Darth Tanner wrote:
Quote:
And the benefits of having a bridge in a high, central, and exposed location, outweigh the possible drawbacks.
What advantage when engagements are not done within visible range as a matter of course. Don’t most naval ships have their bridges exposed because a pair of binoculars might be needed or to oversee carrier operations how is that relevant to Star Wars?
Star Wars has many examples of ships and in some cases entire battles being decided by the decapitation of the senior officers by a strike to the bridge, as in my earlier example of the spider general being killed and his entire fleet subsequently being defeated by a few missiles to his vulnerable bridge, which would not have happened if he had his bridge inside the ship.
Spider general? What are you talking about?
And how do you know that there isn't a command and control benefit to having the bridge on top of the ship? Perhaps SW governments have conducted studies that show that command staff are 50% more effective when they can see the stars? "Tradition" and "stupidity" aren't the only possible explanations for the location of SW ship bridges. If engagement after engagement ended with pinpoint strikes against capital ship bridges, after a few thousand years they would probably have changed the design. Given that bridges are still exposed, perhaps the occasions when we've seen bridges struck are the absurdly improbable exception to the rule.
Darth Tanner wrote:
Quote:
how will that actually increase the ship's survivability?
We clearly see in RotS that Star Wars armour is sufficient to take a direct pounding from capital ship grade weapons without the immediate destruction of the ship. Except when the bridge and command structure is destroyed as in the Executor/Spider General. This is not the case for modern ships where any hit to a ship by modern weapons can be expected to cause major damage and possible internal explosions.
As I recall, while those shots didn't cause the ships to blow up, they did put them out of commission, with one all but crashing on Coruscant.
Darth Tanner wrote:
Quote:
Why didn't any Rebel starships immediately target and destroy the bridge as soon as they detected the shields were down?
Maybe they were planning on doing just that, the A wing hit mere seconds after the shield collapsed while doing an attack run up the front of the executor, maybe it had planned using missiles before losing control and ramming himself into the target instead. We also see the rebel heavy ships moving in very close from the bridge perspective shots prior to the ram, maybe they were moving closer to get a good shot at the bridge.
I've read the novelization... nobody was planning to hit the bridge. Your hypotheses and made up shit are not impressive.
Darth Tanner wrote:
Also they may well have not know the shield went down, the jamming was strong enough to mask the Death Stars shield and there’s nothing to show it was lowered so it could well have been blocking any readings of the Executors shield status.
I don't see how you questioning whether the A wing purposefully rammed the bridge or not negates the fact that a dreadnaught was destroyed by a less powerful rebel fleet through a decapitation strike on the bridge which would have been avoided by placing the bridge deep inside the armour of the ship.
The fact is, the entire concept of "targeting the bridge" and "exposed bridges are a bad design" has never been demonstrably proven. And the failure of the Rebels to target the bridge suggests that it is not an effective tactic. This may be for a variety of reasons.
* Perhaps the targeting isn't sufficient to pinpoint strike a ship's bridge, even an point blank range.
* Perhaps in 99.9999999% of cases destruction of the ship's bridge has little to no effect on combat effectiveness.
* Perhaps there is a cultural aversion to eliminating the command and control structure of a ship
In the real world, specifically targeting a ship's bridge doesn't happen in most combat scenarios. Perhaps a sneak attack by a patrol boat against an unsuspecting warship would first target the bridge, but most strikes in combat against bridges have been lucky hits. Mostly this is due to the difficulty involved in successfully hitting such a small target, and if you miss, you might miss the target altogether.
Finally, if this were such an effective "tactic," then when isn't it used all of the time, and why don't SW ships defend against it by changing their designs? They've had several thousand years to adapt to the "tactic," after all.
This entire thread reminds me of the ST "warp strafing" tactic, which has never been demonstrated to be effective, and yet got blown entirely out of proportion during the VS threads. SW ship designers are not morons... if destroying bridges was a viable tactic, they would be protecting the bridges.