StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A few minor things I'm wondering about.

The bridge tower. What is it for? Shouldn't the bridge be in a more armoured position? Is there an in universe explanation or are they just suposed to look good?

And why are they called destroyers? Were they originaly conceived as escorts (either in universe or real life), or was the name just picked on a whim?

Anyone know any of the answers?

The bridge tower is a holdover from traditional water-bound naval ships, which have the command bridge in a structure with an elevated position above the main hull of the ship for greater visibility. The amount of armour and shielding on ISDs mostly eliminates any extra vulnerability to the tower (excluding the fluke that brought down Executor at Endor during a capital ship assualt, of course).

I can't really answere the second question, and will just state that I'm already regreting the enevitable huge-ass discussion/debate that will result from someone asking about either SD naming or role...

Actually, I can sort of answer the real life reason for the name.

During the writing process of the Star Wars (ANH) script drafts, the term "Star Destroyer" originally refered to a small angular two-man starfighter used by the group of Rebels in the assualt against the Imperial space fortress. Later on the idea of the fighter was dropped and the term was applied to a large and powerful Imperial capital ship.

The original idea for the fighter was later picked up and recycled into the Jedi Starfighter for AotC.

In the real-world, the navigation bridge typically has been unarmored (or even exposed, as was the case with many ships in World War II). The flag bridge may also be unarmored.

The armored conning tower is separate from the bridge itself, however.

The bridge tower. What is it for? Shouldn't the bridge be in a more armoured position? Is there an in universe explanation or are they just suposed to look good?

To give a large unobstructed view of the forward arc, though why it isn't via a viewscreen and the bridge itself burried deep in the ship? *shrug shoulders*

Though with SW shield tech and hull having good armor, I guess they thought it was a negligable threat. Plus, the SD isn't all controled by the con tower or the bridge so the loss of the conn tower won't cripple the ship in of itself.

Also remember that the conning tower isn't exactly a flimsy piece of the ship either.

And why are they called destroyers? Were they originaly conceived as escorts (either in universe or real life), or was the name just picked on a whim?

Probably on a whim.

"And they call him the Sand Spike!"

"Why?"

"Probably because it sounds scary."

You'll get alot of differnt opinions here. Some take the name Stardestroyer and the fact that it is observed escorting the Executor, meaning it is a Destroyer. Supported by the comics that show various other, larger ships.

Personally, I think that calling it a destroyer based on its name is as silly as calling Turbo Laser a laser because it has 'laser' in the name or a light saber a 'laser' because it was refered to as a 'laser sword'.

But thats me.

In the movies, they are the front line ships. Weather you want to call them 'Ships of the Line' or BB or CB or just plain old cruisers (as Han refers to them in ANH), you would not be alone.

Though the possibility that a Stardestroyer is a new ship classification is possible though not backed up in the EU. Something akin to the do it all in one ship that combines the troop capacity of Acclamators and the dedicated warship capacity of the Victory.

A GE version of the Galleons in the age of sail. Floating fortresses full of guns and troops to open a can o whoop ass on whom ever they want.

Prozac the Robert wrote:The bridge tower. What is it for? Shouldn't the bridge be in a more armoured position? Is there an in universe explanation or are they just suposed to look good?

Bridge tower itself is something of a misnomer. The bridge itself occupies a very small portion of the tower structure -- right in the middle of the front face. Command tower might be appropriate, given the equipment on the dorsal face (scanner globes and such). *shrug* Nitpicking, but hey.

One might argue that the higher above the main hull one puts the sensor emitters, the smaller the angle of space below being blocked by the hull of the ship.
There's at least two problems with that:
1)Why don't they just put emitters on the ventral surface of the hull?
2)The ISD's bridge tower and its sensor globes are nowhere near far enough above the main hull for it to make a difference under zhis theory.
IOW, I have no clue.
As for the name Star Destroyer, I'd venture that Wars naming conventions simply don't work like real world one do.
Notice that Wars militaries apply the name 'cruiser' to ships ranging in size from the 'Carrack' (which would be hard-pressed so significantly outmass a Nebulon-B) to the Mon Calamari ships (which in some incarnations are significantly larger than ISDs).

I like Timothy Zahn's classification best, "mobile siege engines." Stardestroyers were hardly destroyers, if anything.. that classification would probably be best apt suited to carrack cruisers (I think it was carracks) who's main duties it was to pound the fighters and make quick strikes.

The Stardestroyer was like a battleship and aircraft carrier all rolled into one. From it, it can launch fighter attacks, destroy a world, or land troops. If anything, at least, the destroyer would probably earn the equivalent of a cruiser as a we know it today. Perhaps there were other ships out there more suited to being designated a "battleship" or "aircraft carrier."

As for the bridge? *eh* Stupid reason to put it up there if you didn't have to.. but it looks cool..

Prozac the Robert wrote:A few minor things I'm wondering about.

The bridge tower. What is it for? Shouldn't the bridge be in a more armoured position? Is there an in universe explanation or are they just suposed to look good?

Not neccesarily. The majority of communications and sensor gear is located up on or around the Bridge tower, where it has decent Line of sight on other things, and where it could minimize shield interference (lowering/weakening shields there would not neccesarily weaken shielding over the hull area in combat).

Anyhow, they do have secondary bridges - maybe in some situations the "tower" isn't fully manned in a normal combat situation. (ROTJ would be an exception, since the Imperials were not ordered explicitly to engage/destroy the Rebels, simply to prevent their escape.)

And why are they called destroyers? Were they originaly conceived as escorts (either in universe or real life), or was the name just picked on a whim?

Probably is just a name, since there is significant evidence taht "Star Destroyer" is applied to more than just the mile-long vessels. As for "function", that is often one of the more hotly contested debates - what is usually agreed on is that an ISD is more like a "hybrid" ship design - just what sort of "hybrid" it is though is still up for debate (depending on who you ask.)

Uh, how do I delete this, if I can?

The in-universe explanation for the name of pretty much anything controversial is a complicated combination of who named it, where it was named, when it was named, what the name of similar items was at the time and place (e.g. Dreadnoughts, Carrack Cruisers, 17 km Star Destroyers, gunboat starfighters, etc.), naming conventions, tradition and slang (lasers, maybe), and translation issues (to Basic, Basic to English).

Actually trying to pin down why any one thing is named as it is will generally be a fruitless exercise, and many or most will disagree with your conclusions on grounds that infuriate you.

As for classifying science fiction ships by naval standards, modern or otherwise, I'm not sure I've ever seen the point. Have fun with that if it's your cup of tea, it isn't mine.

Alan Bolte wrote:The in-universe explanation for the name of pretty much anything controversial is a complicated combination of who named it, where it was named, when it was named, what the name of similar items was at the time and place (e.g. Dreadnoughts, Carrack Cruisers, 17 km Star Destroyers, gunboat starfighters, etc.), naming conventions, tradition and slang (lasers, maybe), and translation issues (to Basic, Basic to English).

Actually, in Star Wars Dreadnaught is a class name, not a vessel classification. The word "dreadnaught" means one who is fearless. Dreadnought is a British warvessel, a warship with isocaliber heavy guns (Dreadnought herself possessed 10 12in. heavy guns and multiple smaller 12lb. guns -- 24, IIRC). The official literature calls the Dreadnaughts, as manufactured by Rendili StarDrive, Heavy Cruisers.

McC wrote:

Alan Bolte wrote:The in-universe explanation for the name of pretty much anything controversial is a complicated combination of who named it, where it was named, when it was named, what the name of similar items was at the time and place (e.g. Dreadnoughts, Carrack Cruisers, 17 km Star Destroyers, gunboat starfighters, etc.), naming conventions, tradition and slang (lasers, maybe), and translation issues (to Basic, Basic to English).

Actually, in Star Wars Dreadnaught is a class name, not a vessel classification. The word "dreadnaught" means one who is fearless. Dreadnought is a British warvessel, a warship with isocaliber heavy guns (Dreadnought herself possessed all 10in. heavy guns and multiple smaller 12lb. guns -- 24, IIRC). The official literature calls the Dreadnaughts, as manufactured by Rendili StarDrive, Heavy Cruisers.

Actually there are EU mentions of "dreadnaghts" other than heavy cruisers, IIRC.

Okay, of those I'm not aware. But specifically the Rendili StarDrive Dreadnaught refers to a ship with that class name, not a ship of that mass/gun/whatever class. And, as mentioned, 'dreadnaught' is a word that mean one who is fearless.

Nitpick conceeded, point stands.

Stardestroyers.. World Devastators.. I don't think the classifications have any real bearing.

When Han calls the Stardestroyer a cruiser, perhaps because there were other ships more aptly suited to the term battleship where cruiser could mean a number of things, most likely that a stardestroyer served a multi-functional role as opposed to just a gun platform. The term Stardestroyer was the generic name.. a hyperbolic destroyer of stars. Just like the term World Devastator. Because if the Stardestroyer is really a destroyer.. damn.. I'm thinking some capital warships then are REALLY undeserving of that designation.

McC wrote:Okay, of those I'm not aware. But specifically the Rendili StarDrive Dreadnaught refers to a ship with that class name, not a ship of that mass/gun/whatever class. And, as mentioned, Dreadnaught is word that mean one who is fearless.

"Dreadnought" (the proper term actually) has served as a warship name as well in real life, as well as a ship classification.

McC wrote:Okay, of those I'm not aware. But specifically the Rendili StarDrive Dreadnaught refers to a ship with that class name, not a ship of that mass/gun/whatever class. And, as mentioned, Dreadnaught is word that mean one who is fearless.

"Dreadnought" (the proper term actually) has served as a warship name as well in real life, as well as a ship classification.

More specifically, a dreadnought is a kind of battleship where all the guns are of the same caliber, IIRC. So it can be sort of considered synonymous with "battleship" as well.

Connor MacLeod wrote:"Dreadnought" (the proper term actually) has served as a warship name as well in real life, as well as a ship classification.

Yep, re-read my post. I also explain why "dreadnaught" (spelled with an A) is valid as well, especially when used as a class name.

okay. Nevermind.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

McC wrote:Okay, of those I'm not aware. But specifically the Rendili StarDrive Dreadnaught refers to a ship with that class name, not a ship of that mass/gun/whatever class. And, as mentioned, Dreadnaught is word that mean one who is fearless.

"Dreadnought" (the proper term actually) has served as a warship name as well in real life, as well as a ship classification.

Connor, McC himself referenced the real-life warship, and there has to my knowledge NEVER been an official 'dreadnought' ship classification, those ships have alway been called 'battleships' (unless you're talking about a class name, i.e. 'Dreadnought' class battleships)

Batman wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

McC wrote:Okay, of those I'm not aware. But specifically the Rendili StarDrive Dreadnaught refers to a ship with that class name, not a ship of that mass/gun/whatever class. And, as mentioned, Dreadnaught is word that mean one who is fearless.

"Dreadnought" (the proper term actually) has served as a warship name as well in real life, as well as a ship classification.

Connor, McC himself referenced the real-life warship, and there has to my knowledge NEVER been an official 'dreadnought' ship classification, those ships have alway been called 'battleships' (unless you're talking about a class name, i.e. 'Dreadnought' class battleships)

I know. Hence why I said "nevermind"

Connor MacLeod wrote: I know. Hence why I said "nevermind"

My apologies. I'm afraid I'm something of a slow poster...

Batman wrote:Connor, McC himself referenced the real-life warship, and there has to my knowledge NEVER been an official 'dreadnought' ship classification, those ships have alway been called 'battleships' (unless you're talking about a class name, i.e. 'Dreadnought' class battleships)

Actually, while all Dreadnaught (and later super-dreadnaughts) were formally classed as battleships, virtually every navy evolved a system by which they designated dreadnaught and pre-dreadnaught designs. So it would stand as practical designation of ship type.