I mon calamari ships so much. The fact that the rebel transformed cruise liners into warships just shows their resourcefulness and the Mon calamris robust engineering
I've always hated how the Mon Calamari ships in the movies all got slapped with the catch-all MC80 designation despite having such wide variety. Considering how many minor background characters have proper names it is shocking that this line of ships got such halfhearted treatment.
It’s probably due to all those ships have relatively minor differences. The main physical difference is modified weapons. Probably all from the same base ship designs
I always found it kinda weird that in the 3rd movie, suddenly there were Mon-Calamari cruisers. No explanation who they were, where they came from etc.
Not defending that movie, but it stands to reason that during the demilitarization the older Mon Calamari Cruisers would've been reconverted back into civilian service, only to again be pressed into military service after the destruction of Hosnian Prime.
Crazy thing is an MC80 can hide inside the atmosphere of a gas giant or under the oceans of any world in the galaxy and escape imperial pursuit or launch an ambush.
The main difference was the A's were modified to facilitate non- Mon Cal crew members. The 80s were unique, individual works of art, intended for Mon Cal use. They had no standardized layout, & the controls & displays were difficult for other species to utilize. This was an intermediate step to producing a standardized, multi-species design ,which would become the MC90.
I would argue the MC80a being more powerful is due to the other ships being more "balanced." Like standard ISDs having very few ion cannons if any at all but with outright power, they're stronger than MC80's and it's their shielding and fighters that give them the edge against an ISD
While I agree taking the versatility of this particular ship's compliment away and focusing on just one kind of weapon is silly, and a disservice in some ways... the time frame it is introduced makes it make sense. We see far too many ships that it is intended to fight be far too large to be truly destroyed or hampered by single use munitions, and their weakness lies in the proper use of hyperspace capable starfighter/bombers that can easily ion bomb them from the get go. In a fleet battle, same thing. You have disabler ships that can move in and ion and then move away. This beast comes in and demolishes the imperial 1 and 2 from there. It was a good formation making and hit-run making ship for a faction who liked both
Authors make up for the MCs. In all honesty. The ISD has more secondary weapons on a single flank than the entire MC80a has on its entire hull. Then there are the 4 primary mounts for the ISD. Far heavier main battery. 2x the secondary turbolasers and heavy ion cannons per side, same number of fighters...let's face it, the creators of the MCs did not have their heart in the design and lean on plot armor and hopeium to make the ships work.
@brianschonfeld1733 that's the problem though, they aren't listed as such. Let's use the numbers listed in the reference book in the video. MC80a. 29 turbolasers and 34 ion cannons. Let's assume they are equivilent to the ISDs taim and bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers and the sw-7s are equivilent to the again NK-7 ion cannons so we can get as close as possible. 29 (even assuming a twin mount) so 58 total turbolaser barrels. And 68 ion cannons. The ISD has 60 twin barrel XX-9 for 120 barrels, and 60 NK-7. It also mounts 3 3 barrel turbolasers on the center ridge (not always listed) plus 2x2 heavy ion cannon turrets in its primary battery, and 6 twin mounts of heavy turbolasers in its main battery. The Mon Cals don't have any listed specific main battery weapons. This means that an ISD, essentially without its main battery, has as many weapons on one side of the ship than the Mon Cal has total. Let's assume that the MC has 2x the shield power than a ISD, this is the only way the weapons would be a comparable threat. Now armor. The ISD having twice the weapons is still dealing out twice the damage without shields, so the armor on the MC would also have to be twice as thick. To move that much armor (becuase armor is a considerable percentage of weight if a ship, even in all or nothing schemes that left a lot of the ship with no armor it is in the double digits, like 15% or more) which means that you need bigger and more powerful engines to push it, to keep up a battle speed, lest it simply get outmanuvered. So now we get to structure. Cruise liners and cargo ships (the supposed basis for MC ships) do not have large internal frames that are very strong, that is designed to take that much armor and g force generated, it's generally speaking way too expensive to push armor around instead of cargo and paying passengers. Businesses would be eaten alive in fuel consumption compared to their competition. How about tensor fields and inertial compensators? This is true, but then we go back to the power problem, more reactor power is needed and thus an even bigger reactor, exactly what the internals wouldn't be designed for. So when all is said and done it would literally be cheaper and easier power wise to simply mount as much weaponry as an ISD has. So my conclusion is no, there is no redeeming the MCs without scrapping them all, or making new ships by people that can look at how a ship is built. Had they filled the cargo holds with missiles? Fair. But they didn't. A cargo ship, even converted that can only carry 6-8 squadrons, the Victory carries 4 and more troops and vehicles (massive vehicles, clone turbo tanks basically) and it is 300 to 400 meters shorter, and even they carry more weaponry in total barrels of equal power. So no. The MCs are not good ships. Plot armor and authors magic only. People can like the look of them, the design philosophy etc and I won't bash them for it. But they just aren't good ships. There is a reason so many captured ISDs were used and when the New Republic made new ships...they were wedge shaped star destroyers.
@@chrisheitstuman6360 Possibly some are batteries. West End Games sometimes listed batteries as 'five or more guns'. But perhaps each MC80 gun (an XV-7 heavy turbolaser?) may output more energy than most singular XX-9 ISD guns? Of course, the MC75 is very lightly armed, however you look at it.
@chrissonofpear1384 The irony for that one is that definition of battery is army. Navy has always been by caliber or near caliber size, and mountings are always listed separately. For example the main battery on an Iowa class battleship is 9 16" guns, there are more details that get into more weeds but we will keep it basic). It's secondary battery is 20 5" guns. The German Bismark had a battery of 8 15" guns in twin mounts. And a mixed secondary battery of 12 5.9" guns, and 16 4.1" guns, all in twin mounts. There are only like only 2 classes that had turrets of more than 3 guns per turret. The French Richilieu and British King George V, and they both had 4 gun turrets. And George was unique in that it had 2 4 gun and 1 2 gun turrets. So the "battery" question is extremely muddy and I will note that there are 0 mounts in star wars that I am aware of that has more than 2 barrels per turret. So for straight star wars the main battery of a ISD is a mixed battery of 12 heavy turbolasers and 8 heavy ion cannon barrels in 8 twin (or two gun) mounts. The twin vs two gun (multiple gun) is if they are locked together in aiming or if they can elevate and fire independently within the turret. But even if the "battery" argument of 5 to 6 weapon emplacement is true...where are they on the ship? The same goes for the ISD secondary weapons, I have never seen the blocky XX-9 turrets anywhere, but there are scenes of like 4 turbolasers set into the superstructure somewhere all being independently aimed and fired, with all kinds of hoses and cables litering the ground ( or it may have been on the Death Star, but the point remains.)
@@chrisheitstuman6360 Good catch. As for the guns, concept art showed 'gun slots' on the model, that single barrels may pop out. Some of the video games have added small turrets, like Battlefront 2017. And the cross-sections book adds some quad barrelled guns behind retractable panels, that are quite big. The same book also lists some of the 'slots' as escape pod bays too.
📢 High-Quality MOC Builds that are compatible with Lego, for incredibly low prices.
🚨 And now with 10% off: geekygrotto.com/discount/metanerdz
I mon calamari ships so much. The fact that the rebel transformed cruise liners into warships just shows their resourcefulness and the Mon calamris robust engineering
I also Mon Calamari ships. They're so curvy in stark opposition to imperial designs.
I also think you accidentally a word lol
It’s a reflection of real life, rebellions and resistance fighters have always repurposed civilian assets for military use.
@@xSARGEx117xI this comment 😂
They may not be able to match a star destroyer's firepower but they make up for it with extremely strong shields
@@sethcourtemanche5738 basically making the effective power relatively Even if not even then the fighter wings put it in favor for the rebels
I've always hated how the Mon Calamari ships in the movies all got slapped with the catch-all MC80 designation despite having such wide variety. Considering how many minor background characters have proper names it is shocking that this line of ships got such halfhearted treatment.
It’s probably due to all those ships have relatively minor differences.
The main physical difference is modified weapons.
Probably all from the same base ship designs
Same, even Home One got horribly misscaled at 1.3 kilometers when it was alot closer to 3.8 kilometers long in ROTJ itself lol.
Liberty was such an amazing shape.
So the Liberty Type is next, I assume?
I love the Mon Cal ships. I’m so happy you’re continuing the deep dives on them @MetaNerdz
If I could choose any Star Wars ship to make my own, it would be a Mon Calamari cruiser. They are just so badass in every possible way.
Fan Theory, "MC80" is the sound of a Mon Calamari saying "space ship" in their home tongue.
Or it's just Mon Calamari 1980s
Love this ship (:
Thnks for this and all your other fantastic videos ^^
I always found it kinda weird that in the 3rd movie, suddenly there were Mon-Calamari cruisers. No explanation who they were, where they came from etc.
Not defending that movie, but it stands to reason that during the demilitarization the older Mon Calamari Cruisers would've been reconverted back into civilian service, only to again be pressed into military service after the destruction of Hosnian Prime.
It's a simple explanation that the Rebellion was Galaxy wide. One isn't going to see every asset at any given time (until the Battle of Endor).
Crazy thing is an MC80 can hide inside the atmosphere of a gas giant or under the oceans of any world in the galaxy and escape imperial pursuit or launch an ambush.
The main difference was the A's were modified to facilitate non- Mon Cal crew members. The 80s were unique, individual works of art, intended for Mon Cal use. They had no standardized layout, & the controls & displays were difficult for other species to utilize. This was an intermediate step to producing a standardized, multi-species design ,which would become the MC90.
Finally!
Someone acknowledges it as something different on the internet.
Could you make a video on the executor class? It is THE ssd
I actually love the MC80a and find it kinda sad that it's this much overlooked
I'm sorry, but can you please stick to the galactic standard of "wookiees" as your units of measurement?
Speaking of Overlooked, you should do one on the liberty.🎉🎉
My favorite Mon Calamari cruiser.
ISD video? Soon hopefully the pride of The Empire deserves a breakdown
How about a look at the Empire at War variants of the MC-80 line: Alliance, Freedom, Liberty and Justice
I would argue the MC80a being more powerful is due to the other ships being more "balanced."
Like standard ISDs having very few ion cannons if any at all but with outright power, they're stronger than MC80's and it's their shielding and fighters that give them the edge against an ISD
3:25
Uuuh what´s that game name? :O
Looks like Sins of a Solar Empire with mods.
@ Thank you
The Mc90 was the first combat built warship
While I agree taking the versatility of this particular ship's compliment away and focusing on just one kind of weapon is silly, and a disservice in some ways... the time frame it is introduced makes it make sense. We see far too many ships that it is intended to fight be far too large to be truly destroyed or hampered by single use munitions, and their weakness lies in the proper use of hyperspace capable starfighter/bombers that can easily ion bomb them from the get go.
In a fleet battle, same thing. You have disabler ships that can move in and ion and then move away. This beast comes in and demolishes the imperial 1 and 2 from there. It was a good formation making and hit-run making ship for a faction who liked both
Maybe it's considered stronger over other variants in a literal sense, like it as a stronger superstructure?
Umas das minhas naves prediletas.
104k with all those decks?
So what - 2k per deck? 1k?
That sounds insane
Mon Cala ships, the ships that ensures your survival.
Who would win? One death star super laser or one bulbous space and sea vessel?
Hello
This ship has 48 heavy turbolasers nothing else it's a pure in your face brawler
Authors make up for the MCs. In all honesty.
The ISD has more secondary weapons on a single flank than the entire MC80a has on its entire hull. Then there are the 4 primary mounts for the ISD.
Far heavier main battery. 2x the secondary turbolasers and heavy ion cannons per side, same number of fighters...let's face it, the creators of the MCs did not have their heart in the design and lean on plot armor and hopeium to make the ships work.
I would imagine that mon cals are more durable and sometimes faster to make up for the lack of firepower
@brianschonfeld1733 that's the problem though, they aren't listed as such.
Let's use the numbers listed in the reference book in the video.
MC80a. 29 turbolasers and 34 ion cannons. Let's assume they are equivilent to the ISDs taim and bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers and the sw-7s are equivilent to the again NK-7 ion cannons so we can get as close as possible.
29 (even assuming a twin mount) so 58 total turbolaser barrels. And 68 ion cannons.
The ISD has 60 twin barrel XX-9 for 120 barrels, and 60 NK-7. It also mounts 3 3 barrel turbolasers on the center ridge (not always listed) plus 2x2 heavy ion cannon turrets in its primary battery, and 6 twin mounts of heavy turbolasers in its main battery.
The Mon Cals don't have any listed specific main battery weapons.
This means that an ISD, essentially without its main battery, has as many weapons on one side of the ship than the Mon Cal has total.
Let's assume that the MC has 2x the shield power than a ISD, this is the only way the weapons would be a comparable threat.
Now armor. The ISD having twice the weapons is still dealing out twice the damage without shields, so the armor on the MC would also have to be twice as thick.
To move that much armor (becuase armor is a considerable percentage of weight if a ship, even in all or nothing schemes that left a lot of the ship with no armor it is in the double digits, like 15% or more) which means that you need bigger and more powerful engines to push it, to keep up a battle speed, lest it simply get outmanuvered.
So now we get to structure. Cruise liners and cargo ships (the supposed basis for MC ships) do not have large internal frames that are very strong, that is designed to take that much armor and g force generated, it's generally speaking way too expensive to push armor around instead of cargo and paying passengers. Businesses would be eaten alive in fuel consumption compared to their competition. How about tensor fields and inertial compensators? This is true, but then we go back to the power problem, more reactor power is needed and thus an even bigger reactor, exactly what the internals wouldn't be designed for.
So when all is said and done it would literally be cheaper and easier power wise to simply mount as much weaponry as an ISD has.
So my conclusion is no, there is no redeeming the MCs without scrapping them all, or making new ships by people that can look at how a ship is built.
Had they filled the cargo holds with missiles? Fair. But they didn't.
A cargo ship, even converted that can only carry 6-8 squadrons, the Victory carries 4 and more troops and vehicles (massive vehicles, clone turbo tanks basically) and it is 300 to 400 meters shorter, and even they carry more weaponry in total barrels of equal power.
So no. The MCs are not good ships. Plot armor and authors magic only.
People can like the look of them, the design philosophy etc and I won't bash them for it. But they just aren't good ships. There is a reason so many captured ISDs were used and when the New Republic made new ships...they were wedge shaped star destroyers.
@@chrisheitstuman6360 Possibly some are batteries.
West End Games sometimes listed batteries as 'five or more guns'.
But perhaps each MC80 gun (an XV-7 heavy turbolaser?) may output more energy than most singular XX-9 ISD guns?
Of course, the MC75 is very lightly armed, however you look at it.
@chrissonofpear1384 The irony for that one is that definition of battery is army. Navy has always been by caliber or near caliber size, and mountings are always listed separately.
For example the main battery on an Iowa class battleship is 9 16" guns, there are more details that get into more weeds but we will keep it basic). It's secondary battery is 20 5" guns.
The German Bismark had a battery of 8 15" guns in twin mounts. And a mixed secondary battery of 12 5.9" guns, and 16 4.1" guns, all in twin mounts.
There are only like only 2 classes that had turrets of more than 3 guns per turret. The French Richilieu and British King George V, and they both had 4 gun turrets. And George was unique in that it had 2 4 gun and 1 2 gun turrets.
So the "battery" question is extremely muddy and I will note that there are 0 mounts in star wars that I am aware of that has more than 2 barrels per turret.
So for straight star wars the main battery of a ISD is a mixed battery of 12 heavy turbolasers and 8 heavy ion cannon barrels in 8 twin (or two gun) mounts.
The twin vs two gun (multiple gun) is if they are locked together in aiming or if they can elevate and fire independently within the turret.
But even if the "battery" argument of 5 to 6 weapon emplacement is true...where are they on the ship?
The same goes for the ISD secondary weapons, I have never seen the blocky XX-9 turrets anywhere, but there are scenes of like 4 turbolasers set into the superstructure somewhere all being independently aimed and fired, with all kinds of hoses and cables litering the ground ( or it may have been on the Death Star, but the point remains.)
@@chrisheitstuman6360 Good catch.
As for the guns, concept art showed 'gun slots' on the model, that single barrels may pop out.
Some of the video games have added small turrets, like Battlefront 2017.
And the cross-sections book adds some quad barrelled guns behind retractable panels, that are quite big. The same book also lists some of the 'slots' as escape pod bays too.
Please do the MC60 and MC90
I just call it the Liberty and home one class cruisers.
Why is this ship so Rare?? (From my pov it is) Not only that but why hasn’t Star Wars Armada Made this ship yet???
Any Hyperdrive Stats??
W
I much prefer the MC75
No offense mc75s are weak isd's can maul them very easily
day 6 of asking for a tie striker breakdown
I prefer the Mc 90