Page 1 of 5
Star "Dreadnaught" vs. Star "Destroyer"?
Posted: 2005-03-13 12:30pm
by Kurgan
I've seen these terms popping up in threads over the past few days. Since I'm not in the know where these terms are coming from, I was wondering. What are the differences?
On Dictionary.com I found them described thusly:
Destroyer:
A small, fast, highly maneuverable warship armed with guns,
torpedoes, depth charges, and guided missiles.
Dreadnaught:
battleship that has big guns all of the same caliber
So how does this apply in Star Wars? Sorry if this is a well-known fact, I was curious.
Posted: 2005-03-13 12:34pm
by Illuminatus Primus
Dreadnought is really a misnomer applied to SW. A dreadnought was a type of revolutionary battleship with superior armor, much more agile propulsion systems, and a uniform "all-big-gun" battery.
A destroyer is a multi-purpose warship which essentially is tasked as an escort in large fleets.
Posted: 2005-03-13 12:46pm
by Alyeska
SW terms don't fit real life terms very well.
When you consider the various ships of the Empire the ISD falls into the Destroyer range due to the ships above it in class. The SSD level ships tend to fall within the cruiser to battleship range, and this includes Star Dreadnaught ships of the Empire. In reality the ISD tends to serve a cruiser level role because the Empire has so few higher level ships. This isn't unheard of either. The US Navy has ships it terms as cruisers but effectively use's them as nothing more then glorified destroyers. The offical designation does not always fit the actual role filled by the ship.
Posted: 2005-03-13 03:00pm
by Illuminatus Primus
Alyeska, don't draw conclusions from unavailable or very unconclusive evidence: we have no data on the relative quantities of larger-than-ISD vessels.
Posted: 2005-03-13 04:37pm
by Alyeska
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Alyeska, don't draw conclusions from unavailable or very unconclusive evidence: we have no data on the relative quantities of larger-than-ISD vessels.
Actualy, we can, to a degree. We can base this on the number of known ISDs and the relative number of ships larger then ISD class we have seen. I do recall that most ships larger then the ISD were recalled to Byss, and this fleet only numbered in the thousands. These were multiple classes and types of ships, the bulk of the most powerful ships in the Imperial navy, and combined they still could not outnumber the ISDs. Of course I haven't actualy read this comic (or book, not sure which it is). So feel free to correct me. This is just information I've gained after many fleet size discussions and class type discussions over the years.
Posted: 2005-03-13 04:45pm
by Gil Hamilton
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Alyeska, don't draw conclusions from unavailable or very unconclusive evidence: we have no data on the relative quantities of larger-than-ISD vessels.
Most desciptions of an ISD tend to describe it as a big deal and one of the major heavy hitters in the Empire. I mean, you can find more than one description that actually use the phrase "symbol of the Empire's might" and say it's one of the largest class of ships they've got.
Posted: 2005-03-13 05:30pm
by Trytostaydead
Gil Hamilton wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:Alyeska, don't draw conclusions from unavailable or very unconclusive evidence: we have no data on the relative quantities of larger-than-ISD vessels.
Most desciptions of an ISD tend to describe it as a big deal and one of the major heavy hitters in the Empire. I mean, you can find more than one description that actually use the phrase "symbol of the Empire's might" and say it's one of the largest class of ships they've got.
Yeah, and SDs are routinely used as flagships unless a command ship or something else is available. Zahn describes SDs as "mobile siege engines" and a SD by its lonesome was enough to pacify a system. In the Crispin Solo trilogy, the Outerrim didn't rate a SD being in its pacifying fleet.
I've always thought that the term destroyer was used as a name as opposed to class designation. A stardestroyer like a sun crusher.
Posted: 2005-03-13 06:36pm
by Rogue 9
Oh, you know, this reminds me. I've been meaning to say this since I finally got to see the ESB special edition. The theory of "Super Star Destroyer" being mere Rebel slang has been crushed by Lord Vader ordering some officer or other to "Alert my Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival" on Cloud City and then immediately going to the
Executor. Vader was anything but a Rebel.
Posted: 2005-03-13 06:39pm
by Alyeska
Trytostaydead wrote:I've always thought that the term destroyer was used as a name as opposed to class designation. A stardestroyer like a sun crusher.
That changed with Saxton assisted with the most recent EU manual. The ISD is now considered a destroyer. This means that aproximately 99% of the Imperial fleet is made up of Frigates or smaller.
Posted: 2005-03-13 06:40pm
by Imperator Galacticus
I must say, Star Destroyers seem to resemble some form of light battleship or battlecruiser. They have always been marveled at and reverred at by the enemies of the Empire as enormous ships of great potential, and even within the Imperial ranks are marked as state of the art ships used to base all the command functions of a fleet. It wouldn't make any sense to disregard this ship as being one of the top-notch state of the art ships that the Empire is able to produce.
However I am open to exceptions and am aware that most of the action of the SW trilogy has taken place in the Outer Rim territories where most of the inhabitants of those regions have never seen the likes of what a vessel such as the Imperator-class may be capable off. Or as with numerous cases in the EU, that action has taken place in times of intense detrital civil war when any vessel larger than an Imperator was hard to come by.
Ergo, it is possible that venturing farther into the Mid Rim regions and inner Core that vessels larger than an Imperator, but smaller than the Super-class, may be found. In fact, the possibility would be enormous not to come into contact with such warships, as they have been seen before and would most likely be centered nearer the center of Galactic power. However, we can not quantify said number of vessels, nor at what rate they are produced at, and all speculation can not truly go farther than that.
Posted: 2005-03-13 06:51pm
by Alyeska
The ISD as designed and intended by the Imperial Navy was that of a destroyer. As actively used in reality it was more along the lines of cruiser or large cruiser.
Posted: 2005-03-13 06:51pm
by Alyeska
FYI, the proper name is Imperial, not Imperator.
Posted: 2005-03-13 06:54pm
by Vympel
Yeah, but Imperator sounds way cooler and using it doesn't kill any kittens. It also fits with Mandator, Procurator, Acclamator, Praetor, Venator and Executor (5 out of 6, courtesy of Dr. S
)
Posted: 2005-03-13 07:01pm
by The Original Nex
Gil Hamilton wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:Alyeska, don't draw conclusions from unavailable or very unconclusive evidence: we have no data on the relative quantities of larger-than-ISD vessels.
Most desciptions of an ISD tend to describe it as a big deal and one of the major heavy hitters in the Empire. I mean, you can find more than one description that actually use the phrase "symbol of the Empire's might" and say it's one of the largest class of ships they've got.
Looking at an ISD next to the
Executor i'd say the ISD is a far cry from one of the largest types of Imperial ships.
Remember that TIE Fighters and Stormtroopers are also referred to as "symbols of the Empire's might" so it has nothing to do with size.
Posted: 2005-03-13 07:02pm
by The Original Nex
Alyeska wrote:The ISD as designed and intended by the Imperial Navy was that of a destroyer. As actively used in reality it was more along the lines of cruiser or large cruiser.
How so? Crusiers and destroyers have very similar roles, what stood out to make you think that the ISD is a Cruiser rather than a Destroyer?
Posted: 2005-03-13 07:04pm
by The Original Nex
Rogue 9 wrote:Oh, you know, this reminds me. I've been meaning to say this since I finally got to see the ESB special edition. The theory of "Super Star Destroyer" being mere Rebel slang has been crushed by Lord Vader ordering some officer or other to "Alert my Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival" on Cloud City and then immediately going to the
Executor. Vader was anything but a Rebel.
"Star Destroyer" is a colloquial term for any large Imperial ship. "Super Star Destroyer" is strictly Rebel Slang.
Posted: 2005-03-13 07:05pm
by The Original Nex
Imperator Galacticus wrote:
Ergo, it is possible that venturing farther into the Mid Rim regions and inner Core that vessels larger than an Imperator, but smaller than the Super-class, may be found. In fact, the possibility would be enormous not to come into contact with such warships, as they have been seen before and would most likely be centered nearer the center of Galactic power. However, we can not quantify said number of vessels, nor at what rate they are produced at, and all speculation can not truly go farther than that.
FYI, no such thing as
Super-class, it's
Executor-class.
Posted: 2005-03-13 07:05pm
by Rogue 9
The Original Nex wrote:Rogue 9 wrote:Oh, you know, this reminds me. I've been meaning to say this since I finally got to see the ESB special edition. The theory of "Super Star Destroyer" being mere Rebel slang has been crushed by Lord Vader ordering some officer or other to "Alert my Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival" on Cloud City and then immediately going to the
Executor. Vader was anything but a Rebel.
"Star Destroyer" is a colloquial term for any large Imperial ship. "Super Star Destroyer" is strictly Rebel Slang.
Vader still called it a Star Destroyer, not a dreadnought of any sort. You lose.
Posted: 2005-03-13 07:08pm
by The Original Nex
Rogue 9 wrote:The Original Nex wrote:Rogue 9 wrote:Oh, you know, this reminds me. I've been meaning to say this since I finally got to see the ESB special edition. The theory of "Super Star Destroyer" being mere Rebel slang has been crushed by Lord Vader ordering some officer or other to "Alert my Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival" on Cloud City and then immediately going to the
Executor. Vader was anything but a Rebel.
"Star Destroyer" is a colloquial term for any large Imperial ship. "Super Star Destroyer" is strictly Rebel Slang.
Vader still called it a Star Destroyer, not a dreadnought of any sort. You lose.
How so? I said that "Star Destroyer" is a colloquial term for ANY large Imperial warship, so it doesn't matter what Vader called it as that's the common name for such vessels.
Posted: 2005-03-13 07:23pm
by Vympel
How so? I said that "Star Destroyer" is a colloquial term for ANY large Imperial warship, so it doesn't matter what Vader called it as that's the common name for such vessels.
Also, the ITW:OT refers to "Super Star Destroyer" being slang, not "Star Destroyer". Vader calling it a "Star Destroyer" means nothing, its still a slang term, and not specific to the Executor-class.
Posted: 2005-03-13 07:40pm
by Alyeska
The Original Nex wrote:Alyeska wrote:The ISD as designed and intended by the Imperial Navy was that of a destroyer. As actively used in reality it was more along the lines of cruiser or large cruiser.
How so? Crusiers and destroyers have very similar roles, what stood out to make you think that the ISD is a Cruiser rather than a Destroyer?
Traditional use of the destroyer is that of fleet protector while the cruiser was an offensive role ship with heavier weaponry and command function.
Posted: 2005-03-13 08:07pm
by Knife
Alyeska wrote:The Original Nex wrote:Alyeska wrote:The ISD as designed and intended by the Imperial Navy was that of a destroyer. As actively used in reality it was more along the lines of cruiser or large cruiser.
How so? Crusiers and destroyers have very similar roles, what stood out to make you think that the ISD is a Cruiser rather than a Destroyer?
Traditional use of the destroyer is that of fleet protector while the cruiser was an offensive role ship with heavier weaponry and command function.
I still say they act more like 'Ships of the Line' than WWII designations, or even more like a Galleon. Floating castel's with enough troops to assualt the 'shore' and then keep a beech head. Hell, probably has enough room to carry back 'booty' too.
Posted: 2005-03-13 08:27pm
by Striderteen
Alyeska wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:Alyeska, don't draw conclusions from unavailable or very unconclusive evidence: we have no data on the relative quantities of larger-than-ISD vessels.
Actualy, we can, to a degree. We can base this on the number of known ISDs and the relative number of ships larger then ISD class we have seen. I do recall that most ships larger then the ISD were recalled to Byss, and this fleet only numbered in the thousands. These were multiple classes and types of ships, the bulk of the most powerful ships in the Imperial navy, and combined they still could not outnumber the ISDs. Of course I haven't actualy read this comic (or book, not sure which it is). So feel free to correct me. This is just information I've gained after many fleet size discussions and class type discussions over the years.
The Empire probably built a lot more of the Imperators than the destroyer-escort role called for because they were cost-effective for independent operations -- powerful enough to bitch-slap most threats without loss and indimidate unruly planets, but significantly less expensive than cruisers.
That's why they have so many ISDs: they act as destroyers for the Empire's true battlefleets, de-facto cruisers for sector fleets, and probably also make up the majority of small to medium sized rapid-reaction fleets.
Posted: 2005-03-13 08:36pm
by andrewgpaul
FWIW, 'Dreadnought' was originally a RN battleship with few, large-calibre guns, compared with its contemporaries, hence Hurgans dictionary quote above. 'Dreadnaught' is an older, pre-Clone Wars Republic warship, smaller than, IIRC, Star Destroyers and Cruisers, Frigates, etc.
Posted: 2005-03-13 08:53pm
by Alyeska
Striderteen wrote:The Empire probably built a lot more of the Imperators than the destroyer-escort role called for because they were cost-effective for independent operations -- powerful enough to bitch-slap most threats without loss and indimidate unruly planets, but significantly less expensive than cruisers.
Not exactly. Traditional navies the destroyer is the most numerous ship of the fleet. In the Empire, destroyers make up less then 1% of the fleet. Instead the Empire had grand plans and designated their ships rather oddly and gave them different missions, but used them in a more traditional means.
That's why they have so many ISDs: they act as destroyers for the Empire's true battlefleets, de-facto cruisers for sector fleets, and probably also make up the majority of small to medium sized rapid-reaction fleets.
When you consider the Empire has ~10 million ships, ISDs were a patheticaly small part of the fleet and actualy represented their most visible large ship.