin, having lived a life of wealth and privilege, was incapable of imagining any scenario where a person would have nothing to lose by attacking a seemingly overwhelming foe.
thats so wrong , why do you think the VSD and ISD was designed? ots because the venator was shit that they are outgunned by regular cruisers and they were way too weak .
2:35
Ah yes, my favorite starfighter from the esteemed Star Wars IP: The SU-35. What a spectacular starfighter.
5:00 Is that the sneaky dolphin that got your beard?
One star destroyer and 5 venetors along with around 25 arquitens would be one of the best all around functional fleets. Fighter swarms for advanced coverage and assault, a brawler to deal with any tough or close by problems, and a wall of versatile ships for added unstoppability.
Until your arquitens all get cooked by the enemy's heavier units and you're left defenseless. Don't use arquitens against destroyers lmao
@@jakegrant5698 You clearly know nothing of Thrawns fleet tactics. 25 Arquitens with 6 destroyers providing battery and armor, along with thousands of fighters... Destroyers will be toast. This is a superb fleet composition..
@@RexTenebrarum it's fine, but it's not a good idea to include such vulnerable ships in a formation rocking destroyers. Also may I add that your fleet severely lacks firepower with only a single Star Destroyer, not even a half squadron of proper Line Destroyers. This fleet also is not uniform in speed or manoeuvrability, so turning and fighting as one would be a challenge.
@@RexTenebrarum by the way, arquitens are not versatile. They're small, pretty slow and cheap picket Corvettes not suited for open battle with large ships. It would be a waste to include them in your battle Line. Corvettes as a whole don't really belong in anything other than a planetary defense force
150M credits sounds quite affordable considering the F35 mentioned can cost upwards of $135M depending on the varient. I know credits and dollars don't readily correlate but if Han wants 10K just to fly 2 passengers and their droids and Obi-Wan casually bumps it to 17K credits they aren't worth the disparity that would exist between 150M credits for a massive Star Destroyer and $10B cost of a comparatively tiny US Aircraft Carrier. Luke sold his beat up landspeeder for at least 2000 credits which would put it at a comperable price to a used Ford Pinto that year. I don't think Star Wars: Starships and Speeders was being very realistic with that 150M credit price, either that or the cost of a single cup of caf is comparatively ungodly expensive in the Star Wars universe.
Heck, in Andor they stole 80M credits and that was just a portion of a single, lightly populated, sector's monthly payroll. With 1,000 sectors in the Star Wars universe the cost of a 150M Star Destroyer would be a drop in the bucket next to the Empire's monthly payroll.
Im wondering where these numbers come from, in real militaries there is a huge difference between the cost needed to buy equipment, the cost needed to get it operational, and the total lifetime cost of that equipment.
Considering that they could have bought an unmodified and used ship for those 10K credits I'd say the 150M credits are on the level.
You don't hire a smuggler to avoid 'Imperial entanglements' if you can make the trip legally and Han knew he had those two over a barrel. So, travelling with a regular passenger ship would have been cheaper. Much, much cheaper.
I absolutely love the ISD!!! However after hearing what I did in this video,. I think I will take the many vinegar glass star destroyers. I could get for one Imperial class start a strider and all those fighters and reconnaissance ships that go along with the! Absolutely awesome? Video. Thank you very much for all your hard work in producing them and. Posting them absolutely love everything you do.
The thing about the F-35 and when people say it sucks, literally almost every information about it is still classified and what information we do know about it is either basically russian propaganda channels like russia today and people like pierre spray trying to discredit the F-35 or some forms of speculation by military enthusiast or from the bits of things they could say like how F-35 can pretty much communicate with other F-35 from other countries even but other than that most information about the F-35 is still highly classified
Talk more about the Vong please. I always thought the bad guys from Galaxy Quest looked similar to the Vong.
Technically the weight and cannons don't mean jack. Cause a single fighter can take out a battle station that can dock several IDS's
The regular Imperial Star Destroyer has a place: taking down enemy capital ships or a small army of medium sized ships. However, it was often disproportionate for responses.
I wonder if ISD groups would be a better idea? (1 Imperial Star Destroyer surrounded by screens of medium sized ships and an interdictor).
But the vendor could do that for much cheaper. But I do agree, in a proper fleet, you'd have both, with the isd being your "tanks" and protecting the venators to let their starlight wreck enemy capitol ships.
@@zogar8526 capital ships destroy capital ships easier than fighters do
@jakegrant5698 sometimes. But fighters are made to slip past the defenses and get out with taking less damage.
Sure, you can go slug it out with an isd against another capitol ship nearly the same size, and win. But even against another much small capitol ship, you will take tons of damage and have massive repair costs and lives lost. Trading broadside just hurts everyone.
But having a ship with lots of fighters, including bombers, to cause tons of damage first, then go in to finish the enemy is easier. And spares you tons in repairs and lives. Even better when you do it in a proper fleet. And have your bigger ships protect your more vuranable carriers. While the fighters and bombers soften up the enemy, then go in for the kill.
There is a reason carries are how real navies mostly function now a days. And really, it should be the same in star wars
We know all these tactics actually work.
Yea the empire should have just built a more menacing version of the Venitor mixed with a star destroyer. A ship with the carrier capability mixed with the ability to drop your opponent in a few hits. Hell if they didn’t wish to do that then just keep the Venitor and pack it full of tie fighter/bombers/interceptors/defenders. Then have a group of 3 ISD and smaller support ships to defend it
Fear itself was the enemy of the Empire. If instead Tarkin had fleets of dozens of smaller ships, the Empire probably would have not been perceived as oppressive, but as a police force. You’re right, massive shows of force only make more resistance.
Seeing a truly tactical Star Wars movie would be so cool. I would love to see real military doctrine applied to the Star Wars universe
I like to imagine that the Rebel Alliance had one Venator-class Star Destroyer... just *one...* that they used to drive the Imperials crazy. The Empire would commit multiple Imperial-class Star Destroyers to hunting it, but they would never even SEE it. It would fly a secret route, regularly changing, with rendezvous and drop-off points. It would jump in somewhere secluded, probably deep space, offload a bunch of hyperdrive-equipped starfighters, possibly shuttles with assault teams, whatever the mission required, and then jump out. A short hop from the target system,. but never anywhere near any detection nets. The teams would hyperspace jump the rest of the way, conduct the mission, then scatter. They'd make for one of the preset rendezvous points to get picked up.
Even if the Imperials managed to get one set of coordinates, the Venator would be running scouts ahead of itself, and if the scouts didn't give the all clear, it would simply skip that part of the route.
The hard part would be keeping a ship that big supplied and maintained.
Now that's a great idea! :)
The perfect thing to watch on my work break!!
What happened to all the clone amour P1 P2?
Tarkin had a point. Fear is a very powerful deterrent and it is a very powerful statement to park an ISD over top a planet or city. The problem is fear is also a very temporary thing. I don't buy into jedi dogma much but they did get some things right, namely that fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate. Once you're hated instead of feared your fear inducing product has become useless and you'd better have something to absorb and respond to the eventual haymaker heading your way or you're gonna wind up on your ass.
Reminds me of what Wrex said in Mass Effect 1. " Only an idiot hopes for combat while flying in a stealth ship."
It's basically a fleet that thrawn would push for, lol. He wanted a fighter that was more durable and hyperspace capable, and so he developed the tie defender
I would love to see Thrawn in Ahsoka using some form of using smaller more practical vessels similar to how he used the Dark Force in the Thrawn trilogy. Old retired venators or dreadnaughts would be awesome to see in live action
When you calculated the price for the Venator did that cost also include the starfighters? Just curious since even though it can carry hundreds of more starfighters would that not increase the price, especially if you upgrade from TIE fighters to other fighters, and is it still cheaper than an ISD at that point?
Well, one of the three F-35s is VTOL. The other 2 include an air superiority model and a navalized model.
You should cover Super Star Destroyers & Star Dreadnaugts next. The Imperial Navy’s collection of Executor class SSDs and other models like the Eclipse and Vengeance are certainly 10 times more costly than an average ISD.
The venator may have fallen out of favor but the arquitens seems to be the design that just won't die.
It's interesting that the New Republic apparently went completely 180 and relied solely on hyperspace fighters for policing.
I think that a combination of both venators and star destroyers with the right combination of support ships would be vastly superior to the standard imperial fleet. Kind regards from Daniel Harman.
the "simple" soluton would have been having ISD's Supported by Venators, that would give the best options for most situations
I'm amazed that Thrawn didn't make exactly this argument (or at least, we've never seen him do so).
I noticed a dolphin a few times in the black void of space in the video. only few seconds starting at 2:03
The ISD is not antiquated. Is just the wrong tool in the shed for most Imperial missions. Likewise, starfighter doctrine fails if the opponent has superior starfighter suppression systems. (Can't be "one size fits all".) The optimal choice of assets should be determined by taking advantage of an opponent's deficiencies. Flexibility is key. Gravity generating ego leads to folly.
I guess this is why Palpatine wanted the Death Star because he knew that keep mass-producing the Star Destroyers will not be a good idea in the long run and definitely is not a good option for his plan of mobile base of operation. So the Death Star will make the perfect sense from the certain point of view by looking it as a mobile fortress that Palpatine can used to travel around regularly and can also be used to suppress the uprisings easily by exploding a planet up in one shot. Huh. I guess Palpatine and Thrawn make some good points through their own eyes.
In a 'What if' story where the Rebels lost at Yavin the Death Star was renamed to the 'Justice Star' and it would have carried the central government of the Empire, so that every star system had a chance of the pleasure to be visited by the government.
Yoda used the Force to get a guided tour through the Justice Star and had the crew land it on top of Palpatine's palace.
@@Dreamfox-df6bg I like this idea.
I had brain stormed a fleet of Clone Wars Era ships for use in latter eras as a reserve unit.
1x Venator (Flag ship and sole capital ship of this formation)
4x Munificent Frigate (Good way to make use of leftovers)
4x Arqunitens (Clone Wars Era)
4x various models of corvettes (Number and model may vary)
1-2x Acclimator (Troop or cargo carrier)
I think it is a well balanced if a bit light of a force, only having one capital ship.
The ISD would've worked well against an organized military power like the CIS.
You know what would work well against Rebels with a bunch of fighters? The Venator. Dump out those 400 high quality fighters and see the rebels' day ruined.
I'm curious, as to how the imperial navy, would react to someone flying threw space, in an a wing style ship only for it to pull an osprey menuver and turn into a robot. Later, the robot, shoots a hole in their ship using a laser similar to that of the death star. I'm calling this, Kaiju pattern alpha.
Similar to the WW2. How the aircraft carrier changed the face of combat and warfare in terms of Battleships
In my opinion the best star destroyer is the New Republic’s Nebula class Star Destroyer
Can you post a video about the logistics of the Galactic Empire?
Eh, here we have the caricature of Tarkin from expanded universe being a Idiot again because he literally designed every single piece of imperial hardware down to stormtrooper blaster (The only "Tarkin doctrine" from films is when Tarkin is talking about the Death Star specifically, which is like 15 minutes after arriving to system to destruction of an entire planet).
I like to think that ISD is more like the perfect ship for clone wars, and the final refinement of Republic ship design. Absolutely able to take down Separatist heavier vessels in role Venators actually were used for (Episode III, Venator is shown to have cannons specifically for engaging in broadsides, which it does with Invisible hand), (In clone wars, you usually see Venators engaging CIS ships with their turbolasers from battle line). (Also Venators are not really ever shown operating with more fighter squadrons than an ISD, which indicates, that either starfighter or pilot shortages or something else made Venator's main advantage largely irrelevant in practice.) ISD is much better match for the actual republic Venator tactics.
However, would properly operated Venator Fleet with Empire-tier resources and proper tactics been a better match for Imperial Navy's role in the galaxy? Absolutely! But this is not the "actually existing" Venator.
I know what you mean, it seems like the ISD should have been made only as an Elite Unit, meant to be the core of a large battle fleet or as a quick reaction force. They should have built more small patrol craft.