Classification of ISDs

[Alyeska]

The Destroyer part just comes the "STAR DESTROYER" thing. It's just part of the name, as somebody said above. I'd put it around a battleship class, or dreadnaught.

Poor WEG/EU deluded one.

Read DE and observe some other comics as well as the Tech. Commentaries to get a much better scale of vessels in the SW Universe.

No, you are the deluded one. Just because there are SOME larger ships does not mean the ISD is not a cruiser. It completely fills the role of cruiser. It does NOT fit the role as destroyer. You are also neglecting the fact that there are VERY FEW of these other ships that are bigger then the ISD. At best a hundred Executors, a dozen Sovereigns, and 2 Eclipses. The Alliegance was seen a handful of times, as are all the other bigger ships.

You also continue to failt to recognize the fact that just because a ship has escorted larger ships does not automatically equate it to an escort ship. I have provided plenty of evidence that shows how a cruiser level ship is commonly used in a duel role of escort and offensive action. Destroyers are almost solely used as escort and rarely take part in active offensive action even when escorting ships taking part in such action.

[Currald]

Yeah, but read the novel,

I think not. Life is too short.

Then your opinion thereof is sadly irrelevent.

My opinion is irrelevent because I refuse to reread the Star Wars novel when you tell me to? If you were say, "Read page such-and-such of the novel," I could take you a bit more seriously. I'd rather avoid inflicting more Alan Dead Foster on myself than is strictly necessary, you understand.

its waste reference left over from original descriptions of the ISD.

"Waste reference???"

Original descriptions put the ISD as smaller, novel refers to it as a "lumbering cruiser, bristling with weaponry" IIRC and doesn't use the description Star Destroyer much.

"Original descriptions" where? In the novel?

Then often does use description in ESB.

Wha'? There's no subject in that sentence.

You have yet to explain "waste reference" to my satisfaction.

[Crayz9000]

You just provided the evidence that proves the ISD is a cruiser type ship. It performs offensive actions and command ship actions. Destroyers do not have this capability and would not be put in such a situation.

Modern-day destroyers, that is. I understand that we're using modern navies as a reference (otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere) but the fact remains that definitions in Star Wars may have changed somewhat from their terrestrial equivalents for reasons of scale, thus allowing a destroyer to serve as a commandship in a remote area.

[Alyeska]

You just provided the evidence that proves the ISD is a cruiser type ship. It performs offensive actions and command ship actions. Destroyers do not have this capability and would not be put in such a situation.

Modern-day destroyers, that is. I understand that we're using modern navies as a reference (otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere) but the fact remains that definitions in Star Wars may have changed somewhat from their terrestrial equivalents for reasons of scale, thus allowing a destroyer to serve as a commandship in a remote area.

So they have the occassional Carrack in command of a sector?

You keep failing to recognize the fact that the ISD fits the Cruiser definition perfectly. Hoth and Endor highlight this. Destroyers would have left 99% of the work to the Executor while just hanging around the Executor and warding off enemy attacks. The fact that the ISDs outnumbered the Executor THAT severly is proof enough that the Imperial fleet was relying on sheer force of offensive power to negate the need for lesser ships that the Rebels might possibly destroy. They conducted an offensive operation, using a BB and cruisers.

[Peregrin Toker]

No, this is not a slippery slope fallacy. You are using the claim that because ISD has Destroyer in its name it must be proof that its a destroyer. I am pointing out the problem with your assumption.

It IS a slippery slope fallacy. You state that one assumption immediately leads to another while ignoring the fact that any sane person can see that the SSD is a friggin' battleship, not a destroyer!!

You also point out just how "small" the ISD is compared to the larger ships. Yes, the ISD is quite small compared to them. However have you ever considered that rather then the ISD being small, these ships are absurdly large? Almost every single EU writer has described the ISD as being the premier Impierla warship and that its a massive ship. The SSD type ships are mentioned as being just absurdly large and part of the Empires ego. To them building a ship massively larger then their premier front line warships (VSD and ISD) is a way of showing off their power. As it is the Executor is UNDER ARMED for its size.

If the SSD represent the largest battleships the Empire can build and the ISD are the backbone of its fleets, then I wonder why there are so few of the ships in between.

It is not uncommon for writers of a series to make up their own ship designs. Most writers do not know the proper designations. And I never claimed the Empire screwed up their own designations. We have never seen the ISD referred to directly as a destroyer type ship. We have the basic description of 5 different ships using Star Destroyer. This alone proves that the ISD is not being described as a destroyer.

Lucasfilm could easily have called it an ISC or Imperator-Class Star Cruiser. I can't believe that there were nobody in the writing staff who knew anything about naval terminology.

You just provided the evidence that proves the ISD is a cruiser type ship. It performs offensive actions and command ship actions. Destroyers do not have this capability and would not be put in such a situation.

OK, then the ISD might qualify as a small cruiser. However, as it dwarfs the VSD, then I believe that the VSD has been retired from capital ship duties and is serving as a genuine destroyer. The ISD could be analogous to the oft-mentioned Dauntless-class Light Cruiser from BFG - ie. a ship with the size of a destroyer but the armaments of a cruiser.

Using one scifi group as an example like that doesn't really work. I can just as easily point out that in Freespace the larger ships are called Destroyers while the smallest capships are cruisers.

Some sci-fi writers know more about naval terminology than others. BTW, in Star Trek, cruisers are also bigger than destroyers so even Star Trek writers know about naval terminology!!!

And I just happen to know a great deal about

[Pcm979]

No, this is not a slippery slope fallacy. You are using the claim that because ISD has Destroyer in its name it must be proof that its a destroyer. I am pointing out the problem with your assumption.

It IS a slippery slope fallacy. You state that one assumption immediately leads to another while ignoring the fact that any sane person can see that the SSD is a friggin' battleship, not a destroyer!!

Recap:
Alyeska: The Imperial class Star Destroyer is a heavy cruiser because it fits that role.
You: It must be a Destroyer because it's called one.
Alyeska: Using your logic, an Executor-class SD is a destroyer because it's called one.
You: No, it's called a SUPER Star Destroyer and that's a slippery slope fallacy.
Alyeska: No it isn't. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. According to you, a SSD is a destroyer because it's called one.
You: It's OBVIOUS that an Executor isn't a destroyer.

Me: Eh? Where is this line where something called a destroyer suddenly isn't?

PS: If I missed a vital point, please feel free to correct me.

[MKSheppard]

Just HOW many Executor style ships were built?

[MKSheppard]

Light Battleship: Imperator Class SDs

Heavy Battleships: Allegiance Class SDs.

INSANELY POWERFUL COMMAND SHIPS: Executor (really isn't anything
you can compare them to in a wet navy)

[Alyeska]

Light Battleship: Imperator Class SDs

Heavy Battleships: Allegiance Class SDs.

INSANELY POWERFUL COMMAND SHIPS: Executor (really isn't anything
you can compare them to in a wet navy)

Heh. Nice to see someone on the other side of the scale.

[Alyeska]

Just HOW many Executor style ships were built?

IIRC we know about at least 10 of them. Given that they weren't considered THAT rare its generally speculated that a hundred or so were built, maybe a few more.

[MKSheppard]

Imperial Sourcebook says a single ISD is worth a squadron of smaller
ships in battle (about 6-14 smaller ships), so that's why I'm classing it
as a battleship.

[Alyeska]

Imperial Sourcebook says a single ISD is worth a squadron of smaller
ships in battle (about 6-14 smaller ships), so that's why I'm classing it
as a battleship.

Hmm, fair enough. Though a good Heavy cruiser is also equal to multiple destroyers, frigates, and corvettes. But going into the 14 range does show higher firepower.

[MKSheppard]

Hmm, fair enough. Though a good Heavy cruiser is also equal to multiple destroyers, frigates, and corvettes. But going into the 14 range does show higher firepower.

Fact is, even at 25,000 units produced, the ISD was still considered rare
in ESB, so that's another reason I tend to put it in the upper level of capital
shipdom

[Alyeska]

Hmm, fair enough. Though a good Heavy cruiser is also equal to multiple destroyers, frigates, and corvettes. But going into the 14 range does show higher firepower.

Fact is, even at 25,000 units produced, the ISD was still considered rare
in ESB, so that's another reason I tend to put it in the upper level of capital
shipdom

I wouldn't call it THAT rare. It was one of the most obvious signs of the empire. With 24 of them per system, you ran into them quite frequently.

[MKSheppard]

I wouldn't call it THAT rare. It was one of the most obvious signs of the empire. With 24 of them per system, you ran into them quite frequently.

*thwap*

24 per SECTOR Fleet, which was the total naval power assigned to a
sector.......out of 1,000+ other combat starships.

[MKSheppard]

24 per SECTOR Fleet, which was the total naval power assigned to a
sector.......out of 1,000+ other combat starships.

Quoth the ISB:

http://daltonator.net/mks/ISB/TOC.htm

Ch 8: Sec Grp Org

Sector Group

A Sector Group is the sum total of Naval strength which the Empire expects to commit to a normal sector. A Sector Group is commanded by a high admiral, usually a title granted to the Moff who heads the sector. If the sector is involved in constant and severe naval actions, the high admiral is a man distinct from the Moff, so the Moff does not have devote all of his time to the naval conflict.

A Sector Group HQ always has a squadron under the personal command of the Moff. If the Moff is particularly competent or politically well connected, they can have many more squadrons at their disposal. Men such as Grand Moff Tarkin and Moff Carlinson could easily have 15 additional squadrons attached to their Sector Group HQ.

A Sector Group can be expected to contain at least 2,400 ships, 24 of which are Star Destroyers, and another 1,600 combat starships. Thousands of Sector Groups are at the Emperor’s command as he seeks to bring the galaxy firmly under his control.

[Alyeska]

I wouldn't call it THAT rare. It was one of the most obvious signs of the empire. With 24 of them per system, you ran into them quite frequently.

*thwap*

24 per SECTOR Fleet, which was the total naval power assigned to a
sector.......out of 1,000+ other combat starships.

Doh, I always get system confused with sector. But yet, I do know there are 1,000 of those sector fleets.

[MKSheppard]

Doh, I always get system confused with sector. But yet, I do know there are 1,000 of those sector fleets.

Which multiplied by 24 gives you 24,000 ISDs, a remarkable approximation
of the official numbers in VOTF

[Alyeska]

Doh, I always get system confused with sector. But yet, I do know there are 1,000 of those sector fleets.

Which multiplied by 24 gives you 24,000 ISDs, a remarkable approximation
of the official numbers in VOTF

And that leaves 1,000 ISDs to be used in various other combat groups. Example, the Death Squadron.

[MKSheppard]

And that leaves 1,000 ISDs to be used in various other combat groups. Example, the Death Squadron.

The Galaxy's a big place. I seem to recall that the Emperor kept most of
his ISD fleet in the deep core reserves....

Either way, only 25,000 ISDs to cover a galaxy..that's gonan leave
a lot of open spots for rebels to attack, hence the need for smaller
cruisers, frigates, and corvettes to patrol areas that don't have ISDs
in them...

[Crazy_Vasey]

And that leaves 1,000 ISDs to be used in various other combat groups. Example, the Death Squadron.

The Galaxy's a big place. I seem to recall that the Emperor kept most of
his ISD fleet in the deep core reserves....

I don't think he startred that till post ROTJ.

[Crayz9000]

Modern-day destroyers, that is. I understand that we're using modern navies as a reference (otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere) but the fact remains that definitions in Star Wars may have changed somewhat from their terrestrial equivalents for reasons of scale, thus allowing a destroyer to serve as a commandship in a remote area.

So they have the occassional Carrack in command of a sector?

Very funny. I meant that as in we've seen ISDs serve in a command-like mode... and if they are indeed destroyers, then it means that occasionally a destroyer will be in a command role.

Assuming that an Imperator is a destroyer, a Carrack is a frigate or heavy corvette, which fits in with the CR-90 being classed as a corvette.

You keep failing to recognize the fact that the ISD fits the Cruiser definition perfectly. Hoth and Endor highlight this. Destroyers would have left 99% of the work to the Executor while just hanging around the Executor and warding off enemy attacks. The fact that the ISDs outnumbered the Executor THAT severly is proof enough that the Imperial fleet was relying on sheer force of offensive power to negate the need for lesser ships that the Rebels might possibly destroy. They conducted an offensive operation, using a BB and cruisers.

The Imperators were in a screening role at Hoth. As the fleet moved closer to the sixth planet, the Imperators spread out in an attempt to catch fleeing Rebel transports. They then came under fire.

During the asteroid field chase, the TIE fighters were the ones actually chasing the Falcon at close range. The Imperators hung back slightly, using the TIEs to try and draw the Falcon (a light freighter; surely it wouldn't be a real threat to a destroyer, much less a cruiser?) in range of their tractor beams.

In any event, the Imperators were always screening the Executor during the Battle of Hoth.


At Endor, we had the same situation; the Imperators stayed in a cloud around the Executor, ONLY opening fire on the Rebels when they closed range and began to attack the Executor. They purposefully began taking fire to protect the battleship, although it was ultimately unsuccessful.

In every major engagement, Imperators have served in a supporting role to larger ships. The only cases in which they have gone offensive on their own was in less-populated sectors... such as Tatooine in ANH, or when chasing a light freighter in the Anoat system.

[MKSheppard]

Assuming that an Imperator is a destroyer, a Carrack is a frigate or heavy corvette, which fits in with the CR-90 being classed as a corvette.

GARGH! An ISD is a freaking CRUISER/Battleship....take a look at it's
own freaking SPECIFICIATIONS: "Equal to a Squadron of other
Ships (14-60 ships) in the ISB.

At Endor, we had the same situation; the Imperators stayed in a cloud around the Executor, ONLY opening fire on the Rebels when they closed range and began to attack the Executor. They purposefully began taking fire to protect the battleship, although it was ultimately unsuccessful.

In every major engagement, Imperators have served in a supporting role to larger ships. The only cases in which they have gone offensive on their own was in less-populated sectors... such as Tatooine in ANH, or when chasing a light freighter in the Anoat system.

Again, give me a freaking EXAMPLE of a modern wet navy ship that
is 17.6 kilometres long and has it's own manufacturing capabilites
on board and is capable of docking CAPITAL ships inside it's own
hangar bays...That's the EXECUTOR....

Of course you're going to screen your UBER COMMAND SHIP
from enemy fire with smaller ships.....

[Crayz9000]

<snip>

You know what? I don't give a shit about what West End Games says. With their well-documented major screwups, they might as well have been run by Paramount's continuity department.

They call the Carrack a cruiser, while calling the almost same-sized Lancer a frigate. Care to explain that one?

[Crayz9000]

Again, give me a freaking EXAMPLE of a modern wet navy ship that is 17.6 kilometres long and has it's own manufacturing capabilites on board and is capable of docking CAPITAL ships inside it's own
hangar bays...That's the EXECUTOR....

Of course you're going to screen your UBER COMMAND SHIP
from enemy fire with smaller ships.....

You're forgetting the differences of scale. Isn't it funny how a Carrack is almost as long as our longest warships, the nuclear aircraft carriers? How about show me a mile-long warship that seems to work in a destroyer role?

If the Imperator is a destroyer, there is no conflict with the Executor being a battleship/commandship as Saxton has suggested. There is also no conflict with the size of the Corellian Corvette, or the Lancer Frigate.