"Big Corellians Ships"

[Illuminatus Primus]

And that would be a fine goal, up to the point when you started throwing your weight around and saying that ISDs are destroyers, because you said so.

Right. You never refuted my fleet analogies, except for suggesting that British amphibious troopships are more analogous to the Executor than a Nimitz supercarrier.

Last but not least, when did I say that "sloops" and "frigates" would have more displacement than a ship of the line? Yup, that's right, nowhere. That's your own idealisation. I noted that a ship would have a dual classification, one between

Idiot, you said this was justified by citing the multiple-mast designation within Age of Sail roles.

1. Roles

2. Fighting powress

What the fuck does "fighting prowess" mean?

So, a ship that had the role of cruiser, could be dwarfed by a "frigate",

Damn, does this explain how a Lancer frigate is smaller than a Carrack cruiser? A ISD over a Nebulon-B?

because the Guardian class cruiser is dwarfed by an Assault frigate.

You use this one example, ignoring the fact that the Guardian is a Systems Patrol Craft by WEG, and that her deeming a cruiser is probably a brand name (as suggested by Saxton's official and LFL-endorsed interview) and the same story with the Modular Taskforce Cruiser from DE.

Naturally, dumbfuck argues that ISDs are like WW2 cruisers, then argues frigates can be bigger than cruisers because that's the way it was in the Age of Sail.

And of course, since we do know that cruisers were created that were dwarfed by frigates in the Age of sail, you just introducing red herrings across the board.

You need to be introduced to the concept of internal consistency.

Quite frankly my carrier analogy much better fits the ISD (you ignore the command ship and light aircraft support the DDG has). And now you're just drooling internally inconsistent bullshit.

cruis·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krzr)
n.
One of a class of fast warships of medium tonnage with a long cruising radius and less armor and firepower than a battleship.

cruiser

n 1: a car in which policemen cruise the streets; equipped with radiotelephonic communications to headquarters [syn: patrol car, police car, prowl car, squad car] 2: a large fast warship; smaller than a battleship and larger than a destroyer 3: has a cabin and plumbing and other conveniences necessary for living on board [syn: cabin cruiser, pleasure boat, pleasure craft]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

destroyer

n 1: a small fast lightly armored but heavily armed warship [syn: guided missile destroyer] 2: a person who destroys; "a destroyer of the environment" [syn: ruiner]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

When you compare the speed and defense to Mon Cal cruisers, you definitely start to see something.

Of course PainRack here is just going to argue ships are "Age of Sail cruisers" when they fit his argument, and when they don't, then they become "WW2 cruisers" instead.

[PainRack]

Right. You never refuted my fleet analogies, except for suggesting that British amphibious troopships are more analogous to the Executor than a Nimitz supercarrier.

Or how US cruisers escorted Us Fast Attack carriers on Pacific raids. Again, the emphasis was on "escort". IOW, a cruiser can do exactly what your "destroyer" can.

Idiot, you said this was justified by citing the multiple-mast designation within Age of Sail roles.

I said that in reference to how ships-of-the-line were classified by the number of masts they had, in addition to guns,mass, etc etc etc. Not sloops and frigates, and I said that in context to the "fighting powress" of the ship.

What the fuck does "fighting prowess" mean?

Okay, here's a more technical term for you then.
"Combat capability"
Any more nitpicks?

Damn, does this explain how a Lancer frigate is smaller than a Carrack cruiser? A ISD over a Nebulon-B?

Yes. Because the SWU clearly does not delinate mass as the key and sole differential between the type of the ship.

You use this one example, ignoring the fact that the Guardian is a Systems Patrol Craft by WEG, and that her deeming a cruiser is probably a brand name (as suggested by Saxton's official and LFL-endorsed interview) and the same story with the Modular Taskforce Cruiser from DE.

Of course, I can then bring up Carrack vs ISD, Neb B against Guardian, Loronar against ISD and so on and forth. And of course, while we're on this track, why isn't the ISD, a brand name? Especially since the term Imperial Star destroyer, was applied to the Executor in canon?

Naturally, dumbfuck argues that ISDs are like WW2 cruisers, then argues frigates can be bigger than cruisers because that's the way it was in the Age of Sail.

Oooh! Another red herring!
Didn't you read the part where I said the SWU doesn't delinate class based solely on mass? I mean, this was where you challenged me and said your system was better, remember? And of course, this was where I replied that if the Republic Cruiser and the Imperial Cruiser, are cruisers, or if we wish to be more anal, the Republic Cruiser and the Loronar Strike Cruiser are cruisers, that obviously support my point, but noooo, IP continues to nitpick and miss the issues involved

You need to be introduced to the concept of internal consistency.

You need to remember that the SWU doesn't classify ships by our modern catalogue, and our inherent assumptions that a vessel of a certain type is superior in "combat capability" then another is not inherently true in the SWU.

Quite frankly my carrier analogy much better fits the ISD (you ignore the command ship and light aircraft support the DDG has). And now you're just drooling internally inconsistent bullshit.

Your "carrier" analogy, was attached to the Executor, and that ISDs, are modern day "DDGs" attached to supercarrier task force. Never mind the fact that the US government reclassified them as cruisers, showing that my point, that mass does not define the class of ships is valid in real life. Never mind the fact that as you said, the Spruance class and the Ticonderoga hullforms are similar in tonnage, thus once again proving my point that the classification of the ships do not solely revolve around mass. Of course, ignore my points about how it is the mission roles and "prestige" factor that caused the US government to reclassify the Aegis destroyers, as cruisers. Then in a similar fit of blindness, turn around and say that the ISDs, can't perform show the flag missions because the words "intimidate" and "subdue" are "subjective".

You JUST, have to inisist that your viewpoint, is accurate. Sure it is, from a "certain point of view". Never mind that your facts better support my system than yours.

When you compare the speed and defense to Mon Cal cruisers, you definitely start to see something.

Of course PainRack here is just going to argue ships are "Age of Sail cruisers" when they fit his argument, and when they don't, then they become "WW2 cruisers" instead.

Oh, look! Another RED HERRING! I mean, I only just told you that the Age of Sail you pulled was utter bullshit, and the "cruisers" argument was part of the "mass isn't everything and that frigates can be bigger than cruisers". And that the Age of Sail, is only relevent to the debate as the "dual classification" rating, not as to the actual type of ISD. But no, we still continue on this trial up into the Misty mountains. Ta Ta! I'm staying here on planet Earth.

Man, if it wasn't the fact that you can reference sources better than Darkstar and I'm not jumping around the roof in total frustration, I would have thought you were him, considering the way you continually misread my post.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Or how US cruisers escorted Us Fast Attack carriers on Pacific raids. Again, the emphasis was on "escort". IOW, a cruiser can do exactly what your "destroyer" can.

Air support? Right.

I said that in reference to how ships-of-the-line were classified by the number of masts they had, in addition to guns,mass, etc etc etc. Not sloops and frigates, and I said that in context to the "fighting powress" of the ship.

Which is not a historical precedent for "combat prowess."

Yes. Because the SWU clearly does not delinate mass as the key and sole differential between the type of the ship.

Sorry shithead, but you can't pick and choose cruiser definitions based on which supports your argument at the time. Mass is part of the definition.

Of course, I can then bring up Carrack vs ISD, Neb B against Guardian, Loronar against ISD and so on and forth. And of course, while we're on this track, why isn't the ISD, a brand name? Especially since the term Imperial Star destroyer, was applied to the Executor in canon?

I never denied that moron. The SDs (Vic and Imp) were developed before the Empire begin calling everything SDs.

And I see you don't address the point but instead flip it around.

And of course, this was where I replied that if the Republic Cruiser and the Imperial Cruiser, are cruisers, or if we wish to be more anal, the Republic Cruiser and the Loronar Strike Cruiser are cruisers, that obviously support my point, but noooo, IP continues to nitpick and miss the issues involved

Or different manufactures and historians used different systems, rather than fabricating a universal in-universe system which disregards the definition of the words.

You need to remember that the SWU doesn't classify ships by our modern catalogue, and our inherent assumptions that a vessel of a certain type is superior in "combat capability" then another is not inherently true in the SWU.

A cruiser escorts battleships and carrier and is a direct combatant against other warships. A frigate is a support vessel. How can a cruiser be smaller than a frigate?

The best explanation is different naval forces have different masses of cruiser and frigate. A Moff is going to class his ISDs as battleships or cruisers because they're not going to encounter any larger of vessels, and ships like the Dreadnought and Carrack escort them.

The Empire is a federalized body you know, the Sectors and Oversectors are semiautonomous.

Never mind the fact that the US government reclassified them as cruisers, showing that my point, that mass does not define the class of ships is valid in real life.

No it doesn't. You've been told repetatively the Ticonderoga is a cruiser only in name, and that modern CGs are indestinguishable from DDGs. You've repetatively whored the semantics. They can call it whatever they please--what it does is a DDG. And her successor is the DD(X). The ship is a rebuild of a DD hull for Christ's sake. Why is Skimmer, Ender, and Vympel wrong about the Ticonderoga? Why don't you answer that? And if this supported your point, than why spread BS about the Brits at Egypt in reply? And naturally you isolate the Ticonderoga, rather than the Arliegh Burke-class or the Spruance, or the DD(X). You pick and choose analogies where you can ad hoc insert them into your slapdash little "system" to benefit your insistance that the ISD is a cruiser, rather than the big picture.

Never mind the fact that as you said, the Spruance class and the Ticonderoga hullforms are similar in tonnage, thus once again proving my point that the classification of the ships do not solely revolve around mass.

Of course, ignore my points about how it is the mission roles and "prestige" factor that caused the US government to reclassify the Aegis destroyers, as cruisers.

You never said that, idiot, and Skimmer shot this shit down. The CG's role is indestinguishable from a destroyer. It is a destroyer. No true cruisers have been seen since WW2.

Then in a similar fit of blindness, turn around and say that the ISDs, can't perform show the flag missions because the words "intimidate" and "subdue" are "subjective".

I suppose you'll deny the fact that modern DDGs can serve as command ships, as Ender gave an example (analogous to SW too) and you outright ignored. Go fuck yourself. I'm sick of your picking and choosing and ignoring.

You JUST, have to inisist that your viewpoint, is accurate. Sure it is, from a "certain point of view". Never mind that your facts better support my system than yours.

Look at this backhanded shit? "You say you're right, and now I'm going to say you're a liar, and do exactly what I just said you do." Fuck yourself PainRack.

Oh, look! Another RED HERRING! I mean, I only just told you that the Age of Sail you pulled was utter bullshit, and the "cruisers" argument was part of the "mass isn't everything and that frigates can be bigger than cruisers".

YES, IN AGE OF SAIL ROLE DESIGNATION, A CRUISER IS A SMALL VESSEL, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT USING THAT, HOW DOES THAT SAY "FUCK ALL" TO MASS CONSIDERATIONS WITH DESIGNATION?

You are not using the Age of Sail designation system, so it does not support your argument. Your system is distinct. Cruisers were fast small ships, sloop or smaller. Tonnage did matter even then.

And that the Age of Sail, is only relevent to the debate as the "dual classification" rating, not as to the actual type of ISD. But no, we still continue on this trial up into the Misty mountains. Ta Ta! I'm staying here on planet Earth.

Yeah, sing to the crowd PainRack. You ignore my dual system, even though its painfully simple: the Moff's sectors have a different set of missions and enemies in scale and nature, so their battleships/cruisers and frigates and such are all going to be proportionally smaller. While the ISD is a destroyer in the galactic dagger-ship strategic fleet.

Man, if it wasn't the fact that you can reference sources better than Darkstar and I'm not jumping around the roof in total frustration, I would have thought you were him, considering the way you continually misread my post.

Whatever asshole. You haven't cited a single thing, and ignored the fact that WEG itself said that the Guardian is a systems patrol craft with role, and totally dropped those lines of your argument. You're a dishonest picking-and-choosing little fuck, who never addresses the numerous quotes and statements of two USN sailors, two military buffs, etc., etc. numerous examples, of which you never give any.

[PainRack]

Air support? Right.

And since when did you say the ISD was a "carrier"? And of course, since when did "destroyers" carry a full combat wing of fighters? Even the RN plans was for each destroyer to have 2-6 VTOLs only.

Which is not a historical precedent for "combat prowess."

It is a historical precedent for a seperate classification in which the combat ability of the ships were rated and one of the methods that were used were the masts a ship had.

Sorry shithead, but you can't pick and choose cruiser definitions based on which supports your argument at the time. Mass is part of the definition.

Not when the Republic Cruiser, and the Imperial Cruiser, the Carrack cruiser, the Loronar Cruiser, the Guardian Cruiser and the Byss cruisers/battlecruisers exist.

I never denied that moron. The SDs (Vic and Imp) were developed before the Empire begin calling everything SDs.

And I see you don't address the point but instead flip it around.

What fucking point? That the "particular" example was flawed? When I actually had a whole caseload of examples to display, and that its impossible to attach "brand name" to every single one of them? Or that the case is equally applicable to you?

Or different manufactures and historians used different systems, rather than fabricating a universal in-universe system which disregards the definition of the words.

Or the definition of the words, with all its inate connations and assumptions, is not what IP wants them to be, but instead, is much more broader.

A cruiser escorts battleships and carrier and is a direct combatant against other warships. A frigate is a support vessel. How can a cruiser be smaller than a frigate?

That assumption relies on the belief, that a cruiser can destroy a battleship, but a frigate cannot. That isn't true now, remember how the Israelites used a PFC to destroy Egyptian corvettes. While not directly applicable to the SWU, it does show how inherent assumptions does not neccesarily cross over.

The best explanation is different naval forces have different masses of cruiser and frigate. A Moff is going to class his ISDs as battleships or cruisers because they're not going to encounter any larger of vessels, and ships like the Dreadnought and Carrack escort them.

The Empire is a federalized body you know, the Sectors and Oversectors are semiautonomous.

Except that the RN, never reclassified RAN warships on that factor. RAN destroyers remained as destroyers, not battleships.

No it doesn't. You've been told repetatively the Ticonderoga is a cruiser only in name, and that modern CGs are indestinguishable from DDGs. You've repetatively whored the semantics. They can call it whatever they please--what it does is a DDG. And her successor is the DD(X). The ship is a rebuild of a DD hull for Christ's sake. Why is Skimmer, Ender, and Vympel wrong about the Ticonderoga? Why don't you answer that? And if this supported your point, than why spread BS about the Brits at Egypt in reply? And naturally you isolate the Ticonderoga, rather than the Arliegh Burke-class or the Spruance, or the DD(X). You pick and choose analogies where you can ad hoc insert them into your slapdash little "system" to benefit your insistance that the ISD is a cruiser, rather than the big picture.

How indistinguishable are they, when modern CGs do not specialise in ASW, AA and etc etc, when we see that this is the role of the modern destroyer?
And last of all, can you fucking explain to me why the "cruiser" in name only, doesn't fucking apply to your "destroyer" in name only? Or more importantly, how the fact that the mass of the ship, didn't factor into the classification of the ship by the authorities?

I suppose you'll deny the fact that modern DDGs can serve as command ships, as Ender gave an example (analogous to SW too) and you outright ignored. Go fuck yourself. I'm sick of your picking and choosing and ignoring.

FUCK. Then have Ender come up here and proclaim that the USN, will dedicate destroyers for VIP transport and show the flag missions singularly. Have Ender come up here and deny that cruisers can serve as command ships.
Are you fucking dense? I clearly showed that the ISD had roles that the destroyer do not fulfill, and that all the mission roles you said that prove the ISD is a destroyer, were also fulfilled by cruisers too. So, what else is going to be new? That the asteroid belt isn't orbiting around the sun because the planet Earth orbits around the sun?

YES, IN AGE OF SAIL ROLE DESIGNATION, A CRUISER IS A SMALL VESSEL, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT USING THAT, HOW DOES THAT SAY "FUCK ALL" TO MASS CONSIDERATIONS WITH DESIGNATION?

You are not using the Age of Sail designation system, so it does not support your argument. Your system is distinct. Cruisers were fast small ships, sloop or smaller. Tonnage did matter even then.

Ooohhhh! Then perhaps the Admiral Ushakov, a battlecruiser, should be reclassified as a battleship then. Then the Wasp should be reclassified as a light carrier then. Then the Americans should reclassify their cruisers as destroyers then.

Now that I played your tune, are you fucking dense? I just said that "cruisers" were termed cruisers, because of the role they played. IOW, it was the role that mattered, not the tonnage. They were fast ships that cruised. They had any number of mission objectives, from guiding SOLs to chasing down smugglers. In the Age of Sail, cruisers were essentially small, virtually unarmed ships. As technology improved, an entirely new generation of ships evolved that became fast moving, gun-armed warships that could either operate independtly or with the SOL.

So, tell me again, where, oh where, was my basic point, about the Age of Sail using a dual classification system, actually not consistent?

Yeah, sing to the crowd PainRack. You ignore my dual system, even though its painfully simple: the Moff's sectors have a different set of missions and enemies in scale and nature, so their battleships/cruisers and frigates and such are all going to be proportionally smaller. While the ISD is a destroyer in the galactic dagger-ship strategic fleet.

Except that while there is a historical precedent for mine, there is none for yours. Except that while there actually is canonical and EU evidence that cruisers encompass a wide range of ships, there is only speculation for yours viewpoint that cruisers occupy a narrow niche in tonnage.

Whatever asshole. You haven't cited a single thing, and ignored the fact that WEG itself said that the Guardian is a systems patrol craft with role, and totally dropped those lines of your argument. You're a dishonest picking-and-choosing little fuck, who never addresses the numerous quotes and statements of two USN sailors, two military buffs, etc., etc. numerous examples, of which you never give any.

Really? How did I ignore that when I specifically said that RAN cruisers also led the hunts against pirates prior to WWI?
How did I not address the numerous quotes and statements of your experts? especially when I replied that they didn't contradict me at all?

May I remind you that the US government, decided that the Ticonderga ships are "cruisers", not destroyers? And that by this sheer act, it proves my point that mass is not the sole designation of type? that something as innocous as political will can come in? But of course, you will ignore this and say the Aegis ships only perform destroyer roles. Never mind the fact that while "true" cruisers could and did operate independtly, whereas destroyers do not. Never mind the fact that "true" cruisers did lead naval task forces and destroyers usually do not. Or to be more accurate since you're so nitpickery, destroyers do not lead naval task forces on an intra-oceanic journey.

[Crown]

I enjoy a good flaim bait as much as the next guy, but when dealing with Navies and their ship identifications, you might as well try pining water to a wall. The terms 'destroyers' and 'cruisers' and pretty much all the other ones have been twisted, bent, warped and slightly punctured througout time.

Shit, I think aircraft carrier is about the only one that hasn't gone through this treatment.

I think you are all bringing up good points, but how exactly could you resolve this issue? What I mean, what's a home run in this debate?

[McC]

I'll say upfront that I haven't read the whole thread, nor do I want to enter into the debate. I just want to offer this as food for thought.

I have always regarded the movie 'cruiser' quotes to be a generic appelation for a space-going vessel. "Looks like an Imperial cruiser. Our passengers must be hotter..." I always took this to mean that it was an Imperial space vessel -- not specifically of the cruiser classification. He could have easily said, "Imperial ship" and had the same effect. This idea extends to any use of 'cruiser' throughout the movies. I don't ever take it to be a military classification, but rather a generic term. Like "car." To attempt to draw an analogy, I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee, Laredo. Specifically speaking, it's 'classed' as a Sport Utility Vehicle. Nevertheless, I'll often simply refer to it as "the car" (occasionally, I'll say "the Jeep"). This is, in my mind, analogous to using the term "Imperial cruiser" to describe an Imperial Star Destroyer...or a Naboo diplomatic yacht...or a Republic diplomatic transport...or a Mon Calamari star cruiser.

So, basically what I'm saying, at the risk of sounding excessively redundant, is that "(star) cruiser" may simply be a colloquial shorthand for "space ship." Star Destroyer and so on may be actual designations.

That's all I have to say...although I'll probably reply to anyone who addresses my comments.

[vakundok]

Well many replies since I last had time to read and answer ...

Crown: I think it is about the importance of the ISDs and the relative number of larger ships.

I finally got what Vympel and IP suggest. I hope.
In your proposal, the size is an important factor, but there are more classification systems in paralell use (depending on authority of the classifier).
So, a Star Frigate (if there is any) equals to a destroyer or light cruiser thus wearing both classification simoultaneously. It would explain why a heavy cruiser is smaller than a star destroyer. Am I right?

The Executor labelled as star destroyer is still a problem. And the two references as command ship do not help a lot since even in a group consisting the same class of vessels there is a leader, in other words a command ship.

Also this does not explain either that the Nebulon-B was referred both as a star cruiser and as a frigate or that the H1 was named as HQ frigate in the novelisation (H1 was the call sign).