I've always kind of headcanoned these as being essentially flight-deck cruisers like the Kievs. Given that the Venator and Victory were developed more or less in parallel, the obvious conclusion is that the Victory was meant to be the primary line destroyer with the Venators acting mainly as carriers with a secondary ship-to-ship role. But the Victory ran into some sort of developmental delays and the Venator got shoehorned into the line role.
If I recall correctly the 2nd bridge is used for that purpose. Tho they don't say it in any material besides maybe an obscure book. But I like the theory of the the victory being ment to fight along side the venator
The Venator was a carrier that doubled as a ship-of-the-line. Development started prior to the war, and it entered combat weeks after Geonosis. The Victory 1 was developed far later into the war and entered combat (in Legends) during the Battle of Corescant. And the dual bridges aren't dual bridges; one is the flight control tower.
Here's my criticism of the Venator: it was a jack of all trades, a master of none. Against the capital ships of the Confederacy, most of which are just cargo transports and communications frigates stuffed with more guns, this was fine, as the Venator was stronger than any of them. However, it was nowhere near as strong in ship combat as say, an Imperial-class Star Destroyer, which had far more anti-warship guns (ISDs have five dozen heavy turbolasers, Venators have 8 heavy turbolasers) and far heavier shielding. The ISD was the natural evolution, since even with its impressive firepower, the Venators during the Clone Wars were stretched thin against larger enemy warships like the Providence-class Carriers and the Subjugator-class dreadnoughts. It also needs to open up its central hangar to unleash the majority of its fighters, which will leave it vulnerable if the enemy is firing at you. In contrast, an ISD can release TIEs from its side hangars or its bottom hangar, which keeps the ship safe while the fighting is going on. Sure, the Venator would do fine against outdated pirate vessels and Separatist remnants, but once those large Mon Calamari ships of the Rebel Alliance start showing up, they'll tear the Venators to shreds, since they have six times the amount of heavy turbolaser guns the Venators do. That, and the Rebel fleet is typically protected by corvettes which are good at shooting down enemy fighters, so carrying more fighters won't turn the tide. The Venators would do better as backup ships, staying behind the Imperial Star Destroyers and letting the latter dish out heavy firepower while taking the brunt of the damage, while the Venators hang back, release wave after wave of TIEs, and act as fire support for the ISDs.
Don't forget that by the time the ISD's and MC's came along, the Venerators were obsolete. Any that were still in service wold have been in training roles or in backwater postings where they would be unlikely to run into that sort of opposition.
@@robertharris6092 they were still using victory class star destroyers in the galactic civil war and the Imperial remnant also used victories like crimson command
@@jayvhoncalma3458 they were using victory IIs. Which replaced the long range missile ordanance for additional turbo lasers and ion cannons as well as more powerful engines. And i think better shielding. But yes. The victory was a fast, mid sized ship that packed a lot of fire power which was basically a frigate.
@@pouncepounce7417 and on the Mercury class, dedicated auxiliary craft bays along the sides so that main deck operations can be kept clear for combat landings.
the best move(for damage) would be to aim the top of the ship at the enemy so you can use all 8 guns at once. the 2nd best move(while taking in how big a target you are) would be sideways so you can at least use 4 guns while not presenting the biggest target. but they do neither. the actual best move would be to move the guns to diagonal lines so you can use all 8 while charging if they want to fix the double bridge problem, just put the second bridge at the base of the build-up-to-the-bridge(I don't even know what it's called, the 45 degree angle between the garage door and the bridges)
Just found your channel. I liked what I saw enough that I am starting from the beginning and hoping to watch your entire catalog. Funny, entertaining, and educational plus lots of science fiction fun.
It’s a unibody design by a Stage Scene designer who thought military service was a waste of time (his). Disney designed the dorsal hanger bay for its marketing department. Toy sales, fingers can get in to “launch” ships.
The Venator's Starboard bridge is just that: A bridge from where the ship is flown. The Port side "bridge" is basically an Air Traffic Control tower completely devoted to its own hangar system. There probably is some Citadel Bridge in the ship that we haven't heard of yet.
8:26 in fairness is looks more like a really badly designed gunboat with a wedge shaped garage strapped to the front like a trailer lashed onto the front of a tank. missed the low-profile side-mounted weapons? that's FINE, you probably hit the bridge-structure or the rear-hangar entrances with your massed firepower. I still like the shape but those weapons are terribly placed, imagine if they were mounted in a front mounted quad (2 down, 2 up, or even 2 by 3 with the others on the endpoints of the "wings" for standoff purposes) on the front of the bridge structure ramp with the other 4 nearer the rear-section on a flare-out from that wedge in the back (like a turret on the side of a fort that's still connected by a wall). same broadside firepower but all 8 weapons capable of firing forward.
I think the port, starboard, and ventral hangars are for especially large ships (like the Consular-class frigate) and the dorsal hangar is definitely exposed. I don't think it's exposed for very long after the fighters launch, though. The turrets are a serious issue, there's no doubt about that. But the 2 bridges are not a main and a backup; one is for controlling the ship, the other is basically ATC. The Venator definitely has its flaws as the video accurately pointed out. At the end of the day, though, if you consider Republic naval doctrine, the only real issue is the turret configuration.
I just realized that the best strategy with the venator may well be to launch all the fighters before you're in range, go full speed at the enemy, then disable the inertial dampeners and yaw sideways to use all four cannons in a sort of drift.
I'd think, actually, the problem isn't with the design. (There *are* problems with it, yes. Including "why are the guns not staggered right along with that nice arrowhead shape to give forward fire as well?") It's that the design isn't being used properly. Going back to between the wars / early WWII, some of the US carriers had ... I want to say six inch gun turrets, in case they happened to come into range of the enemy fleet because .. um... they were used to having guns on ships, I suppose. If you have to use them, sure, they might be handy to scare something off or hold it off 'til the big boys came 'round, but you wouldn't build a fleet of carriers with them and expect them to act as "ships of the line." Yet that's what they did with the Venators.
The retractable hanger doors allowed the docking of larger specialized ships and large prefabricated constructions to be quickly deployed to remote outpost and battlefields in relative safety
SW ships in general are pants-on-head (and not just ships...), but would it really hurt them to, I don't know, put 4 turrets ventral, 4 dorsal in a 'Y' or 'T' letter arrangement (one forward, 2 lateral, central superfiring), for 8 turrets forward coverage, 6 broadside?
Star Destroyers are an in universe classification of vessels, with the following basic classification: The term originated within the Old Republic and referred to ships capable of destroying entire star systems with their heavy firepower. The dagger-shape was said to facilitate the ease of this by focusing the firepower forward. Any vessel that conformed to this design, could be considered a class of Star Destroyer.
Great video, i will say a lot of what was send kinda just doesn’t make sense star wars wise. There were two venator variants, the l and ll were different ships in slight ways. The double deck structure was accompanied by two auxiliary bridges for if the main bridges were knocked out. One bridge was a nav bridge and the second was fully dedicated to fighter/bomber management, troop and asset management. The ship could hold 400 fighters and bombers of multiple classes along with laat/I gunships, at-te’s at-ot’s and prefabricated bases. The ship was FAST for a capital ship of the time. Mind you this was all post rusan reformation which limited military ships with their hyperdrives, loadouts, and technology. In lore they did pretty damn good for being ships that would only work as carriers and destroyers irl. Also the top hanger on the venator l and venator ll are different completely. With the venator l the whole red section opens for extreme ease of fighter releasing, whereas the ll has a central door because designers at kdy saw the problem with a giant door that is intended for fighter pilot quality of life. Also, the ship was loaded out with far more than just the 8 heavy turbolaser turrets, a lot i can’t remember off the top of my head as It’s been a little while since I booted up empire at war.
So not that this really applies in star wars because all the ships always move like they're in 2D anyway, but from a practical standpoint I think having in line guns that can't shoot over each other is mostly only a flaw for watercraft. Like the staggered arrangement is only necessary because you're primarily engaging targets on the same plane as you, but the AC-130 gets away with having broadside guns because it's able to move around in 3 dimensions. I think if you think of them as gigantic transport aircraft/gunships instead of battleships/carriers, their only design flaw is really the double bridges. They even have ventral guns in episode 3, so clearly somebody at lucasfilm thought about attacking ground targets. That said, all of this is moot because Star Wars ships are almost always moving on the same plane.
Just found your channel today and Im already loving it! Have you considered reviewing anything from the myriad of different Mobile Suit Gundam series? I guarantee you’ll find some ridiculous ships and vehicles there.
I know this is probably not going to get any attention, but I remember hearing in the lore that the starboard bridge wasn't a command deck. Rather, it was an air traffic control tower for the ship's fighter complement.
Hi there! The Venator design and mission profile reminds me to modern frigates or cruisers. 1. The Venator is primarely a Carrier for landing and policing operations, so it isn´t primarely an assault ship like the ISD. 2. The primary armor layout is terrible inefficient. Remember that space is three dimensional so the turrets should be mounted dorsal and ventral stacked in line to four/four in order to cover roughly 270°horizontal and 180°vertical. 3. The hangar door layout is understandable and allows the Venator to deploy fighters and heavy transports out of the flak fire of an potentional enemy. 4. The structural compromise of the main hangar doors is not that relevant because the main passive defense system is an energetic deflector whitch has two advantages; first it regenerates and second it has to be much more stabile than conventional armor or it wouldn´t have been installed on the ship - alone out of the fact that no controlling manager at BuShips department would have grantet the budget! 5. The Bridge layout is as you right said not optimal if you think conventional. But think of the following: The structure is shielded energetically, what if the shield generators are redundant independently for port and starboard side of the ship? Everything that is strong enough to destroy the shields would anyway destroy the hull beneath... so if port and starbord side are configured independently the destruction would not effect the second bridge because that would be shielded from an independent shield generator. Such an construction effective could still be a functional ship with 50% of the hull destroyed...
Many things in Star Wars universe don't make sense. P.S. One of the major flaws of the Venator, almost every Star Wars ship design, is 2 dimensional thinking. All main batteries are placed on the dorsal side leaving the ventral exposed to an easy attack. Also the placment of the aft turrets doesn't allow them protect the engines.
The problem with the way Star Wars does "backup" bridges is that any place they would stick the backup would in fact be better to put the primary. The ships are just poorly designed.
Okay, isn’t it weird they don’t use the Venator like an aircraft carrier when it is an aircraft carrier in space? Hell, Dave Filoni practically made a cheaper version of the Venator with the Quasar from Rebels, and still the characters in that show treated it like a frontline warships and parked it in the middle of battle space, where it was destroyed. And no, I’m not a rebels fan I just like some of the design of their ships. Their are neat…to look at.
Sacred Cow Shipyards, the second bridge is for Flight Ops. Period. the actual backup bridge is deep inside the ship. IT IS NOT JUST A STAR DESTROYER , it is a Carrier/Battleship hybrid (much like the colonial battlestar) with the emphasis mostly on carrier. the venator carries 420 fighters, the victory class of the same era holds just 30 (two squadrons) assuming 15 fighters per squadron. the guns are there just for self defense. battle philosophy: jump in, dump your fighters, and retreat to the edge of the battlefield to provide rearm and repair services for your fighters just my opinion only, but if the venator went up against an impstar deuce, and could maintain a safe distance, the impstar deuce is DEAD. but if the impstar deuce can close, the venator is dead. OK, rant mode off, having said all that, the venator does suffer from "JOAT Syndrome" (jack of all trades is master of none) Venator-class Star Destroyer as depicted in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. First appearance Star Wars: Clone Wars (2005) Last appearance Star Wars: The Bad Batch (2021) Created by Kuat Drive Yards[29] Information Affiliation Galactic Republic[29] Galactic Empire[29] Launched 22 BBY[a] Decommissioned 19-14 BBY[a][b][30] Combat vehicles 420 starfighters[29] Auxiliary vehicles 40 LAAT gunships[29] 20 AT-TEs[29] General characteristics Class Battleship/Carrier[31] Armaments Heavy turbolaser turrets (8)[29] Medium dual turbolaser turrets (2)[29] Point-defense laser cannons (52)[29] Proton torpedo tubes (4)[29] Tractor beam projectors (6)[29] Defenses Deflector shields[29] Propulsion Ion engines[29] Class 1 Hyperdrive[29] Length 1,137 m (3,730 ft)[29] Width 548 m (1,798 ft)[29] Height 268 m (879 ft)[29] Population volume 7,400[29] source >>------> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Destroyer#Venator_Star_Destroyer
@@SacredCowShipyards Yeah, Basically. if the republic had dedicated it to just one role, (example: carrier OR assault ship OR battleship OR cargo vessel) it would have been better, but they just HAD to try to make it do everything, and in the process ruin what had the potential be a pretty good SPECIALIZED ship. it reminds me of what they call a camel....."a horse designed by a committee" that is probably why the class was decommissioned halfway through the clone wars and replaced by the victory class SD, which was just a battleship with just enough fighters for self defense (30 +/-) i like the venator, but that doesn't mean it isn't a piece of doodoo (it is)
Maybe this ship was made with like, no practicle design? And they just had them because the tsar or whoever invested in them, and damnit we wanted to keep the snake from the island captain.
"Destroyer" has only been a ship class designation for a bit over a century. Same with "cruiser." "Destroyer" meaning "Battleship" as used in Star Wars and Babylon 5 works just fine - the ship that absolutely destroys all opposition. And how do you assess the two islands on the RN's QE class?
The dual islands on the QE's were dictated by the exhaust pipes for the powerplants. Joining the pipes together to allow for a single island would have taken up too much internal volume, so they went for double islands.
I don't think Destroyer is even a ship class in Star Wars, although there are ships that fulfill that role by our standards. They jump from corvette to cruiser to dreadnought. Star Destroyer is a style of ship, regardless of class, but usually reserved for cruisers.
For what it's worth I consider myself a fanboy of the venator, and I've asked many questions about these same things. I would consider the ship to be a great design...IF it were used as a carrier or some kind of support platform.
@@robertharris6092 I don't wanna out myself for being a huge nerd but the victory only hit the line in the last year or two of the war, up till then it was the venator used as the main line all round battle vessel.
@@simpeldisaster4533 "but stuck in R&D" it was meant to release at the same toke as the venator. And would of been a stupidly strong combo of the vixtory one fighting in the line with heavy fighter support frok the venator as well as the bonus fire power.
Honestly, the ship would work pretty well if you dived slightly after you entered the battle you could get all 8 guns to fire at the enemy. +The Venators guns were Multipurpose for AA defense if I remember correctly which makes sense if you are fighting swarms of enemy Starfighters
You make a lot of great points but the one hang-up you have is actually wrong, The "Second Bridge" is not a control bridge but Star fighter command, Still a dumb placement but if you are this hung up on it at least get that right! Still a stupid design idea but hey. What do you think of the acclamator class assault ship?
I'm not saying the placement of the 2nd bridge is good... but it's not as bad as it would be in atmosphere... There's no atmosphere to carry the shock of an explosion from one bridge to the other... OR fire/heat damage. Since they are BRIDGES, they shouldn't be sources of secondary explosions... no fuel, weapons, etc to explode.
@@Nyet-Zdyes This is Fantasy Sci-Fi remember, atmosphere has nothing to do with it. If something can explode in space then it can cause other nearby things to explode, in space. There is an equation somewhere that states something to the effect of; "The more likely something exploding is to cause increased drama, the more likely it is to explode." Increased explosions = increased drama.
@@earlware4322 In general, though, in order for a hit on one of the bridges to cause damage to the OTHER bridge, you'd need ATMOSPHERE to "connect' the two bridges, UNLESS the hit was so powerful as to be able to hit one, then pass through it to the other one... One of few exceptions to that, is when the first bridge explodes, the shrapnel/debris from that explosion that actually HITS the second bridge... direct contact. A near miss would do nothing, without having atmosphere to "conduct" shock, heat, fire, electricity, etc. My point was intended to point out a flaw in the idea that it's STUPID to have two bridges in such close proximity with each other. It's NOT that stupid after all... not in Space/vacuum.
Why wouldn't you put the second bridge somewhere else? Because these ships have shields. The shield emitters are typically right next to the bridge in both the venator and later designs, moving the bridge away from the emitter would make it more vulnerable. And the hangar bay is well designed for a space ship, negating one of the downsides you mentioned. Specifically, you launch all the fighters quickly and then close up the bay so anyone with a proton torp runs into the garage door as you put it.
About the differences between cruisers and destroyers, eh, if we are talking 1950's and earlier, the differences between the two are pretty well defined and obvious. With modern day cruisers and destroyers, not so much. And id say that modern navies in general arent that great at designating the differences between modern surface combatants. Not when we got modern navies building destroyers bigger than cruisers, and the overlap between a modern frigate and a modern destroyer is also quite significant. I have the feeling cruisers are about to go the way of the battleship. And really this designation mess goes back even to the 1970's and especially 1975 when the US navy basically just redesignated a bunch of ships previously called frigates into cruisers.
The second bridge is for fighter operations. While it can function as a secondary bridge it is not intended for that. Star Wars is FULL of ecm or electronic warfare which leaves operators needing line of sight (also why ships fight in knife range) and the venator is not actually supposed to be a frontline ship even though it was used as one.
If i remember correctly, the double bridges is for making 2 operations at the same time One controls the Cruiser and the other controls the fighters attacking Makes sense ? Idk But it looks cool
All these factual based points is why emperor palpatine retired these vessels personally it's a beautiful ship I would have put a big Canon where the top hanger Bay is and I would have stuck the bridge underneath the ship
im supprised you didnt mention that the 2nd bridge is actually an ATC tower to manage the fighters and flight deck. not a redundant combat bridge. seems like it would be relevant. i dont know if that makes it better or worse tho
Right bridge is the bridge. Left bridge is the flight control. This is not me defending the Venator because it’s worse because it doesn’t actually have a secondary bridge.
I think the venator is a cool design and at the same time honestly not a very practical design if it was a dedicated carrier great kinda makes sense large flight hangers, primary bridge with the second i think is a support and control deck for the fighters a fairly decent set of armourmants to be able to defend itself, but as a front line capital ship it seemed kinda off if they had a back up bridge situated inbetween the two primary bridges at the maybe in the centre of the hull section thats connected to the two in a similar fashion as the victory or imperial class's, and half the length at the least of the dorsal hanger as that is a major week point in a close range battle. If it had the main turrets staggerd like you said would made it a much more capable ship heading into battle instead of having to expose the entire length of the ship get a good volly of fire off and the ventral hanger made little to no sense as the few times its used it was primarily for the gunshipsnto be deployed whilst in atmosphere which could of been done using either the dorsal or port/starboard hangers andnuse that space instead for more equipment, cargo, backup generators or crew space. I think it would been cool to have seen a dedicated combat venator aswell as the sandard just to see how the design could of improved.
That's what's so "great" about our modern government. Professionals who know ships have nothing better to do with with their lives than critique fictional ships. Meanwhile the people who have been given their job can't put out a fire nor can go from point A to point B without crashing into something.
I could do an episode on how badly the United States Navy has absolutely frakked their shiphandling training for their junior officers... ... if I wanted to be disappeared.
I disagrww with the notion rhat quickly launching fighters isn'r a big thing in the SW Universe considering the fighter superiority of the Venator was a huge leg up for the Republic Navy and considering how Starfighter superiority won the later Galactic Civil war for the rebellion, i stands to serve that the multiple hangar bays isn't a bad design per say but rather the right design for the wrong war situation
Actually all turrets can fire forward at the same time including the two on the front side of the ship. There are a lot of shots in The Clone Wars like this. For the structure I think, in Star Wars, there aren't many weapons that can 1 shot and explode the whole ship like in real life. It's a 1000+ meter ship though. So they propbly think less about the ship snapping in the middle.But the Venator mark 2 seen in Revenge of the Sith removed much portion of dorsal hangar gate anyways.
@@SacredCowShipyards The left view shows that the turrets on the back is slightly higher. Besides, it's a space ship, just angle a little downwards then everything can fire.
2:25 wasnt the battle bridge called coning tower in ww1 and ww2 warships ? or that depends on the navy in question. also - if i recall , coning towers where not much used because they hapared the comand ability . I know for sure that Royal navy never used than , and the designers stoped including it after a while.
@@andrewaftontheandroidhedge2780 >>> In that case, I stand corrected. Thanks...👍👍 That said, all my INTENDED NEGATIVITY towards _DISNEY_ STAR WARS still stands.
The Venator: Hey, let's build a Carrier. Also, let's make it our primary battleship Also, let's not change any of the useful carrier bits in the process of making it a battleship Also, let's put guns on it in the most inefficient way for a battleship Seriously, in the right doctrine, the Venator is a BEAST. In the Doctrine of the Republic....the Venator is hot garbage.
However, it does make sense when you consider that the entire lead-up to the war on both sides was being engineered by the same conspiracy group, with the goal being to drag it on as a a bloody back-and-forth stalemate to justify both conspirator giving themselves more emergency powers (that they had no intention of giving up when the war ended). Also, the Republic was generally a corrupt mess and liked to design things by political committee.
The reason no Earth navy has ever built* a hybrid carrier/battleship is because it is a terrible idea. The requirements for a good carrier are very different from the requirements for a good battleship. The result of any hybrid of the two is a multirole ship that sucks at every role you put it in. *In WW2, the Japanese did convert a couple of their older battleships to hybrid carriers by replacing the rear main turrets with flight decks, but this was a desperation move after their fleet carriers developed a bad case of being on the ocean floor. The hybrid ships only carried recon planes, and were never actually deployed.
@@st3vorocks290 pretty sure Japan tried the carrier battleship hybrid late in ww2 by modifying some existing battleship hulls to be a hybrid. Don't think it worked very well for them
The Venator is a carrier with battleship ambitions. Personally i like it, weird twin bridges aside, it has hangar entrances at the flanks as well, sadly we never see them being used... If they would get rid if the ventral and dorsal hangar openings, the ship would be much better, and they should STACK the turrets, so more than one can shoot forward.
@@st3vorocks290 The Kiev class, while not quite a battleship carrier hybrid (I'd say it's more of a missile cruiser carrier hybrid) is somewhat close, as far as surface to surface combat those things packed a punch.
As I understand it, the second bridge is solely for carrier ops. The Venator is much more a carrier than the Imperials, indeed its primary role is to deliver a bunch of small craft to a fight and vomit them out as quickly as possible (thus the massive open hangar bay), and then deliver broadside fire in support.
And hyperspace capable fighters means you can launch your defensive/offensive fighters for a screen as a you jump into system, fight through enemy battle line, then afterwards launch landing forces once the enemy space forces are neutralized. Theoretically. Better option would be when working in a larger fleet would be what the US did in WW2 with its fleet and escort carriers, have certain ships dedicated to fighter ops, other holding back with landing forces, and a screen of ships acting as battleships to protect the ones running fighters. Benefit being that any loss of one carrier can be substituted with one of the other ships, and any of the ships can retrieve launch fighters.
Also, the real world Queen Elizabeth class of Carriers from the UK has a two tower setup with this exact system, one for controlling the ship, the other for landing/launching fighters, although as Although with the Venator I'd question why the "aircraft" control tower is where it is, given that the fighters can VTOL out of the big central bay, and wouldn't it be more useful to have a control tower located closer to the main hangar/launch deck(and ideally able to have a layout that can also oversee launch preparations before the big doors are opened?) If you're going to have big holographic displays for the higher officers, and loads of screens for the lesser officers and bridge staff to use, does the bridge even need to be so separated from the ship, even more so with bright red "shoot here for best effect" paint?
@@MandoWookie too be fair, hyperdrives weren't common on fighters during the Clone Wars. They did exist during the Venator's service life, but due to cost and space it still made some sense not to field an entire navy with such fightercraft.
@@torinnbalasar6774 But the Republic did field fighters with them. I figure that could be a fanon reason for the ARC-170s, an ostensible recon fighter, to be armed like a bomber. They could act as an advanced screen, keeping back both capital ships and fighters while the Venators launched the rest.
@Kabuki Kitsune not exactly the same thing, firstly the two bridges on the venator are in effectively the same position, on the QE carriers the front tower controls ship functions and navigation and is in the best postion for that role, the rear tower is set up for air operations control, and is in the optimal location for them, and even then if it wasnt for the need for two funnels for the engines and thus a choice between one long island or two smaller ones and a large aircraft elevator. Venator on the other hand doesnt gain anything from the double bridge set up, if the control centers are so close together they may as well be one structure
In my opinion the Venator is amazing for what it was “supposed to do” It was clearly designed as carrier ship that could launch hundreds of fighters very fast, hence the enormous hanger bay, the problem is that the republic jammed it into the attack ship role because of delays with their other ship designs and the lack of aclamators being produced. It was actually stronger than most CIS ships alone, the problem is that the CIS was very good with their military doctrines when it came to space battles, as they had usually pretty weak ships by themselves good at few roles, but combined them in configurations and formations that were very hard to break by the republic. Generally (for a blockade) they had 2 command ships in the back, which being repurposed freight ships could launch thousands of fighters, they didn’t need them to be fast because they weren’t battleships, they had only 2 jobs, giving commands to the fleet, and launching a ton of fighters. Then they have a heavy destroyer or 2 at the front, flanked by cruisers with light armor, but double cannons that could punch through nearly anything. I could go on, but basically the CIS really had it figured out, and probably would have won the war if it weren’t for the sith.
It's to be expected given that the CIS had some amount of experience from earlier conflicts which their members had fought in that their fleets would be better handled and more suited in a doctrinal role. In addition, having droids designed to perfectly wield these ships from the doctrinal standpoint would make them more effective than republic fleet officers during the war, at least for a little while. You are right though; the Venator was perfectly designed to do what is was supposed to do, and was pretty damn good at it too. In addition, it was well designed for a war effort that demanded building an entire navy effectively from scratch and developing doctrine to use these ships effectively, and the only real way the republic was ever going to have a hope in hell of achieving any kind of victory was to make the ships as uniform and as brain dead to use as possible. Given that the Jedi were commanding them a good portion of the time and not seasoned fleet officers you can kind of understand why this was so. The only two real design flaws in the venator is that the bridge is not centrally located in the citadel of the ship (given how many other ship designs on both sides of the war suffered from this exact flaw, it isn't really a flaw in their line of thinking) and that there aren't a matching set of guns to cover the underside of the ship. Remember that space isn't a linear battlefield, it's 3 dimensional, and if all your guns are on the (relative) top of the ship you have nothing to cover the underside if anyone decides to maneuver under your ship and fire at it. The one thing I disagree with in his analysis is the placement of the guns; all it takes for the commander of a venator to have all of his guns on target from the front is to tilt the ship downward slightly. It will give the enemy a larger target to shoot at, but you don't have to depress the bow of the ship massively to obtain this effect. It would be better from a logical standpoint to set the turrets in a super firing configuration, but then if the venator is caught in a broadside fight the undersides of the turrets will be able to be targeted and destroyed by the attacking ship.
The Biggest sin against the Venator though, is that the empire ditched it after the clone wars. It was a design that could have been perfectly adapted for counterinsurgency ops and was ditched for the all big guns shitfest that was the Imperial Star destroyer.
@@PrinceOfDolAlmroth the Problem was the imperial star destroyer were made first and only later they had the idea of making carriers but then needed to give in universe explanations which generally turns out badly.
@@PrinceOfDolAlmroth But that makes sense, as Empire never feared Rebels up to the point of Empire Strikes Back. TExcluding Yuuzan Vong plot, their focus on big gund etc kinda have sence. We know from our world taht it is often a thing with military to prepare for previous war. Empire was more consumed on possibility of large-scale uprising similliar to separatist movement, or even outer rim worlds uniting to stop possible expansion of the Empire. In New Hope Rebels are kinda weak faction, with small fighter fleet and founded only by few senators. It was after destruction of Alderaan that they slowly started to get massive support... and it's all makes sense. Empire was never ready to deal with rebelion of that kind, their fleet was build around doctrine of conquering systems and large battles, their counter intelligence treated possible rebels as spies of enemy state, becouse that was their doctrine.
You have to cut them some slack given that they are coming off a thousand years of peace. During that time all actions were police actions. The war itself was only 3 years, and the development of the ship was so rushed that is was in battles during the first year. The Acclamator class was no match for any enemy ship. The Venator borrowed a lot of Acclamator design features, but doubled many of them (two similar bridges, & twice the engines). Given the need to rush it into production, one would guess that it was designed to fill all roles. The Victory class was in production in the last year of the war, and shows that the Venator flaws did not go unnoticed.
Yeah the republic has never faced anything more than criminals for the longest time, in fact the separatists appearing was a massive surprise by everyone this is a fact, it was mentioned a lot in the movies and the shows, so the victory class was pretty much a stance of authority than actual combat, and the Jedi are “peace keepers” not generals or admirals, so their tactics would be perusing retreating bandits/pirates not facing actual military fleets so that would explain why they mostly charge head first instead of a broad side, same with hangers being on every side of the ship it’s a police vehicle hastily turned into a military ship so massive flaws are bound to happen.
The tactics used at the beginnings of most wars tend to mirror tactics that proved successful in the previous war. Which often results in catastrophic losses because new technology rendered those tactics obsolete. In WW1 the Germans tried to repeat what succeeded in their war against France in 1870/71 - fast paced maneuvering to force a decisive battle. They hadn't accounted for how much technological advances favoured defenders and got bogged down in trench warfare they weren't prepared for. In WW2 France tried to repeat that by by building massive defenses (the Maginot line) along the expected attack vector. The didn't account for how much motorization and the role aircraft progressed which allowed Germany to move through terrain that was deemed "unsuitable" for fast advances, by they outmaneuvered the French and forced to capitulate. But I wonder: In what kind of technological environment does the "carry tons of fighters and then move in to exchange broadsides" make any tactical sense? Isn't the point of fighters to destroy the enemy before they can attack the carrier?
@@MrAranton The point was probably Shield Saturation of large ships and Defense against mechanized Droid Units. The Republic Starfighters were Leagues above anything produced in the Galaxy except a few Individual Ships like Jango's Slave 1 and a single well equipped Venator would have annihilated any Pirate outpost. A rather effective Tactic is: Launching your Fighter Swarm, Driving towards the enemy ship, let your Anti Fighter Cannons destroy the enemy Fighters while tanking enemy fire with the honestly ridiculous durability of the Venator and decimating the Enemy Ship with your Bombers and Main Turrets. Less intelligent on modern Carriers, but let's just say you have more Leway if you have the Shield Power Advantage
This reminded me of a general scifi gripe w the designs. I first noticed it as a kid watching ST. And then they hung a hat on it in st2. Non 3d thinking. You could for instance bring all of a venators guns on target if they could elevate enough and you rolled the ship. Granted, that would increase your profile, but its give and take. So far the expanse has done the best job in general for logical design. But for a space wizard universe, why not coopt one of the shield ships designed w a whacking great forward "shield" for use around stars, cut out weps emplacements, and just charge in guns blazing? They already dont care about aft weps or sensor coverage.
@@bobmcbob49 the "rolling if youre on fire" made me think that the really sad part is that i can actually imagine some hollywood asshat whos seen Memphis belle too many times trying to pitch that as an awesome shot "the ship pitches over and heads towards the planet to try to extinguish the flames..."😂
@@bobmcbob49 oh i totally agree, offhand the best non expanse shots i can really think of are from BSG, like when the pegasus comes charging to the rescue from off plane. Hell, im a huge fan of it but even b5 fell into that trap w their capital ships.
Is anyone gonna mention that the ship has literally no weapons on the bottom of it and a Jedi had to modify their ships to add a laser at the bottom to give it some defense
Looking at this ship. I can imagine a doctrine where two lines of these jump in. The forward lines turn or tilt-forward and engage as attack ships and the rear launch fighters. The two lines then switch places. Then all the capital ships maneuver to keep maximum guns engaged with enemies. I do wish the guns were terraced though.
the double bridge: star wars tech is stuck in the seventies, the captains need to use their eyes to see what they need to shoot at though i do agree that the second bridge could be moved down to the dorsal armored section under the primary bridge. the guns, eh i see that as a back up ie the venator was meant to be a dedicated carrier but the war forced the ship to be changed into an assault ship party way through design.
Perhaps the other bridge is a dedicated flight control tower for the sorties the venator deploys. It would "kiiinda" make sense but is a bit of a stretch.
@@tokenfinnishguy8714 It is a bridge for fighter ops. One bridge handled normal battleship commands, so that splits the responsibilities between them and it helps both sides focus on their respective jobs.
The Venator is like a flying example of "opportunity cost". It can land a couple battalions of troops, it can launch and recover huge numbers of fighters and bombers, and it has battleship-caliber big guns, all in one package - but good luck using more than one of those abilities in any given engagement, because picking any option means the other two have to stay benched. If it's in a gunfight, its armored hangar doors need to stay closed, preventing the use of strike craft or dropships, or else a hit to the Venator's brightly lit center of mass will wreck the hangars, with their stores of fuel and munitions. If it's landing troops or using strike craft, its zipper is open and it better not get into gunfights until those operations are over - hours or days - because it may need to recover its launched assets in the near future. On top of that, launching either type (dropships or strike craft) means the other has to wait its turn, and the traffic that Flight Ops needs to manage gets increasingly complicated.
@@barrybend7189 V-19 and alpha-3 didn't had hyperdrive and ARC-170 were more of recon wing like XG1 on ISD. If your fleet uses hyperdrive capable strike fighters, why bother with assautl carier, when you can launch and form up before jumping into action?
@@antonisauren8998 exactly if I'm not mistaken I'm pretty sure that's why the rebellion didn't have any dedicated carriers is because most of their fighters had hyperdrives but tie's have to be garrisoned in facilities or ships since they didn't have any
About launching fighters quickly not being a big deal: Its a huge deal in the Star Wars universe, especially in the situation that the Republic was in. The CIS (Also known as the Confederacy Of Independent Systems) Used fast and light fighters deployed in huge numbers, like the TIE fighter. The Republic tended to use slower fighters such as the ARC-170. So if the CIS launched 500 fighters per say at a moments notice, if you slowly launched fighters, lets say 10 at a time, they would get picked off one by one until the reserves were low. If you launched 1/2 of these high quality fighters all at once, they would at least put in major breathing room for the other half to deploy, therefore giving you fighter superiority, and having the ability to have bomber support. I agree with everything else you talked about, except for this statement.
I love the venator, but yeah it’s not the best design. I wanna give the designers the benefit of the doubt and say it’s flaws were on purpose, but I know it was likely accidental. Lore wise it makes sense. The acclimator is too small and lightly armed for a line role as it’s supposed to be a troop transport, the victory class is being developed to be a proper attack ship but isn’t ready yet, and the venator should be a carrier but it gets stuffed into a line/ battleship role. And the Imperator/Imperial 1 is too late to be of any use during the war it was developed for. And following the war the failings of the venator class are so glaring that the empire shifts its entire battle doctrine away from carriers and strike craft. The designers of the venator accidentally did a good job justifying the empire being brain dead when it comes to strike craft. But yeah. No real arguments from me here. The top bay doors take forever to open btw It might be better if the doors were in sections that could be opened and closed individually, but instead if you want to launch a squadron of fighters you have to open the whole top section which is dumb.
The Jedi love em because they're carriers first and foremost, and a Jedi's preferred position in a space battle is in the cockpit of a fighter- at least, the ones we follow in Clone Wars.
I see the Venator in canon as Kuat Drive Yards' attempt at a Harrower class Dreadnought of the Sith empire in 3650BBY. Heck in Kotor era there was the Centurion that for being 100 meters longer carries equally as much support craft, greater firepower and troops. So i blame how short the war is and 1000 years of stagnate ship design.
Despite this being my favorite ship, I don't disagree with any of this. Number one thing with Star Wars is visual asthetics and the Venator takes that to the max
I suppose you could dip the nose of the ship relative to your target to bring all turrets to bare on it, but then you're exposing the flight deck to enemy fire.
I've not looked this up for a long time- but I think I recall reading somewhere that one bridge is for ship control and general navigation, communication and operations and the other one is specifically for the flight control operations of the ship as a Carrier - (so fighter operations) but may also have been responsible for cargo management. As for the open Dorsal bay doors - this is because the spine of the ship is accessible to cargo and fighters across most of the ship - the same is true of a Later model Star Destroyer but the central corridor is covered over and the exits are on the side not the top. A First Order Star Destroyer is an odd mix of enclosed and exposed that to be honest may be way worse. The Venator class dorsal unloading is a trifle "weird" though - especially in an atmosphere - but still perhaps less weird than Voyager's landing legs in Star Trek. Perhaps another way to look at it is like cargo loading doors on a ship. But the speed with which the Venator can launch and recover fighters is a bit odd - the logistics of getting them all back in could work - or could be an epic fail - The Battlestar Galactica method may be more sensible - with fast deployment and normal landing & recovery through the main bays. But it does have a side bay so there is nothing stopping the fighters from using that too to land a few at a time rather than in a swarm that could smash into each other. I did read a suggestion that they could "tightly pack" fighters for pick up and they all sit there and wait or travel in a tight formation and the Ventaor class ship could do a Z+ axis manoeuvre and swallow them all whole and immediately jump to lightspeed before even shutting the doors moments later. - But seems more like wish fulfilment to me to think that could safely happen often.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the glaring weakness of the lack of underside guns on this ship! It's one of the things me and my group of friends point out all the time. So yea, I gotta admit, I've never liked the idea of commanding one of these ships. But like others have pointed out, the venator was baby steps towards the imperial class and whatnot
Nice breakdown and I agree. A couple of questions though, say you did a breakdown of the Battlestar Galactica would you need to separate the 1978 version from the 2006 version or would you break them down as just one ship? Second any thought on the Star Trek 2 wrath of Khan battle between the Enterprise vs. the Reliant?
The two Galacticas are sufficiently different - especially with the retractable flight decks - that they're probably worth talking about independently. The Wrath of Khan battle was definitely a welcome departure from Star Trek's usual "all ships are on the same plane, looking at each other like they're in a 2D universe" setup, and had more than a little call-back to submarine fights. Clone Wars also had an interesting example of sub-type combat in an episode with a stealth ship.
From what I remember (correct me if I’m wrong) the venator was designed last minute and rushed into production into a galaxy that hadn’t so much as heard or war in around a millennium or so. And when used properly by non plot armored Character it was typically in a carrier fleet formation as a carrier/flag ship. Escorted by acclamators and other support vessels. But the show/ movies don’t show that to well because it’s not flashy for the screen. I will say your review was extremely accurate to the in galaxy flaws that lead to its abandonment after the clone wars.
As I understand it, the Venator is primarily a troop transport/space craft carrier first and formost. The heavy turbo laser batteries were clearly secondary function. Crappy space tactics were apparently the fault of the Jedi generals who never bothered to learn to become semi-competent about space combat despite having final say on how entire battle fleets operated. Rank and file officers mostly hated the Jedi for their space to space incompetence in addition to being in final command of the fleet.
When it comes to space based warships, I'd have a standard deck template that comprises all the basic requirements of bridge, power generation, medical bay, storage, waste processing, recycling and "chilling out" (and all other things I've likely forgotten) repeated over and over from bow to stern in a "rocket ship" dual configuration that has the entire concept mirrored on the ceiling of each deck. Well, basically heavily armed rugby ball at least 500 metres long with engines aft and forward that has more redundancies and backups than a Borg ship.
The Venator may be an aesthetically pleasing ship but its problems are quite serious when thoroughly analyzed along with what was said in the video. When it comes to this ship we have to take a few considerations in mind, this design was probably made to only look similar to the ISDs but also as something refreshing with a clear design lineage although this ship would end up just being a background ship for Revenge of the Sith. Furthermore, since this vessel was now canon the Clone Wars TV show was stuck having to use this ship design although luckily we did get some more ships and a refitted consular. I believe canonically these ships were also hastily designed and put into service because of the millennium of peace and the sudden war. How to fix the Venator Class Star Destroyer Step 1: This isn't a physical change but a doctrine change for this vessel. Instead of being used as a front line multi-role capital ship which was honestly a horrible idea but rather use this as a fleet carrier for massive amounts of fighters. The Republic used these ships for close quarters combat which time and time again proved this vessels inability in. Republic commanders also used venator's as ground attack transports which took away from potential fighter storage and further removed the vessels combat ability. The Acclimator exists, let that ship do what its meant to do as a ground attack/transport ship. Step 2: Removal of the dorsal hangar door. This thing is beyond unnecessary and with its removal increases its usable internal structure which allows for not only more places for potential shield generation, power generation or weapon emplacements but also increases the amount of fighters that can be stored aboard the ship while leaving the ship better protected. Step 3: Deletion of the command towers. Who wants to be commanding a fighter squadron from these things? Imagine trying to direct your fighter force when the idiots in bridge 2 block your sight with they're entire bridge wing! This frees up tonnage, power drain and cost to be placed into a redesigned superstructure that incorporates a bridge system. Step 4: Use the new space from the deleted bridge area for sensory equipment or more weapon emplacements. Step 5: Stagger the primary weapons as said in the video and fill in the small gaps below the turrets. (yes they are there if you look) Step 6: Place an identical weapon placement in the ventral part of the ship which is also super-firing as stated in the video. Including point defense weapons, anti-fighter missiles and what not that's needed to fight fighters and other enemy ships. Step 7: The Addition of a dual turbo-laser emplacement on each corner of the rear wings of the ship for not only firing forward and to the sides, but to the rear as well. Step 8: Down the center superstructure of the venator we have a long slope, use that slope for potential weapon emplacements like we see in FractalSponge ship designs to further the ships combat ability, I see no reason why this isn't possible. Step 9: Decrease hyper-drive speed rating from 1 to either 1.5 or 2 to decrease power requirements and cost for the hyper-drive. Step 10: Redesign of the broadside weaponry. The broadside weaponry on this ship is pretty weird, in Revenge of the Sith we see these artillery rooms which also showed a serious vulnerability to ammo detonations in broadside combat plus combined with the huge ventral hangar door caused venator loses which we can see in the clone wars. Either have less but heavier weapons be spread out along the side or more mixed weaponry, more anti-capital ship proton torpedo tubes/launchers wouldn't hurt. Step 11: Place more ion cannons throughout the ship to disable starships and other craft. Step 12 (Optional): Replace the heavy dual turbolasers this ship has with single but much larger turbolaser emplacements that has similar firing modes. This gives the ship 16 primary f**K you guns for anti-ship combat. That just about sums it up!
My personal take on the Lucrehulks: it had a very solid design for a dedicated fleet carrier, and would probably have been the best carrier in the war if used as such. Separatists decided it should serve the role of a battleship.
@@martenkahr3365 the lucrehulk was alwayw a carrier first and formost. It carried hundreds if notvthousands of fighters. And it was a retrofitted cargoship.
The second bridge isn’t a backup, it’s a star fighter control bridge, but of course we didn’t get to see it in operation. But overall the exposed bridges, on most of it’s ships, are silly. Well, the biggest issue is that ship was designed as a carrier, but it was designated and used as sort of a battle carrier, and while it’s guns could be powerful, it’s main weapon were supposed to be their to 420 Star fighters and/or other ships it supposedly could carry. Basically what they do on the show is drive their equivalent to the Nimitz up to the line of enemy battleships and get surprised why they get their ass handed to them again and again. So, the ship itself, if used properly could have been much more effective, although you need to remember that ultimately neither side was meant to win this war, as the Chancellor Palpatine was basically commanding both sides. But the reality is, they added a few guns to a super carrier and thought that it could function as a carrier and battleship, and of course we never saw more than a dozen or two fighters deploy from any single Venator. I mean this about it, in that final image, those 4 ships should have been able to deploy over 1,600 fighters, bombers and small gunships, which should have been deployed from close, but safe distance, and with a screen of actual destroyers be between the Venator and the enemy fleet to protect the carrier from enemy ships, fighters and bombers and to mop up after the fighters and bombers are done with the enemy fleet.
“Noooooooooooooooooo...!” I assume that was the real reason for Anakin’s anguished scream at the end of Episode 3; he was just told of the Venator/Jar Jar similarity.
@@shadowlord1418 Right on. The Venators' main batteries had a range of 10 light-minutes. Tall ship combat like the Battle of Coruscant would be uncommon in the extreme.
Jedi used this carrier as a battleship. Also, I knew someone who put a snow plow on a Ford Ranger. What something is build for, and what dumb people use them for are different. At least the Venator's MANY hangar access points were covered with solid doors AND shields. - The turret placement is unforgivable on this and all Star Wars pizza-slice ships. And Star Wars is positively addicted to putting the bridge out in the open with fragile windows, when it is FAR smarter to put your battle bridge in the mass-center of the ship, surrounded by as much armor as you can afford to put around it.
A couple of opinions 1. With the complement of ARC-170s, Y-wings, V-wings, Z-95 headhunters or LAAT's and AT-TE's you should be damn glad this thing doesn't have 5 hangars and 3 command bridges, those ships make this thing a necessity alone 2. Unlike the Battle of Coruscant where Venator's engage in actual combat albeit with ventral SPHA, in the clone wars I don't remember them really ever getting up and dirty. Usually deploying star fighters and watching the magic happen or screening better ships like blockade runners or Arquitens which are more built to break positions 3. Is 2 command bridges better or worse than having exposed shield generators
Here’s what I would do to improve the venator Number 1: Make the bridge on a much lower stock and add camera sensors on top Number 2: Take away the broadside guns , And add 2 on the front side , the other pair will go inward, so they both can fire Number 3: Angle down the hull slightly to make more room Number 4 , place the secondary bridge inside the hull Number 5: Take away that massive plate in the top and add hangars in some other place . Number 6: Add 2 turrets on the back to cover the engines.
so you got assigned to a Oliver hazard target, or is that a kidd class?, then assigned to a fleet aux. well hey least you weren't assigned as a EWO on a such classes as Allen M summer DD's, a C.F Adams class DD's, a Leahy Class DLG/ CG, and a Knox class FF/ FFG. no that was my grandfather's luck in his entire navy career.
