StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I don't know if its been discussed before but it seems to me that a lot of people refer to the Star Destroyer as a Destroyer. Now a Destroyer is a small escort ship for larger capital ships, this just doesn't seem right. Britain's common destroyer is the Type 42-Destroyer so does that mean there is the Imperator-class Destroyer? No its Imperator-class Star Destroyer, so perhaps a Star Destroyer is something totally different then a Destroyer? And theres the fact that the Starwars.com Databank entry for Star Destroyer (under the Movie tab, not EU) says

Height: (meant to be Length I think, or they are just strange people)
1,600 meters long
Manufacturer:
Kuat Drive Yards
Type:
Cruiser
Affiliation:
Empire

So clearly this is a Cruiser? I know how a lot of the people here see Starwars.com Databank as crap and they tend to dismiss it, even though it is funny enough Starwars.com.

Though not really mentioned, the Headquarters Frigate (Home One) is far from a frigate, and also designated a Cruiser on the databank. Maybe this goes to show you that you can't compare Star Wars designations with Real Life ones? I dunno, guess its time to get flamed by the regulars for having an opinion

Databank is not well compiled and doesn't know what a "height" and "length" are. They make errors which we are aware of, because unlike you, we've read the original sources.

Compared to the heavy Imperial ships, the ISD is a destroyer. It was often utilized as a cruiser since the Alliance had problems fielding cruisers that were even close to the ISD's mass.

In my opinion, yes, they are cruisers. In the novelization of ANH they were labelled as cruisers, in the movie of ANH they were also called cruisers (if I remember well).
The naval designation came from the task: torpedoboat-destroyer. The designation "star destroyer" can be interpreted in several ways, one of them is the cruiser-destroyer.
EDIT:
Besides, SW (at least the novelization) tends to refer every larger ship as a cruiser, eg: The republic cruiser. Both the corvette and the Nebulon-B were referred as cruisers.

Semantics. Nothing more. They can call it a "banana split" and it won't change what it is.

Mmmm ...
Rebell class Banana Starsplit?

SPOOFE wrote:Semantics. Nothing more. They can call it a "banana split" and it won't change what it is.

How about the role it fills?

The fact that it has a large contingency of fighters, and is not a carrier, already establishes that traditional naval terminology is negated. The Imperial/Imperator class is exactly what they say it is -- a stardestroyer.

If they call it a destroyer, they are lazy. If they call it a cruiser, that's because anything that does not fit exactly into an already existing role (carrier, battleship, frigate) results in a new type of cruiser (auxilliary cruiser, battlecruiser, attack cruiser -- respectively as examples). They fullfill similar roles, but are too different to be designated the same.

Battleship (vs) Battlecruiser (known as a pocket battleship to modern forces)
A battlecruiser has equal firepower of a battleship except less armor and mass. So even though it can get destroyed more easily, you can make more and have greater firepower than a fleet fielding just battleships. They are also cheaper to maintain, so when on a mission not requiring all crap loads of armor, go with a battlecruiser.

Super-Gagme wrote:Now a Destroyer is a small escort ship for larger capital ships, this just doesn't seem right.

You're trying to say they aren't escorts for larger ships? Have you ever watched the movies?

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/cards/wide/fleet.jpg

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/encounter.jpg

Your right, they're not destroyers. If you compare how small an ISD is compared to a SSD to how small a destroyer is to a Carrier or Battleship, corvette could be a more appropriate name.

How about the role it fills?

What about it? A destroyer was originally designed to take out enemy subs. Starships are far more analogous to submarines than they are to surface boats. And ISD's are excellent at taking out enemy starships.

Clearly, there's not a direct relationship between surface ship nomenclature and starship nomenclature.

Also note, Headquarters Frigate is the ships name, it's the not the Frigate Headquarters.

I would say that it is a ship of the line in the SW universe. They do not seem to fit into modern day categories, though I do tend to refer to them as cruisers myself due to its vague definition, so would seem to be a new category. Stardestroyer would seem to be that category, a type of vessel that is an assualt vessel and a anti-capshit vessel all in one. A true multi purpose warship that fulfills multiple roles at a reasonable level.

BTW, escorting bigger ships does not automaticly make it a destroyer.

Knife wrote:BTW, escorting bigger ships does not automaticly make it a destroyer.

In terms of scale and escort it is a destroyer.

The comparisons to the canon vessel of the Executor which is called a command ship, whereas the Imperator is called a destroyer, seem to confirm this status.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Knife wrote:BTW, escorting bigger ships does not automaticly make it a destroyer.

In terms of scale and escort it is a destroyer.

The comparisons to the canon vessel of the Executor which is called a command ship, whereas the Imperator is called a destroyer, seem to confirm this status.

No, the Executor is called both a 'command ship' and a 'stardestroyer' in RotJ. The Imperator is called both a cruiser (ANH) and a 'stardestroyer' (ESB & RotJ).

Of course a Imperator is smaller than a SSD and would perform escort duty, but that does not make them any more a destroyer than a WWII BB was when they escorted CV's. Being an escort for a larger more powerful ship only makes you an escort and does little to change the type and mission of the said craft. 'Stardestroyer' is obviously a new category that refers to the ability to take and hold 'starsystems' with both anti capship and ground assualt capacities and has little to do with the destruction of small torpedo boats.

When you take all known Imperial ship classes into account, the Imperator easily fits as a destroyer.

The name Destroyer comes from torpedo boat destroyer which is what they were designed to kill. after all it wasnt until the 1900s that Submarines started to be built the only ones before that were ...less than sucsessful The Hunley comes to mind

A lot are saying these are the smaller ships of the Imperial forces? It was my understanding they only had a few SSD's at the time of ROTJ so ALL of the Stardestroyers were built to escort SSD's? I think not, and I don't think you can consider artistic representation from comics as signs of larger ships. So where are these big ships that ISD's go around escorting? When they aren't busy taking worlds and engaging rebel fleets (sounds like a role of a destroyer..wait they didn't carry troops or fighters)

One must also note that the ship that transported Obi-Wan and Qui Gon is referred to as a Republic Cruiser.

Obviously,Star Wars terminology refers more to the Age of Sail than more modern terms,in which the term cruiser is given to any ship that "cruises".

The Stardestroyer is NOT a destroyer. For the size of the Empire it has to few of them. The ISD is used like a classic cruiser. It is large enough to lead its own battle groups, yet it can and will escort larger ships when needed. Yes, there is a massive size difference between the ISD and the SSD ships. That is because the SSD ships are, well, built absurdly large. Those things are super battleships, mobile battlestations, etc... The ISD fills a role most typicaly done by that of a cruiser. It commands formations, leads assaults, represents a significant level of firepower for the Imperial fleet, and rarely escorts larger ships. Strike Cruisers and Carrack Cruisers are much more along the lines of destroyers.

Now, if the SSD type ships had been built in the numbers they were originaly intended as, the ISD would most certainly have become a destroyer. It is not uncommon for a navy to redesignate the ships of the fleet based on new ships entering service. Had the Exector class replaced the ISD as originaly intended, the ISD would most certainly be relegated to destroyer status and missions while the Executors went out and scared the crap out of anyone who dared threaten the Empire. Aliegance ships would be heavy destroyer escorts, VSDs would be light destroyers. Eclipse and Sovereigns would be heavy level battleships while the Executor is a heavy cruiser. While the Executor is longer then either the Sovereign or Eclipse, its internal voume is far less and it being not in the same catagor as the other two is understandable.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... fleet2.jpg

It's a destroyer.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... mada1b.jpg

Another fleet.

Who remembers the theme from The Never Ending Story?

Replace 'story' with 'debate' and you've got my opinion of this thread.


*sits back, grabs popcorn*

(oh, and since I have authority here now, this will be the absolute last time this debate occurs).

NecronLord wrote:http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... fleet2.jpg

It's a destroyer.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... mada1b.jpg

Another fleet.

That proves nothing. Modern Heavy Cruisers have been used to escort ships. Hell, Aegis cruisers are used as escorts semi frequently. The difference is that a cruiser is designed with the capability to lead formations on its own and its a primary assault platform. On the other hand a destroyer is designed to protect ships within the fleet. The ISD can escort, but can do much more (as evidence by countless EU examples) and as such proves it is a cruiser.

PainRack wrote:One must also note that the ship that transported Obi-Wan and Qui Gon is referred to as a Republic Cruiser.

Obviously,Star Wars terminology refers more to the Age of Sail than more modern terms,in which the term cruiser is given to any ship that "cruises".

In which case, the Imperator would be akin to the Spanish Galleons. A 'floating' (in space, if you will) fortress or castle.

NecronLord wrote:http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... fleet2.jpg

It's a destroyer.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... mada1b.jpg

Another fleet.

Which means little actually. I can think of the US Carrier BG with various escort ships. Not all of them are 'destroyers' but all of them are escorts. Just becuase a cruiser is escorting a larger ship or a more important ship then itself, it does not make it a destroyer by default.

Also, imo, the simple fact that the word 'destroyer' appears in the title 'stardestroyer' is as incidental as 'laser' is in 'turbolaser' or 'light' in 'lightsaber' (not to mention its slang term 'laser sword').

The only thing that would possibly point towords a destroyer designation would be that it does escort larger more important ships. However, since I have already pointed out that various types of ships pull escort duty, you need to do better than that to make a stardestroyer a destroyer. Its other abilities do not imply a destroyer role. Massive starfighter capability, massive offensive weapons ability, and massive ground assualt ability. These are not the roles of a destroyer.

I did not claim that those pictures proved the ISD is a destroyer. They prove that there are a large number of ships between the ISD and the Excecutor class.

Though on reflection, this shows it better,



The imperator is four levels down, on the left. As you can see, there is a large range of ships. These are the Imperial ships, and should be distinguised from things like Dreadnaughts, which are pre imperial.

Strike Cruisers: Customs cutters, Special forces ships etc.

Carrack Cruisers: Frigate/Monitor.

Please note that it is canon that there are a large number of excexutor scale ships ("there are lots of command ships Luke")