Venators in the Galactic Empire

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't see why not. I doubt Palpatine automatically ended all the greed and corruption and dishonesty in the Republic when he founded the Empire (if anyything, he probably abetted it for his own purposes. Its not like he needed to exert any actual reforms - when he wanted to get something done, he had ways to do it.)

I agree, which is why the "modified Providence-class is much weaker than an ISD, so they ought to be different classes" in of itself is dubious argumentation.

Actually if you look at WW1 era classifications (or a bit earlier) "cruisers" and IIRC battleships were divided up into "classes" according to quality. There were first, second, and third class cruisers (first and second class were also known as armored and protected cruisers, respectively. I think third class were low-end protected cruisers and Armed merchant cruisers.)

I know all this, but it seemed as if he wants to appel classifications according to, roughly, orders of magnitude on the max power output of the warship's main reactor, which I do not agree with. Clarity, consistency, and reform in SW classification is something I agree with, but not at the expense of still describing role, which is the whole point. I understand the attraction of tying it to stuff like power output as an empricial means of definition, but it really gets away from the original idea.

Anyway, I do not see how this comparable to SW; obsolesence should not exist in a traditional form in SW navies. Protected and armored cruisers were just casualties of by-gone eras of naval tactics and technology.

Armored cruisers, the 1st class cruisers, were considered the pre-dreadnought equivalent to battlecruisers (if you look up battlecruiser on Wikiepdia, you'll note that there is a term "dreadnought cruiser" applied to them , IIRC.) In a sense, it would be correct in either an Age of Sail or WW1-type classification (which would fit with the whole "battleships the most powerful ships" class anyhow.)

I know all of this. I am the one who wrote some of this in the Wiki.

Its also worth noting that this depends on the KIND of battlecruiser you compare them to. Some went with the Jackie Fisher concept (ie like hte Hood - all big guns and very light armor for its size), but other vessels (like the German BC's) tended to favor a more balaned approach ("armored on battleship scale" I think the term is - somewhat smaller guns but a lso greater armor.) Technically with deflector shields you could have both kinds.

They were not really different kinds. They were both trying to build cruisers that were larger than battleships but with less protection to serve as cruisers. The Germans were just more concerned about protection and less about firepower than the British, so the rifles aboard their battlecruisers were a bit smaller and the belt armor a bit thicker. They were both very much "Jackie Fisher" battlecruisers.

When it comes to two different kinds of battlecruisers, the pre-Jutland battlecruisers were built like cruisers, to serve as cruisers, and suffered all the deficiences thereof. Post-Jutland battlecruisers began evolving into a kind of fast battleship - HMS Hood is a good example of this trend. But they're not clearly defined.

Moreover, SW seems to experiment more successfully in "hybrid" types like Flight Deck cruisers and seaplane cruisers (or even battelship/carrier) types than real life navies ever had luck. While such vessels are still less effective than the "specialized" roles, their multi-purpose nature could be quite useful in a number of situations (patrol, defense, whatnot.) Lets not forget the battleship itself (at least the Fisher concept) was something of a failure in any case (which is one reason why the BC evolved into the fast BB - the other being the dominance of Carrier-based combat.)

The battlecruiser was not a failed concept accept for the fact that admirals found it irresistable to place it in fleet actions with its battleship-sized rifles. This was another reason why the Germans were more successful: their more poorly armed battlecruisers were not as tempting to put with the line of battle in harm's way.

So if you have different "classes" of cruiser and battleship (or even classes of carrier). And if you factor in the diversity more "hybrid" types add (especially if Star Wars attmepted hybrid types RL navies never built - think of a McKinley class command ship coupled with a heavy fleet carrier that carried a large number of 5 or 8-inch guns - like early Japanese or American carriers - And you could have the Executor.)

Comparison with contemporary warships and navies breaks down as you move up in scale. As you've pointed out, and I've noted before, its almost more sensible to compare and model the way the Empire's navy is structured according to Age of Sail ratings and classification.

[Illuminatus Primus]

They aren't. Near as I can figure,
low - mid 10^23 - frigates
high 10^23, low 10^24 - escort destroyers
mid 10^24 destroyers
low 10^25 - light cruisers
mid 10^25 - medium cruisers
high 10^25 - heavy cruisers
low 10^26 - battlecruisers
mid-high 10^26 - dreadnaughts
10^27 extra big dreadnaughts (Executor, Soverign, Eclipse)

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Battlecruisers should not have smaller powerplants than battleships. In fact, many battlecruisers were longer than their battleship contemporaries to manage their high speed. If this correlates to high hyperdrive speed/range and superior sublight acceleration (which I believe it would, to allow CCs to be able to operate with other fast ships like Cs and DDs) then it should follow they might even need greater powerplants and engines to meet that standard.

[Connor MacLeod]

I agree, which is why the "modified Providence-class is much weaker than an ISD, so they ought to be different classes" in of itself is dubious argumentation.

Actually I suspect that the idea is that among the various navies the "star-cruisers" and "star destroyers" and all that other nonsense can vary in size and output and that those classifications can differ from other "star-class" ships in other navies (including the Imperial Navy.) (So a Star Cruiser in the Mon Cal Navy would be equivalent to an ISD in the Imperial Navy, etc.) In other words, its consistent within its own navy, but not neccesarily acorss other navies (but apparently the criteria and terminology is meant to apply to ALL navies. IE all destroyers, cruisers, frigates, etc. regardless of affiliation or differences in size/power are meant to be called "Star frgiates", "star cruisers", and "star destroyers" rather than battleship, cruiser, frigate, ,etc.)

I know all this, but it seemed as if he wants to appel classifications according to, roughly, orders of magnitude on the max power output of the warship's main reactor, which I do not agree with.

Well, firepower is pretty much tied to power output (unless the ship is armed with missiles or torpedoes) since to increase the firepower (without going for proejctile or missile weapons, or accepting a longer refire rate between shots) you need a bigger powerplant. Same is true with engines. If you want a bigger thrust, you need a bigger powerplant.

Also, at these required outputs, the ship is basically going to need a proportionally more massive fuel supply (or accept drastically reduced operational endurances. It doesn't scale linearly IIRC.) To give an ISD an executor-scale powerplant not only requires a bigger reactor, but it also requires a proportionally larger fuel supply unless you accept a much shorter operational duration (and if you're going to give a ship the huge fuel mass its powerplant requires, there's generally little reason not to increase the ship's dry mass.)

As we've seen with the Executor, it accelerates as fast as an ISD, but the required powerplant is larger beacuse its mass is larger. This also means it consequently has more power availalbe for its guns, so it invariably going to have greater firepower.

Recoil and internal volume are also issues. Unless you store that fuel at much greater densities in a smaller volume you invariably need greater internal volume to store larger fuel supplies (which of course will dictate a larrger ship.) And recoil should be fairly self evident - look at the Separatist frigate (a 3e26 joule gun with a recoil that propels the ship back at thousands of km/s with each shot.)

Clarity, consistency, and reform in SW classification is something I agree with, but not at the expense of still describing role, which is the whole point.

And how exactly does powerplant NOT play a factor in describing role, since roles are typically defined by factors like operational range, firepower, durability/protection, size, speed, etc. Only protection is not heavily tied into the powerplant (well only indirectly via sh ields, and apparently you dont NEED a very large powerplant to have powerful shields.)

I understand the attraction of tying it to stuff like power output as an empricial means of definition, but it really gets away from the original idea.

I don't possibly see how. The problem is largely in interpretation and how much "variation" is allowed (how much more densly can the fuel be compacted without excessive cost, ,or how much more compact a reactor can be designed... or the use of multiple reactors.. alternate fuel sources... differences in armament, etc.)

Anyway, I do not see how this comparable to SW; obsolesence should not exist in a traditional form in SW navies. Protected and armored cruisers were just casualties of by-gone eras of naval tactics and technology.

Older vessels still are used, ,even in Imperial service (Decades or even centuries old) and in certain navies (IE the Corporate sector) even older ships.

Besides there can be other legitimate reasons for obsolesence other than technology. Wear and tear is a simple one (durable as they are, ,SW ships aren't invincible after all and they need repairs and replacement parts and whatnot. Eventually the whole ship will be worn out to the point that replacement is cheaper for most navies.) Design differences or changes in doctrine can also lead to obsolecensce (the dominance of the carrier and guided-missile ships lead to the decline of battleships, after all. By analogy, compare the design transition between the ISD and Venator, or the shift from short-range hyperdrive "security force" vessels to long range trans-galactic warships like the Venator and Mandator.)

I know all of this. I am the one who wrote some of this in the Wiki.

Good for you.

They were not really different kinds. They were both trying to build cruisers that were larger than battleships but with less protection to serve as cruisers. The Germans were just more concerned about protection and less about firepower than the British, so the rifles aboard their battlecruisers were a bit smaller and the belt armor a bit thicker. They were both very much "Jackie Fisher" battlecruisers.

Not really. Fisher's concept was very specific, and the Germans (and Japanese) clearly built vessles that broke with that "definition.

Fisher's concept envisioned battleship-grade firepower (well nearly battleship grade) on a fast hull with much lighter protection than a battleship. The Germans sacrificed the size of their battery and built their ships more durably than the British (Better compartmentalization as well as better armor) and they accepted a somewhat slower design. Not exactly what I'd call conceptually the same under any of those criteria (British BC's had more firepower, were slightly faster, and had less durability, but the German BC's were tougher and still able to harm the British BCs.. and as later proven, speed was not nearly as much protection as Fisher had hoped.)

In fact, Jutland basically validated the German design - 3 British BC's were sunk, whereas only two German BC's were damaged (albeit heavily.) IIRC.

When it comes to two different kinds of battlecruisers, the pre-Jutland battlecruisers were built like cruisers, to serve as cruisers, and suffered all the deficiences thereof. Post-Jutland battlecruisers began evolving into a kind of fast battleship - HMS Hood is a good example of this trend. But they're not clearly defined.

Only for the British perhaps and that really only applies to speed and armor (they were the size of and armed like battleships by Fisherite concepts). The german design was basically an early version of the fast battleships (same principle - reduced armament to allow for greater durability while retaining higher speed.) They were most assuredly not built the way Fisherite BC's were.

The battlecruiser was not a failed concept accept for the fact that admirals found it irresistable to place it in fleet actions with its battleship-sized rifles. This was another reason why the Germans were more successful: their more poorly armed battlecruisers were not as tempting to put with the line of battle in harm's way.

Really? Then why did the British take such heavy BC losses when the Germans didn't? Why didn't the increased speed prove to be the "protection" that it was envisioned it would? (moreover, while they may have been effective commerce raiders, that didn't mean that smaller vessels couldn't be just as effective, as the "pocket battleships" demonstrated.

The fact their thin armor made them vulnerable in a way their speed couldn't compensate for IS a failing, pure and simple. Hence, the "fisherite" Battlecruisers were disposed of and succeeding battlecruisers all emphasized greater protection.

Comparison with contemporary warships and navies breaks down as you move up in scale. As you've pointed out, and I've noted before, its almost more sensible to compare and model the way the Empire's navy is structured according to Age of Sail ratings and classification.

Except things don't work out much better on the age of sail scheme either. It all comes back to basically being more vague, or more arbitrary.

[Connor MacLeod]

I realize this. But if we're throwing about "cruiser scale" and "destroyer scale", I think its preferable that some difference in apparent role is visible in the evidence, as opposed to nothing beyond "its bigger and has more power to feed to its guns."

The "difference in apparent role" in evidence is going to depend upon the basis upon which you base your comparison, and to some extent on how the person interprets the evidence. (As I mentioned, there are people who disagree over real-life classifications of different ships based on perception - its not going to be much better with the classifications of a fictional universe.)

Power rating is going to play a role in more than just firepower you know (accelerative capabilities as well, hyperdrive as well, and fuel endurance. These would qualify as "differences apparent in the evidence, you know.)

Dr. Saxton's website places even the much more powerful Allegiance in the destroyers.

Much more powerful compared to what?

[Connor MacLeod]

They aren't. Near as I can figure,
low - mid 10^23 - frigates
high 10^23, low 10^24 - escort destroyers
mid 10^24 destroyers
low 10^25 - light cruisers
mid 10^25 - medium cruisers
high 10^25 - heavy cruisers
low 10^26 - battlecruisers
mid-high 10^26 - dreadnaughts
10^27 extra big dreadnaughts (Executor, Soverign, Eclipse)

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Battlecruisers should not have smaller powerplants than battleships. In fact, many battlecruisers were longer than their battleship contemporaries to manage their high speed. If this correlates to high hyperdrive speed/range and superior sublight acceleration (which I believe it would, to allow CCs to be able to operate with other fast ships like Cs and DDs) then it should follow they might even need greater powerplants and engines to meet that standard.

Not all BC's had firepower equivalent ot Battleships though (the aforementioned german BC's for example.) Even the Invincible carried only 8 12 inch compared to the Dreadnought's 10 12-inch. The German Von Der Tann was even more lightly armed (German Nassau-class carried 6 dual 11 inch, and the Helgoland-class carried 6 dual 12 inchers)

Generally speaking, being as LARGE as or Larger than an Executor, with higher acceleration, is going to mean that the BC will have MORE raw firepower than a BB.

[Sea Skimmer]

In fact, Jutland basically validated the German design - 3 British BC's were sunk, whereas only two German BC's were damaged (albeit heavily.) IIRC.

One German battlecruiser, Lützow was sunk, all survivor suffered heavy damage. One had only a single main battery gun operational at one point, firing under local control, while another, Seydlitz, should have sunk by all rights.

Only for the British perhaps and that really only applies to speed and armor (they were the size of and armed like battleships by Fisherite concepts). The german design was basically an early version of the fast battleships (same principle - reduced armament to allow for greater durability while retaining higher speed.) They were most assuredly not built the way Fisherite BC's were.

Really? Then why did the British take such heavy BC losses when the Germans didn't? Why didn't the increased speed prove to be the "protection" that it was envisioned it would? (moreover, while they may have been effective commerce raiders, that didn't mean that smaller vessels couldn't be just as effective, as the "pocket battleships" demonstrated.

The fact their thin armor made them vulnerable in a way their speed couldn't compensate for IS a failing, pure and simple. Hence, the "fisherite" Battlecruisers were disposed of and succeeding battlecruisers all emphasized greater protection.

All three British battlecruisers which sank where lost to magazine explosions, other ships suffered considerable damage but in general the British BC's proved rugged enough and few shells pierced their main armor. Poor flash protection and unstable propellant charges did them in, not a lack of armor. Had German ships had the same charges as the British, they'd would have had at least one battlecruiser blow up. If the British had German charges, it's rather unlikely that any of there battlecruisers would have blown up.

[Connor MacLeod]

I should also note the above larrgely assumes that design and classifications are fairly strict and consistent across multiple starship builders for a given Navy (IE all the Imperial Navy ships use wedge-shaped vessels with the turrets mounted alng the sides of the command bridges, and that each ship uses a single large, spherical reactor for power). It also assumes that the technology used is consistent (IE all ships use just massless beam turbolasers rather than projectile weapons.) and does not allow for much if any variation without extreme cost (IE its impossible to make reactors more compact without serious compromises, or make fuels more dense, or things like that.)

Obviously there is still some question as to whether this is true or not (given that as I mentioned, Corellian warship designers build battleships that are no larger than Mon Cal "Home One" type cruisers, which would suggest that the "battleship" classification could extend much lower on the scale than otherwise suggested.)

[Connor MacLeod]

One German battlecruiser, Lützow was sunk, all survivor suffered heavy damage. One had only a single main battery gun operational at one point, firing under local control, while another, Seydlitz, should have sunk by all rights.

Conceded. I missed the part where it said it was sunk (scuttled?)

All three British battlecruisers which sank where lost to magazine explosions, other ships suffered considerable damage but in general the British BC's proved rugged enough and few shells pierced their main armor. Poor flash protection and unstable propellant charges did them in, not a lack of armor. Had German ships had the same charges as the British, they'd would have had at least one battlecruiser blow up. If the British had German charges, it's rather unlikely that any of there battlecruisers would have blown up.

Er, so then the British BC's flimsier armor would not have been a disadvatnage in that battle? (Their speed certainly was not sufficient to allow them to avoid gunfire, from my understanding.)

(I will concede that one other factor in favor of the Germans that I previously ignored was the poor penetration of British shells. Had they performed better, I imagine the Germans might have faired much worse.)

[NRS Guardian]

British BC's as conceived of by Fisher were to be cruiser and battlecruiser killers using the greater range of their battleship scale guns and their greater speed to stay just outside the range of German cruisers and battlecruisers while destroying their opponents. So speed was protection theoretically by dictating the range of the engagement and allowing the British to hit without being hit back, and the theory proved itself correct in every engagement except Jutland. The reason Jutland seemed to disprove Fisher's theory was first the BC's ended up meeting on reciprocal courses not allowing the British to hold the range open, also visibility favored the Germans, and due to pre-war budgetary constraints British BC's didn't have the gunnery practice that the Germans had, squandering long-range accuracy in favor of higher rates of fire.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Er, so then the British BC's flimsier armor would not have been a disadvatnage in that battle? (Their speed certainly was not sufficient to allow them to avoid gunfire, from my understanding.)

"Speed is protection" does not mean dodging shot. It means that the speed of the battlecruiser would allow it to choose its engagement ranges with particular ships. The battlecruisers were never supposed to be within effective range of battleship calibre weapons, mounted on battleships or battlecruisers, and they were slaughtered accordingly.

[Connor MacLeod]

Er, so then the British BC's flimsier armor would not have been a disadvatnage in that battle? (Their speed certainly was not sufficient to allow them to avoid gunfire, from my understanding.)

"Speed is protection" does not mean dodging shot. It means that the speed of the battlecruiser would allow it to choose its engagement ranges with particular ships. The battlecruisers were never supposed to be within effective range of battleship calibre weapons, mounted on battleships or battlecruisers, and they were slaughtered accordingly.

Yes, and that was all predicated on the assumption that BC's would have superior fire control (It would have the speed to prevent a Battleship from closing on it, while its fire control and firepower would allow it to obtain long-range hits on the ship.) It didn't have the FC advantage envisoned, so it lacked any sort of range advantage over battleships. Which is why they suffered from their flimsier armor.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Er, so then the British BC's flimsier armor would not have been a disadvatnage in that battle? (Their speed certainly was not sufficient to allow them to avoid gunfire, from my understanding.)

"Speed is protection" does not mean dodging shot. It means that the speed of the battlecruiser would allow it to choose its engagement ranges with particular ships. The battlecruisers were never supposed to be within effective range of battleship calibre weapons, mounted on battleships or battlecruisers, and they were slaughtered accordingly.

Yes, and that was all predicated on the assumption that BC's would have superior fire control (It would have the speed to prevent a Battleship from closing on it, while its fire control and firepower would allow it to obtain long-range hits on the ship.) It didn't have the FC advantage envisoned, so it lacked any sort of range advantage over battleships. Which is why they suffered from their flimsier armor.

They were not supposed to engage battleships at all. Your battleships are carrying the same guns and can use the same basic means of fire control and the same firepower (or more), and are to try and out-engage the enemy (the USN's fast battleships slaughtered the IJN's battleships at Lyte Gulf this very same way).

Involving the battlecruisers is a mere contrivance given that its still unpreferable to using your battleships which can use the same caliber guns and fire control, but have stronger armor. The intended use is for them to use speed to avoid engaging the battleships at all. They were not supposed to be used in fleet actions, aside from using their speed for scouting and spotting the enemy battleships while not being forced to engage.

A major flaw of the battlecruiser concept was that it became irresistable to employ them against battleships with their battleship caliber rifles. This was one way that the German battleships fared better. Their smaller caliber guns made them unattractive for engaging battleships, but still able to obliterate the most powerful armored cruiser and outrun battleships.

In any case, the battlecruisers as labeled in SW to not appear to be battlecruisers in a true sense of the word.

[NRS Guardian]

Nitpick:
All the BC's destroyed at Jutland were destroyed by other BC's. The BC Indefatigable was destroyed by the BC Von der Tann, and the BC Queen Mary was destroyed in a duel between her and the BC's Derfflinger and Seydlitz. Both British BC's were destroyed in the meeting engagment between the British and German battlecruiser fleets. The reason for the lopsided casualties in the meeting engagement were a deadly combination of bad light, higher speed, wind direction, lack of training, and improper fire distribution on the part of the British.
The BC Invincible (flagship of Hood) was destroyed by Derfflinger in a duel between the 3rd BCS and the BC's of the German battlecruiser fleet, while screening and scouting ahead of the main battle fleets, but not before mortally crippling the BC Lutzow.
Meaning the German BC's were able to, with alot of luck, rack up a 3-1 kill ratio. Also, the only BS's to fire upon BC's were the British fast battleships attached to the British battlecruiser fleet.