HARROWER vs. IMPERIAL STAR DESTROYER -- Which Design is Better?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лют 2021
- The Harrower Dreadnought vs the Imperial Star Destroyer -- which of these two iconic Star Destroyers has a better design? We'll cover that and more on today's Star Wars Legends lore video!
Star Destroyer and Harrower Render by FractalSponge
Music by Unfound and Alison
***
🔵 ASSETS 🔵
Intro/Outro Music: Home - Resonance
Outro meme'd by: / freightmytrain
Music Playlist: goo.gl/YRzmaZ
🔵 SOCIAL MEDIA 🔵
Twitch: / eckhartsladder
2nd YT: / eckstoo
Twitter: / eckhartsladder
Discord: / discord
Instagram: / eckhartsladder
Merch: www.teespring.com/eckhartsladder
🔵 SUPPORT ECK 🔵
Patreon: / eckhartsladder
Paypal: www.paypal.me/eckhartsladder
Sub: goo.gl/vBao71
Join: goo.gl/5G4Xr8
🔵 SEND ME STUFF 🔵
PO Box 3271, Station East, Dartmouth NS, B2W 5G2
You can address any mail to Justin - Розваги
Cheer on Twin Suns Squadron in the Calrissian Cup! Starting at 2pm EST.
ua-cam.com/video/oPsCepyzOxs/v-deo.html
If you could design a ship for the imperial navy (without overlapping with some other incredible fan designs like that Fleet Carrier), then what would you think of bringing in?
I myself might go with something of a Heavy Cruiser or a light/escort Star Destroyer. The main focus is that its overall shape would be closer to a diamond than a triangle (though I would say that in the same way a typical naval warship is more like a diamond than a triangle). In historical terms, if the ISD is comparable to the Nelson Class battleship in terms of its weapon arcs, then this ship would be more akin to the more typical "guns both forwards and aft" style of most battleships.
Its bridge would be amidships, and it would possess 3 octuple turbolaser barbetts on the "center ridge" its bow section, with another 2 on the stern section (the area for where the third might be effectively being reserved for the engines). Much like the orientation of a number of real-world battleships and battlecruisers in the WW1-WW2 era. The bottom of the hull would contain single turbolaser batteries along its underside ridge, which are especially intended for orbital bombardment but which can function as normal turbolasers as well (though of course due to being in string of single mounts, their firepower is dramatically lower than the 5 mounts of 8 each on top of the ship). The sides of the vessel does technically contain the usual "trench" from a design standpoint, but this area has been covered over with a sheet of armor to protect this area of the ship from enemy fire (the vessel is intended to fly broadside to enemies). For Ion Cannons, there is one heavy ball mount on the very bottom center portion of the ship that can basically aim at anything that isn't above the ship, and a group of smaller mounts on the hull to each side of the bridge, akin to a secondary battery. This incidentally makes the bridge-side weapons among the few weapons systems intended for ship-on-ship combat that have fairly restrictive firing arcs (this does have the occasional beneficial side effect of "forcing" these positions to fire on whatever is most threatening to the bridge itself though).
The top and bottom of hull where the the armor plates converge like this are where most of the lighter laser weapons, including anti-fighter mounts, are. The bridge isn't particularly short, but is relatively compact so as not to block the firing arcs of the main guns. The bridge itself would just have a little AA on it, weapon-wise. There are three shield generators. One in front of the bridge (basically part of where the bridge meets the hull), one behind it in a similar fashion of attachment, and one on the vessel's underside. The vessel possesses only a small amount of hangar space, split between a small one on the rear part of the bridge (which is basically meant for shuttles and has a few TIEs as well, usually whichever elite squadron the ship may have, as well as any personal fighter a commander might have if they have one), and a second small one with a bit more capacity towards the rear of the vessel, near the engines. Take-offs and landings have been noted to being a bit rough for newcomers for the second hangar, who instead of taking an arcing approach/exit, fly in a straight line when entering and exiting once or twice before learning the hard way that engine wash is a thing they need to take into account due to its positioning relative to the engines (design-wise, it was put there to basically keep it "hidden" from weapons during broadside engagements, as the armor that blocks the engines off from most angles of attack also block the area where this hangar is).
Stat-wise, it would be smaller than an ISD of course. While actually 70-80% of the length of an ISD, due to only getting wider until about halfway through its length (after which it gets narrower again), it would actually be substantially smaller in sheer volume. Also, while is only 15-20% faster than an ISD, it has somewhere between 2 and 3 times the turning rate of an ISD. The vessel's design is effectively intended to be a mixture of a screening vessel and broadside capital ship, with a good 300 degrees of total firing arc where all 5 octuple barbettes (and the less impressive underside mounts) can fire in that direction at once. Even from directly behind, the two rear main batteries and heavy ball-mount ion cannon (as well as a number of single mounts and some of the smaller ion weapons) can still hit pretty much anything that isn't already close enough to be directly in the full brunt of the engine wash. With its decent-enough speed and its very high maneuverability for a vessel of its length, it can fairly quickly fill a gap in a disorganized fleet formation and bring its full firepower to bear in the direction it is needed. Even in the worst case scenario of a fleet of an ISD and other assets being directly ambushed via a hyperspace jump to right BEHIND them, by the time the ISD has turned enough to even let a couple of its own octuple mounts fire at the rearward enemy, these smaller screening vessels will have already gone broadside, and would have been able to aim and fire everything they had at the rearward enemies for over half of the time they have been turning.
Its use would effectively be to screen between the larger star destroyers, and any smaller escort ships like frigates. Whereas a proper Star Destroyer cannot fire everything in one direction easily, it makes a great ship for firing on multiple targets on multiple sides. This Light/Escort Star has far fewer guns, but can effectively match or exceed the firepower an ISD can bring to bear to targets at certain angles, as it has very good firing arcs and a turn rate that lets it easily keep other capital ships from being anywhere except its preferred broadside angles. But of course, its total firepower is nowhere near that of an ISD in a full head-on engagement with its preferred firing arc. Nonetheless, its ability to direct a still rather substantial amount of gunnery in basically any direction it needs to makes it a great asset for any fleet, and a great cheaper vessel to assign as a flagship to areas that don't merit sending an entire ISD to, but which still merit some form of power beyond some old cruiser and a Lancer Class. And with a broadside of 20 turbolasers in its 5 top mounts and the 10 or so weaker ones in single mounts on its underside, this vessel is more than capable of projecting fear to those who might seek to rebel (particularly as the 10 "weaker" ones are effectively designed with orbital bombardment optimization in mind).
Yeah, I just sorta came up with most of that as I was typing out the basic idea, and it definitely counts as me getting carried away. But for those who actually read this all, what do you think of this design idea?
The ISD bridge is not exposed. Especially when we are talking about the fighter context. Whoever tried to perform an attackrun would have to get through the killzone while not having too many escape vectors. Dezign is in fact well thought out and to the point. On any other battleship, Bridge can be attacked from any side. ISD, you can only attack from the front. What's more, the massive tower separates the bridge from artillery attacks on each side, bypassing the view of the bridge itself. And even if someone manages to hit nearby, the surrounding compartments will absorb the attack. What more you want?
Hey can you do a versus video on Starhawk Battleship vs the Resurgence class Battle cruiser who would win in a fight
Another amazing video but I'm gonna have to give it to the Herald personally I think the ships of overall design better yes for example the sensory bulbs might give you battlefield data but at that point unless you are launching reinforcements on the ground battlefield data is pretty much useless because at that moment your fighting a battle and unless you have deep Information knowing that year outnumber or at your opponent as purifier power isn't really going to help you and ask for the generators being located behind heavy guns that would be great if your dealing with freighters and other Heavier ships especially heavy bomber but with your basic fighters those heavy guns are pretty much useless and since the Empire doesn't believe in using a lot of point defence systems your basically having a giant gun you really can't hit smalle moving targets with so overall even though the Empire has better technology and is more advanced I'm gonna happen to Herald because the design makes a lot more practical sense having heavy guns pointed forward along with point defence systems and having more shield's spread out throughout your ship makes more sense the only thing I will give the Empire is they do have a better launch system for their fighters but even that has witnesses both ships have their own weaknesses in that category Because yes launching ships out front leaves them open to anti fighters Systems and pretty much they are left open to heavy guns an enemy fighters but having them dropout also leaves them vulnerable to enemy fighters so both of them have that weakness but overall think the Herald was designed more practical and it was designed for war not to be used as a weapon for intimidation
Harrower is Better... for its time
Hey guys just remember: the harrower was over a kilometer shorter and it still carried almost the same amount of fighters, had a point defense system, had a crazy amount of firepower, and could be outfitted with a fleet killing super laser
Its more pound-to-pound stronger than a lazy ISD. A fleet of them would be way better than one of only ISD (and WAY CHEAPER too)
The Silencer?
@@charliespurr7325 yes that’s the super weapon
It's firepower was far inferior to the ISD and the super laser was not standard. It is, however, more versatile and similar to the CIS' Munificent but with better carrier capabilities. A better backbone for a navy than the ISD which is better used as a dedicated battleship
@@ohionumber1247 that's what I thought
What is stronger, Toblerone or Toblerone with a bit missing
To let one with two bits missing.
This sounds like the description of an experiment Jeremy Clarkson would conduct.
@@someone9906 "Today, I, in my brilliance, will finally find out what is the strongest sweet in the world. Toblerone, or Toblerone with a bit missing?"
The Harrower has always been one of my favorite capital ship designs. Given its size it has plenty of hangar space, tons of guns, and otherwise just looks amazing. I love FractalSponge's model, he did a phenomenal job as always!
More effective than a ISD. And a Harrower propably is way more cheaper.
So, more effective and cheaper. A fleet of those babies would be great
@@joaop4585 Considering they’re about half the size I imagine they’re about half the cost too. And it’s size probably allows it to be faster and more maneuverable too
@@Manomet84 Dude, its further that, a Venator (yeah it has less weapons and some design difference) cost almost 60M credits, a ISD 150M.
A ship with of that size and capacite cost 2.5 less than a ISD. I just think that a Harrower is cheap af LOL
@@joaop4585 oh nice lol, that is pretty cheap
I think that the Harrower could take the spot of a Victory in the imperial fleet. I really like the victory, but this can act as a carrier and has better weapon placement.
I’m so early the Celestials are still crafting the universe
Those lazzy mf didnt even put the last year patch. Im still waiting for the new galaxy announcement
@@joaop4585 ikr
A man of Culture
Tlotney ain't even thrown a shape yet
You mean blowing it up
Definitely taking the Harrower, it looks a lot cooler IMO even if it's not as iconic.
I actually viewed the Harrower as better because it's overall design reminded me more of the Nebula class Star Destroyer. Both were not as big as the ISD, but in regards to shields and weapons placement they shared some similarities. The Nebula was better in it's design, but the Harrower was undoubtedly the grandfather. The Harrower had better chances to catch enemies directly behind them unlike the ISD. There was a blind spot, but in comparison that blind spot was smaller. And like the Harrower the Nebula had that exact same blind spot, but because of it's size it was also smaller and made it slightly more difficult for enemies to capitalize on it as much.
"Oreo style trench" - EckhartsLadder Lmaoooooo thats what I'm calling that trench from now on.
The ultimate dorito showdown
That’s funny
As you mentioned, the ship's set up pretty well for broadsiding, meaning that the cutout front hangars would be completely protected there. It's probable that they'd launch fighters in stages, using the most protected hangar bay first and cycling as they move around the battlefield.
Thay cutout is protected by the sheilds regardless. A capital ships entire defence is reliant on its sheilds, lose those and you've basically lost the ship. Even if thay wasn't the case, the big "weakspot" is positioned such that you need to be directly in its primary firing arch to target it. Compared to the ISD, which has next to nothing defending it's big hangar weakspot, this actually makes it far harder to attack directly.
A single unescorted ISD without its fighters could reasonably be killed by a single corellian corvette getting behind it at close range, picking off the sheilds (it has no rear firing weapons), then maneuvering underneath the ISD into the hangar bay and attacking from inside it. The Harrower has no such weakness, its sheilds are placed such that they are covered by large weapon emplacements and the hangars demand you pass infront of most of its firepower. Oh and they also have weapons emplacements on the underside of the hull.
I think the hangers have another disadvantage: at the place that is left out in comparison to the imperial class star destroyer, isnt just empty metal in case of the imperial stardestroyer. I dont exactly now what is inside, but even if its just for supplies like food or water it could give a good advantage outside of battle
@@hanneswiggenhorn2023 most (over half) of the internal space in an ISD (they are truely massive inside), is "empty space" in that it's not vital ship systems and can be configured however is needed.
The reactor takes up about 30% of the volume, the hangars and vehicle bays (has nearly 10k stormtroopers aboard, along with all their ground attack assets including 2 full forward base deployment modules) less than 10%, the rest is given over to storage (2 years of food, water, etc,) and personnel space (the crew is massive). This is from the technical drawings that have been released btw.
The Harrower has likely the same amount of space proportionally for its reactor, but carrys less supplies (you really don't need 2 years of supplies when your a few hours from a resupply base at all times), and has a significantly smaller crew (they use alot more droids). Should note this is guesswork however, no technical blueprints exist that I have seen (doesn't mean they don't exist).
@@cgi2002 The Harrower seems to have more guns proportional to its size and was augmented with super weapons several times without power output being mentioned as a concern. So I would guess that it has more space dedicated to its reactors proportional then the ISD. Also the distance in game that you need to travel to get from hangers to points of interest seems unusually small compared to smaller republic ships in game.
@@cgi2002 if this was possible then the tantive IV would have faired alot better in A New Hope
Harrower 100%
Harrowers and Terminus-class held its own against the Eternal Fleet.
Glory to the Sith Empire
@@empirednw6624 agreed
ISD may have superior firepower and cargo capacity due to the changes in size doctrines between the Great Galactic War and the Galactic Civil War, but the Harrower has a better practical design and weapon distribution, to not mention you don't have an exposed bridge, at least not a very exposed one.
@@papapalps2415 Is pretty simple, my estimated.
Just look at the bridge. The bridge doesn't has a lot of height, compared to the ISD. Is like the Resurgence Class Star Destroyer from the First Order.
Just look at the photos in the internet. Bridges are crucial parts of these ships. Take down the bridge, and command structures goes down. Without command structure, without a brain, everything goes down, too.
Do you request more proof of why the Harrower has a less exposed bridge therefore you cannot insta kill it with an A-Wing crashing right into the command structure?.
@@papapalps2415 the Bridge Spire on an ISD is a structural weak spot, and you never want to loose bridge crews, even if you have secondary bridge.
Ngl, the Harrower would be a monster of a ship if it were bigger and if had more of... Everything (guns, engines, armor, etc), I dare to say that Thrawn would approve
Imagine if the revamped Harrower you’re suggesting had a Silencer Cannon. Sure you lose your fighters but you get a fleet killing laser.
@@cipherxi8513 I agree with you, like having only one of those and the rest of the fleet would be the normal ones, cuz I was thinking something like a Venator but... Better? I think
I also like the design of the ship more because the Bridge isn't exposed like it's counter parts, and it kinda reminds me of a Victory, a ship that I also like (V1 btw)
@@cipherxi8513 That is certainly an interesting idea, but I have no idea how expensive the Silencer was to produce. Assuming it was extremely expensive, one might opt for a frontally mounted heavy turbo laser cannon, like the extremely long-ranged ones seen on Supremacy. That would give it an extreme range advantage over any other capital ship.
@@seadaw2152 We’ll have never a actual number but the project had been nearly finished and needed only a single component for the project to be finished. It was not really hard for the Sith Empire to build them as it was only converting Harrowers into Silencers. I would say it was maybe 10-20 Million Credits. Also I like your point but The Silencer has been shown to fire its cannon and destroy a fleet while it was out of firing range from The Republic Fleet who was battling a lone Harrower at the time.
@@cipherxi8513 I am well aware of the raw power of the Silencer as I have played SW:tOR myself, in fact the Inquisitor was the first class I played, so thank you for taking the time to explain, but it really wasn't necessary. If your estimate is true, there would indeed be virtually no point to choose a super-heavy turbolaser over the Silencer. I was merely stating a hypothetical as a result of my lack of knowledge about the Silencer's production costs. So: Good point.
Oh, been waiting for this, I know they're from different eras and the Harrower is technically smaller, but I've always loved it's design way more
practicality vs efficiency, which is more valuable
Edit: or more accurately, do you want a one trick pony that ends a fight before it begins with its heavy weapons but is weak to star fighters or a ship that is more intelligently built for prolonged battles
I see efficiency and price.
I made the calculations to a Venator full of a wing, y wings and arc 77 would be 2M credits cheaper than a ISD of a tie fighter, tie bomber and tie interceptor
And i think the same happens to a Harrower
Just think os a pound-to-pound Harrower full of a wings, y wings and arc 77 vs ISD full of tie standards fighter
My bets are on the Harrower efficiency
@@joaop4585 and say you being it’s weapons, armor, and power output up to date, then it’s looking far better, right
@@LoneWolf20213 yeah, i didnt like Ecks not counting guns and technologies upgrades to the Harrower boy, but whatever. I would totally do a fleet of them instead of a ISD
The Harrower is both more practical and more efficient though. This is more "effective well balanced warship" vs "iconic orbital bombardment platform pretending to be a warship".
I would say the harrowers twin bow hangers are brilliant, a hanger is a weakness in the armor regardless of where it's placed.
The hangers in Port and starboard would allow emergency landing of damaged craft without limiting the ability to launch craft, also if a fighter was to try and land in the bow hangers they would be receiving hard cover from the pronged bow sections as well as good covering fire from the guns mounted there as well.
As for it being a structural weakness in theory you would want to launch all or most of your fighter wing as you close into range of the ships main guns and as such would be well out of range of point defense weapons on other ships making it very unlikely that your suffer any loses in the launching phase.
Not to mention due to those prongs and if you need to launch fighters while in close a slight angle of the ship would cover the hangers and any craft being launched.
One could also argue that the ability to fly through part of the super structure is a non issue as well seeing as you would have to knock out one of the main guns to do so, and even for a fighter there isn't enough room to menuver and aim at anything that isn't directly in front of the craft unless it has turreted weapons any attempt to use those areas to attack from would be next to suicide.
In my opinion, the ISD is a hammer to the harrowers jack of all trades style.
Just a note to add to the launching fighters issue Eck mentioned. How is this an issue, they are inside the shields when launching. They can launch and instantly split off in several directions above and below the ship before they even leave the sheild bubble. It only becomes an issue once the sheilds are down, and even then it's less of an issue than the ISD's big lower hangar is. To attack the ISD's hangar, there are basically no weapons on the underside to defend it, to attack the narrower bow hangar, you need to put yourself directly under its guns.
@@cgi2002 Not to mention that the Venator basically did the same thing as the Harrower. And the Venator is a beast.
@@proudamerican183 yes, main difference is the Venator is designed more around been a carrier (and has the same stupid explosed bridge design). The Harrower is a battleship (more so than the ISD, it out guns it in total weapons), that just happens to have realised "I,ve got alot of empty space inside, I can carry fighters".
@@cgi2002 In defense of the Venator's dual bridges, in my opinion, it makes sense. And I will agree that the Harrower was a battleship that realized it had space to carry fighters.
@@proudamerican183 exposed bridges made sense in WW2, and to a degree they still do today as a backup. But a ship is not commanded in combat from the bridge anymore, the CIC is in the heart of the ship far from danger, radar and cameras made this possible. SW has this tech, you'd think putting your key command and control systems deep in the core of your ship (best example in modern scifi is the covenant, their bridges are in the middle of the ship). A "sensor tower" may make sense, but I'd not be putting my key officers in a visable weak spot. Dual exposed bridges makes even less sense,except as a backup, and even then, they are too close together. If you can hit one, you can hit both. Space is big, basically empty, and a "commanding view" isn't really needed. If it's close enough to see with your eyes, a camera can do it just as well.
Whenever I hear the intro I become immediately interested.
Holy crap Eck.
Thanks!
I'm still for the Harrower. I just like the ship. It's because i grew up with it as i play Star Wars the Old Republic video game
The harrower one of my favorite ship of star wars and the old republic
When we take the size of the Harrower it is a well-balanced ship. It also uses boarding pods. Sith Empire liked to launch a massive strike of fighters and bombers so those two hangars would be empty by the time of the battle. In SWTOR they are described as heavily armored, the bridge is exposed, but it is still less than the one on ISD.
Harrower man I just love the look should had those be the star destroyer in the rise of skywalker 😂
use a 3500 BBY ship in a skywalker film? Nah
@@Fruituss Yes, however just because they're an old design doesn't mean that they cannot be reproduced and updated with modern technology.
@@Fruituss lol I mean technically I don’t think the star destroyer cannon anymore so they could just use the design scale them up hell they could put the laser where the hanger considering they already thought of that in the old republic lol it would have been better then seeing a scaled up star destroyer design that’s been a a bunch of movies already
They scaled up the ISD 1 for the Xyston-class so they definitely had some leeway with the Harrower.
@@wyoboy01 that’s a difference of a few decades, not a few thousand years
i woulkd have pitted the harrrower with the victory class stardestroyer, since they are similiarly sized
Nah firepower to different
@@jbone9900 I don't know if there is official stats for this but given the feats and bombardments that both have managed I don't see any reason to believe the civil war era turbolaser hold any major advantage. The Harrower has had superweapons mounted to it that could wipe a planet or fleet in an instant while in civil war era equivalent (the eclipse) had to be far larger to do the same thing. We also see a lot of unique tech, like hyper space beacons, disappear between the two wars so we can't just say one is older and therefore weaker.
@@viperstriker4728 again your exaggerating the holler tech plus its. Underpowered in the clone wars era let alone imperial era. The holler was good for it's time but it was no planet killer
@@jbone9900 The silencer killed fleets, the desolator killed planets, and the gauntlet killed ships in hyperspace. Any of these is comparable to eclipse and thus should drew similar power, yet they were all mounted on Harrowers without mention of modified reactors. So for its size it must have had a way oversized reactor which explains why it has more guns then the ISD.
And swtor makes it quite clear several times that the bombardment of Coruscant (by harrowers) was almost complete destruction like Taris or any base delta zero in the imperial era.
I would even argue that the tech of the old sith empire was more advance on average then the Palatine's empire with exception of the maw installation. Of course all of the swtor lore is non-canon but canon hasn't filled in the old republic so until it does I will continue to use non-canon sources.
swtor-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Silencer_(superweapon)
swtor-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Desolator_(superweapon)
swtor-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Gauntlet_(superweapon)
@@viperstriker4728 my bad guess I was wrong to me it seem like a. huge flaw especially for a sith empire and in one of the links such a weapon correct me if. If iam wrong was used against sith leadership
Battlestar Gallactica actually gave a extremely good reason why having launch bays in every direction is a good idea, so you can rapidly respond in any direction against a fight / bomber attack.
Even Babylon 5 gave this as a major reason for it's forward fighter launch destroyers.
Both of those universes take themselves alot more serious too in explaining itself.
You are purely basising your assement on it's value against an other capitol ship, try and base the value on a unexpected enemy fighter attack you have to respond too and it makes a lot of sense all of the sudden.
Plus, since the ship's weapons are clearly laid out in a way that prioritizes broadside fire, the claim that the bow will be towards a rival capital ship comes under serious doubt
Depends on what you're looking for in my opinion. The ISD is like a battleship, lots of firepower and clearly designed for nothing besides making things cease to exist. In short, it is meant to destroy things whether it is other ships, enemy bases, cities or entire worlds.
The Harrower is a bit more versatile, it has lots of fire power to but not as much. It does, however, carries a lot of fighters and bombers. It balances the role of battleship and carrier.
Different enemies, different doctrines. The empire was fighting separatists while the Sith empire was fighting the whole republic and the Jedi order
#AskEck Which Sci-Fi Faction has the best Military | Sangheili(Halo), Mandalorians(Star Wars), Turians(Mass Effect), Tal'darim(Starcraft)
I would replace “Sangheili” with the Swords of Sangheilos. The Swords of Sangheilos is a true military and naval as opposed to a mercenary group, terrorist organization or war-band like other Sangheili factions.
witch version of manndos there has been at least 2 i would also add the eiltes while can have good commanders are very few ( from what I know of )
@@LOVEPHOENIXDANCERMandalorians during the Mandalorian Wars
Turians are going to get stomped, but there will so epic while doing it no one will mind.
Mandos weakness seems to be how disorganized they are when put against a skilled strategist but it's a toss up for me on if the Sangheili will be able to capitalize on this.
I write off the Tal'darim due to the high probability of infighting, they resemble the sith too closely to run an effective military.
@@viperstriker4728 The Tal'darim don't have as much infighting as you may think
I have been waiting for this for so long thank you so much though I wish that you did an overall review of the design styles of the sith empire compared to the designs of the empire and which ships were better designed
I think the front embedded hanger can actually be quite useful. You can tilt to the side to shield the hanger entrance from attacking ships to protect your fighters before they can gain enough speed or as they slow down for docking, yet you can still use your top or bottom gaps for faster launch / recall. On the ISD, if you have queue of TIEs waiting to return outside the hanger, they will be very exposed.
Harrower: "Who are you?"
Resurgent: "You, but stronger."
If the officers are a package deal.... I will stick with the Harrower.
I think the front-facing hangar bay is good for broadsiding attacks, which you specifically mention in this video and in other ISD videos. The ISD's bottom hangar bay puts ships immediately into the firing range, because it lacks any room for the ships to get up to speed. Hell, if a ship wants to return to the hangar, it has to slow down to a near stop. The prongs, however, offer more protection while a ship is embarking or disembarking from the Harrower, so that a ship entering or leaving the hangar bay has time to accelerate to speed or slow down without making it an immediate target.
Harrower class dreadnought hands down is better.
Shouldn’t you be catching fugitives instead of watching UA-cam?
@@ohionumber1247 fugitives are all over UA-cam
@@senatorluxbonteri6065 good point
@The FBI I’ve talked it over and you can continue your job looking for UA-cam fugitives
Even the FBI has good taste
I think in the last few books before Disney got control, the best ships were ISDII that had been completely retrofitted by surviving Imperial Remnants ran by Dalla. They had by far superior shields that were almost impossible to break through compared to other far more modern ships. The turbolasers were done away with and replaced with new cannons that simply went straight through all shields and essentially made the metal hulls brittle and would weaken the hull so it simply disintegrated under natural outside atmosphere and broke apart on its own.
Oh I’ve been looking forward to this video
The forward facing fighter bay in design by the Harrow protects the launch of your fighters if your enemy ship on the side of you, which is where you want to be in almost any star destroyer for heavy broadsiding attacks. Hanger bays on the top like the Venator or the bottom like the ISD basically become targetable the second they leave the hangar in those situations. Also in the case of ships like Mon Cal cruisers with them on the side, you are super boned launching fighters while fighting an enemy flanking your sides.
Something Eck has said a few times that helps me keep things in perspective is that oftentimes "does it look cool?" Is one of the most important considerations and I think in this case both are cool but the Harrower looks cooler
Lovely to see starship comparison-sort of videos back.
Hey eck, I was wondering if you’d do a mass effect breakdown of the various starfighters in their universe, they are honestly pretty cool and would love to know more about them
The way i see it is the harrower is designed to spit out fighters and use the ship to support them whereas the imperial II is more of a slugger that has fighters for support and i guess you could say the venator was designed to be the hybrid of both vessels designed to overrun enemy fleets with fighters whilst also being heavily armed and armored so i it can get in close and start a slug match idbit needs to
YES! HE FINALLY MADE IT! IVE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS VERSUS FOREVER
I will like literally anything with the harrower in it so.... good job
One thing to remember about the Harrower is that it was a ship designed in isolation while the Sith Empire was in hiding. The initial design that is shown in this video is an early type Harrower. After the return of the Sith Empire, the design was revised and upgraded at least twice, probably in response to some of those factors you pointed out (like the trench run problem). I suppose it isn't surprising that a ship that hadn't faced an organized force yet would need some revisions once it had seen real war-time combat. We see similar "evolution of necessity" ship design during WWI and WWII.
In any case, I love the Harrower design. It is one of my favorite Star Wars ships.
I think it's hard to rank the ISD because we pretty much don't see it properly fulfil its role until we get into the post Endor EU. I'd say in its prime days the Harrower was an incredible ship, and definitely better than the ISD during most of the Glactic Civil War...but it might be a closer match up if we look at New Republic usage or Thrawn's usage of the ISD.
Both, both look cool...
*cough *cough Imperial Star
One note about the forward facing hangars; you say that if you're fighting another capital ship, the forward hangars would be targetted and the fighters would take heavy losses when launching- the presumption is that the other capital ship would be approaching from the fore/crossing the T. Given how common broadside exchanges are, a forward launch bay would often be more protected (at least while the fighter got up to speed/maneuvering range)... and having the forward, as well as ventral hangars gives a faster launch (and recovery) potential.
Good luck with the Cup bro!!
Been waiting for this one ever since I played SWTOR last year. Love the Harrower
I love these types of videos
But which looks cooler? I leave that choice to you...
My brain automatically connects Star Wars and music by home from watching your videos so much
0:50 Im glad *SOMEONE* finally acknowledged that
love your vids
Nice analysis
Please do another video comparing the various Star Destroyers and suggest which fill their intended role better. Something like this but a larger and longer video
Can we see a versus of 1 Imperial Class Star Destroyer vs. 38 Arquitens Class Light Cruisers? Building off of the idea that those two forces would be of approximately equal cost to create.
The harrower was also made for broadside battles, so the guarded front facing hanger is very good
Hey, Eck! Love the work, as always. Do you think the N-1 is at all a match for the T-65. I think you've talked about this some but I don't think you've ever done a direct comparison.
No, I don't think so
@@EckhartsLadder I really like the N-1 designt but I dont think it would be much of a mach for the T-65. However I would like to see a comparison between the N-1 and other fighters of similar abilities (maybe a future episode of factions compered?). I would also like to say I love the channel Eck the content is great keep up the amazing work this is definitely one of the best star wars UA-cam channels!
Another thing you should have compared was the ships vs it's enemies and or it's role in the fleet.
I don't think the hangars at the front are a weakness at all. If you have a small fighter, the first seconds after leaving the hangar are crucial. So in the front they basically give them a moment to breathe and to decide whether or not they go up, down or fly straight forward, while being covered from the sides by the harrower.
I'm not sure, but the shields could also cover that whole area, basically ignoring the negative space in the harrower design, making it even better for fighters to start and to land.
Also it just looks awesome.
I've missed all the match ups. You should do some galactic versus
Good video. I too am a big fan of the Harrower.
I don’t usually make video suggestions in the comments section, but one idea I’d love for you to talk about is Alien Exodus, the cancelled Star Wars novel that would have tied Earth officially into the universe.
Good luck at the cup!
One thing about the harrower and most ancient sith empire ships was that many of them had automated point defence and targeting systems a lot of these point defence and turbo laser batteries were also set up in a way in order to maintain max firepower output in any given area its flat shape helped it in this regard
The harrower has a hanger on the bottom as well you can see it in the cinematics
The Harrower is the superior design, in spite of it's flaws which are, mostly, easily fixed. The Harrower has one MASSIVE advantage over the Imperial and Victory pattern star destroyers, it has guns on the ventral surface as well as the dorsal, meaning that it can shoot all around it, there's nowhere you can be in line of sight of it that's safe from its guns.
Eckhartsladder for the front facing hangar did you consider pilot visibility when exiting the hangar? Perhaps the idea was to give the pilot the chance to see incoming fighters to better time exiting. Rather than the side or underside hangars having little visibility. Just a thought about the design. Awesome channel btw.
One thing that might be the ISD saving grace is if the shields in Star Wars are capable of reflecting not just absorbing impacts, reflecting takes a lot less energy and depending on the projection angle having the bulbs right there might be optimal for deflecting not absorbing thus the bridge becomes a sort of bait to get enemies hitting the ISD in its strongest and most deadly position in the arcs of all the main guns, at least for mid to large tier ships.
I think the Harrower could face off with the Victory-class when it comes to size. But overall, the Resurgent-class and Venator-class are my favorite. But ya'll should have a look at Fractal Sponge's version of the Tector-class star destroyer. Slight changes but the weapons placements look terrifyingly good.
I'd've guessed that, in cases where there's a bunch of hangars, that some are for deploying fighters, and others are for recovering them. Having multiple options for each ensures you can both apply force and safely recover your own strike craft.
This may have been said (idk if it's important but just a thought) the rebels were able to take greater advantage of the isd's weaknesses then the Republic did with the harrower. Hit and run wouldn't work as well with the harrower (even unescorted) given its point defense and fighter compliment. Also the fact that old Republic fighters were no where near x-wing quality made hit and run tactics more difficult. I don't want to get into tactic as they are very different eras but since we are comparing... 😅
The Harrower would definitely be my flagship in any fleet that I was in command of.
If you upside it to the size of a ISD and gave it modern gun emplacements it would be a beast so I agree with you
So how much havok and destruction could an X-wing with a willing-to-do-so pilot cause if someone somehow sent it back to the old republic era?
That depends on whether any faction that inevitably destroys it is able to salvage its vastly superior technologies and apply it to its own navy
Do battle breakdown on attolon, (Star wars rebels) Please...
Love the old republic content
#askeck I have some questions and ideas for videos.
1. Yuuzhaan vong vs celestials
2. 10-20 Yuuzhaan vong world ships (100km) vs the mothership from Independence Day resurgence
3. Iokath (with all of their creations. including the eternal fleet) vs the republic or empire
4. Supremacy MSD vs Covenant super carrier
5. Imperium of man vs Yuuzhaan vong
6.Executor vs 2 (maybe 3) UNSC Infinities
8. Darth Caeudus vs Anakin
9. What if the Yuuzhaan vong invaded during the Cold War (old republic)
Plz somebody respond
I can answer the third one, Republic or Empire loses, badly. We know that The Eternal Fleet alone managed to take on and win against both The Sith Empire and Republic. Also they have the Grave Stone which could destroy about maybe 20-30 Ships. It would be a slaughter. Ground Forces however, I believe that the Empire or Republic would have a chance as Skytroopers/Iokath Droids were seen to be pretty ineffective against basic Troopers.
The Celestials are way more powerful then the Vong.
5.The Imperium of Man absolutely slaughthers the Vong
Imperium of Man bulldozes the Vong on the way to counter the next Tyranid hive fleet.
The forward hangar bay is a big weakness. you could fire a missile right in there setting off all the fuel and munitions.
@EchhartsLadder I had an idea for a starship versus video. All 5 major battleships from both iterations of Battlestar Galactica against each other
Palpatine took one glance at the Harrower before going: "So its the same type of destroyer as the Imperator like The World is the same type of stand as Star Platinum"
MORE SWTOR LORE BABY
Hi Eck, can you make a video about the Imperial prefabricated garrison/base. That would be an interesting topic.
Palpy was a fan of the Harrower in Legends
So if you replace the center hangers on the Harrower with a Silencer/Gauntlet cannon then you might prefer it a little better? It would lower fighter carry though.
you should do a vs between a at-at and at-te if they had the same level of armor and weapons
Forward-facing hanger bays can make sense if there's a mass driver to propel your fighters ahead into a combat zone (save on fighter propellant, intercept & set the combat zone further away, etc.), but since Star Wars doesn't really consider the distance factor of space in any reasonable way, I'll agree that a forward-facing hanger bay has more disadvantages than advantages.
I love the look and basic design of the harrower
Would love a battle vs gundam's SCVA-76 Nahel Argama vs a standered star destroyer or more upgraded one.
Vindicator-class heavy cruiser (configuration with 72 starfighters) vs Munificent-class star frigate
I think that could be very interesting to see the vindicator, a ship designed to replace the Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser and seems to be forgotten (aside that his Hull is used in others ships)
Cool video! Recently a weird lore question goes around my head.
How does time work in the Star Wars universe?
Time is kept in years in the universe.
Is there an in lore explanation how this works? Is it some sort of Coruscant standard time? Or fixed year spans by any certain planet? Maybe some cosmological number? there must be a standard day, hour, whatever.
Or is this unaccounted for?
Yes, they tell time in reference to standards. Coruscant standard would be one. Here's a video I did: ua-cam.com/video/pRUy0XFTQh0/v-deo.html
@@EckhartsLadder hello eckhart big fan I have been with ur channel since the “Why no Imperial AT-TE’s” video u did over 2years ago this video was awsome can’t wait for the next one 😃
New vid pog
I agree with all the points, except for the complaint on the Harrower’s hangars. Having multiple disconnected hangars makes vehicle launch and retrieval significantly easier with ships being able to designate certain hangars for launching specific craft. And yes, the frontal hangars are a pretty big weakness, but they don’t have to be used as a launching center. It makes far more sense for the 2 front hangars to be exclusively retrieval & repair bays for combat landings or damaged craft, with the prongs acting as a physical guide to a pilots landing approach. Now, the fighters would have to be moved back to their original designated hangar after the engagement, be it by flying out after being repaired or using any form of internal cargo tram, but it’s a small price to pay for such a high level of compartmentalism.
Then again, that’s just how I personally see things, and whether or not that’s how the hangars are truly used is unknown to me. Still, I felt sharing my opinion was worthwhile.
if you think about the harrower in terms of sith empire military doctrine, the hanger placement makes more sense. they preferred to launch massive surprise attacks (even after the events of the original swtor trailer, when their existence itself was still secret) on their enemies and subdue them quickly with overwhelming power. so most fighters were launched when the harrowers entered a system, on the siths’ terms, rather than in the middle of a more symmetrical battle. throwing huge numbers of fighters straight out the front makes sense to me in that context, in spite of the obvious drawbacks you refer to. i would assume that the front hangers would only really be used for that kind of assault, while the others would hold the reserves that would get deployed if the battle was more drawn out
Could you mayba also make a vs video with the tie fighter and tie bomber vs thei counterparts from the old republic era who were used by the Sith Empire. Also great video again.
I would love to see a Harrower vs a Venator, I think that’d be a cool fight
I got a feeling if the Empire had used the harrow as a base for the ISD it would most likely have ended up with a upscaled version of the harrow meaning putting on 800 more meters, more room for larger reactors, wepaons and wings of fighters. but the smaller version could be used as a frigate
How does the ISD design compare to a Battlestar? Great video, thank you for sharing.
It depends on the employment of each ship. If the Harrower is used in a manner where you launch the forward bay starfighters as you go into a fight to establish the CAP, that removes that particular issue. Additionally, you can get your starfighters up to speed in the correct direction via ship thrust more easily than if they are side launched. That said, an ISD seems to be more of a frontal assault brute force ship, whereas the Harrower can be used in more of a wide range of roles with various defenders. The trench, well that's just stupid design lol. As always, good video Eck!
So to really fix the ISD without sacrificing the overall aesthetic and fear factor of it is to just add more turbolasers and point defense lasers.
You have to also take into account the fact that the Harrower Class Stardestroyer was built during a time when the entire Galaxy was in open and active Warfare. The harrower was designed as a weapon of war the ISD II was built for intimidation not so much for open and active Warfare
The Harrower is classified as a Dreadnought. Plus, the Harrower has the Silencer and Gauntlet versions. The Harrower is my favorite.
I think that both Harrower and ISD are built for a lot of broadside firepower, from the way I've seen Harrowers in SWTOR engaging their Republic equivalents, both ships are trading broadsides- which would give the twin fore hangars a good degree of protection with cannon emplacements on both portside and starboard screening in front and behind them if they are exiting the hangars and taking a 90-degree turn over/under/around the 'prongs' to engage enemy fighters/stations/cruisers/dreadnoughts.
It becomes a weakness if/when they go nose-to-broadside against their enemy, which is already a weaker attack vector for both ISD and Harrower given the overlap of cannon emplacements (without 'dipping' for a clear firing angle).
I know I am coming to this discussion late, but I must wonder what your thoughts would be on the Harrower should it have been upscaled to the ISD's size since size does play a dramatic role in combat. Excluding that, it might be interesting to see a Harrower vs Victory-class scenario since they are comparable in size.
The harrower was built in a time when the sith empire was still hidden from the galaxy and had to battle with various alien civilizations.
If you want a chance having a teller of starships that are powerful and flexible enough to deal with unpredictable foes that isn’t too unwieldy and are less resource intensive is the key to survival.