Official ISD starfighter complements

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because frankly that doesn't happen. This mindless idea of 'Battleship MUST equal biggest' misses the whole idea of the battleship: Dedicated fleet combatant.

No, that's not what a battleship is. Kudos goes if you can figure out what all the CAs and CBs in WW2 did. And I never said it was to be the very biggest; battlecruisers will always be the largest.

Battleships must be nearly the largest ships by virtue of their role, though. Anyhow, ANH and ESB and ROTJ are quite incompatable with the ISD as HMS Dreadnought.

The point I was trying to make is there's no real direct line comparison to the multi-role ISD to modern ships, though this seems to hold true for most of the Imperial fleet(More on this later).

And to do this you gave a detailed analog in the Workers' and Peasants' Red Fleet?

Isn't this exactly what I said? It's not a battleship. And it can't be a ship of the line, because 'line' tactics have never been shown to be in the Imperial tactics.

Semantical nitpicking; what a ship of the line does can be used in analog without the physical "lines" (curiously, the Rebel Sourcebook does imply direct usage of wet navy battle line tactics and gives the weak-ass excuse that commanders are restricted by evolving and thinking on terrestrial surfaces ).

Heavy by these reasonings:

1) It carries troops, a prefab base, heavy armour, and IIRC, atmospheric craft. This far outstrips the puny marine complement of the Age Of Sail ships, as those were strictly for boarding ops. A prefab base and AT-AT are not for boarding.

Uh, I said it was "closer" not that it was directly used for the same. In terms of significant surface landing ops, the ISD, even in numbers, is grossly inadequate and its landing and armor capacity is totally underpar for something which is carrying troops supposedly for amphib type operations.

2) This prefab base, even undermanned as we see it, is considered enough for garrison duties, at least on a temporary scale, or for low-population worlds. Obviously, the same cannot be said for capital worlds.

Hahahahaha. Capital worlds? A sub-space flight colony like Earth can have 6 billion inhabitants. Geonosis has 100 billion inhabitants.

3) Compared to other ships seen often.

So you compare it to convoy escorts and corvettes? Ok...that's really a good basis for comparison on the ISD's amphib ability, more so than dedicated troopships and amphibs.

I assume you mean the TradeFed Battleship. Yes, these craft carried a buttload more troops. However, there is a serious difference between 'Invasion force' and 'Garrison force'.

Yeah, you have to invade and subjugate before landing a garrison. Unfortunately for you, then that definitely precludes the ISD as an amphib, which is designed for amphib assaults, not dumping a handful of token troops and armor for a garrison after the assault.

Except for the fact it's explicitly stated to be able to set up a, at the very least temporary, garrison. While other craft can haul heavier groups, for a non-dedicated ship, it's got alot, and enough to accomplish most tasks.

Then you don't know what an amphib is.

No, it is rather obviously not as good as a dedicated troop transport. However, it is considered servicable for day to day duties.

No, in a galactic-scale civilization, its totally inadequate as an amphib.

The sheer size of heavy warships.

What's that word you love so much? Oh yeah: semantics whore. You know zero data about the distribution of Imperial ship designs across the scale of construction from blockade runner to Executor, so do not pretend to know where the ISD lies. You don't know by quantitative scale, by simply observing the lowest and highest ranges, its clearly only in the middle (and then only logarthmically).

The onboard facilities are more than enough for most light craft. Again, I'm going by what's been stated about the ISD. Obviously, if you want the full-service option, you go to the huge hangars of an SSD. I'm trying to demonstrate the multi-role nature of the ISD, and you're nitpicking that it's not the best at each one. NO SHIT! Any competent person realizes a ship doing so many roles is going to be inferior to any kind of dedicated vessel.

No, it simply CANNOT DO what the other similar structures are due to ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference in volume. Its not an example of "shared" role, its an issue of Ship A is capable of this to that, and ship B is capable of this toooo THAT and excluding Ship A by a huge margin.

Yet it's more than enough to get the job done against most. Congratulations: You've established the long-held common sense assumption that a dedicated vessel is superior at one task than a multi-role vessel. Pat yourself on the back.

Job against most? So what's that supposed to mean, it can do the equivalent of Interior Ministry choppers or Coast Guard aircraft?

The Eclipse can't hold a Victory. Her internal bays have the overall volume, but it don't actually fit through the doors.

Proof? Its stated to be capable of this explicitly.

For this particular comment, try using the Executor, if you must.

Nice nitpick, but I'm sorry, the Ex's hangar is too shallow.

Yes, it's entirely political that there's not enough Executors for Sector commands. That isn't in contest.

No, whats in contest is that it was ever intended.

What, that Executors may eventually turn up in Sector Fleets as command? That's conjecture. Maybe I need to neon-yellow the word 'Implied' to make it clear it's not a definate. What's stated is that they aren't in the Sector Fleet listings I've seen. Those list 24 ISD's as the heaviest ships.

Conjecture is not the same as implication. Conjecture is Martin Making Shit Up For Whatever Reason, and Implication is Martin Got An Idea From The Way Stuff Was Stated Somewhere. I want to see an example of that somewhere, since you pop this one up so regularly.

At the core of the point you danced around by nitpicking things to death is this: Ships in the Imperial navy, especially big ones, aren't specialized. Even the Eclipse was hopelessly multirole: Hangar bays (As you noted, big enough for a Victory, though I still really fucking doubt you'd get one through the bay doors), heavy weapons, troop compliments.

This is the kind of absurd "the roles are nearly equal" bullshit I encounter. The Eclipse couldn't run fighter cover for a decent fleet if it tried; it couldn't conquer a decently populated world with its troops if it tried. It however could smash planetary installations to shreds even deep under the crust and pound other huge armored warships into scrap in an armada. What's it closest to? A battleship.

I certainly don't recall any dedicated fleet brawlers built during the Emperor's Reign, though that doesn't necessarily mean much. Even the hangarless ship in ROTJ, though, has been referred to as the Communications Ship, IIRC, and thus implies a role as AWACS or EW over straight fighting.

I really wish people would not randomly use acronyms without knowing what they mean. I sincerely doubt anyone feels the Communications Ship stated to be jamming at Endor is an air controller.

Quite frankly you harp on hangars on ships where fighters are probably about 5% of what it does and something else 85-90% of what it does.

Its stupid.

This obsession with 'Ships of the line' as the measuring stick is stupid when there's no line(Or square) of battle.

Its quite obvious they engage in non-LOS-obstructing masses facing one another, as in the early phases of ROTJ. Its more like WWI than anything else, and the use of the gun as the primary means of shipwrecking means that the term "ship of the line" in terms of role if not precise semantics is still useful. What it does relative to its own fleet and the fleet of the enemy is still meaningful if the physical "line of battle" doesn't exist, Martin.

At the core of it, the ISD is built to apply a temporary solution to most any problem. As you so astutely recignized, as a multirole ship, it cannot apply solutions as well as more dedicated vessels.

No, it simply cannot do certain things by virtue of its relative volume.

However, it has been stated that it's enough to suppress a world(Most likely, this means it's troops, fighters, and main guns can keep the locals in line until more specialized ships bring in more fighters, more troops, and more permenant solutions, but this is conjecture based on the smaller, specialized craft like Acclamators, Escort Carriers, etc).

In other words, its not really a CV, an amphib, or a BB....pretty much ever, in any way. It does stuff more like the gunboats Roosevelt sent to Panama than anything else in terms of what it was built for and what's observed. Strictly speaking, I really do think its closer to somewhere between a WW2 gun destroyer and a modern DDG and anything else.

[SirNitram]

'Look at me! I'm Primus! I can ignore explicit statements in the canon about the ISD setting up planetary garrisons! I can ignore the point and nitpick around! I can say the blindingly obvious that dedicated vessels at better than multirole!'

Do you want a medal for the ability to nitpick towards a blindingly obvious truth that is never contested, you insignifigant little prick?

This is the kind of absurd "the roles are nearly equal" bullshit I encounter. The Eclipse couldn't run fighter cover for a decent fleet if it tried; it couldn't conquer a decently populated world with its troops if it tried. It however could smash planetary installations to shreds even deep under the crust and pound other huge armored warships into scrap in an armada. What's it closest to? A battleship.

What's that? You're a lying little prick? Yes, yes you are! I never stated the 'Roles are nearly equal'. I stated it was 'Hopelessly multirole', because it's fighter complement is tiny compared to a pure carrier of the same size. This is the tone of your reply: You make up something that isn't there and attack it. What's that? A strawman!

I explicitly stated it wasn't a battleship in my first post in this thread:

The ISD is not a dedicated ship-to-ship brawler,

I could nitpick your own nitpicks, but I'm not going to play this stupid game. I never claimed the ISD was as good as a dedicated vessel with Job X. I stated it was multirole, and you mindlessly began shrieking about how it can't do the job as well as a dedicated craft the same size. Congratulations! You have elementary school level insight.

No, it simply cannot do certain things by virtue of its relative volume.

Wow! No shit? Isn't that just what I said in my last post, that a multirole ship isn't as good as a dedicated one? Do you just enjoy repeating back my own statements?

[SirNitram]

To add(Because I hate using my ability to edit posts to add content to a post): This stuff about the troops being unable to suppress a planetary population is quite silly. The Gra Ploven(sp?) rebellion in Shield of Lies was suppressed. Not by troops; by the ISD's own guns.

The Stormtroopers don't need to act alone. They have seventy two fighters with kT and up weaponry to fly support, and an orbiting starship which can, quite simply, flatten any city that tries to dig in. The fact that the ISD Forger flash-fried 200,000 with steam clouds should make this one obvious, but I guess some people are shortsighted.

[Illuminatus Primus]

'Look at me! I'm Primus! I can ignore explicit statements in the canon about the ISD setting up planetary garrisons! I can ignore the point and nitpick around! I can say the blindingly obvious that dedicated vessels at better than multirole!'

No, dumbass, you just do not understand a large number of naval roles, and don't get that some craft, despite analogous structural forms, cannot perform the roles of the larger? I suppose you think the distinction between 5'' and 12'' guns in WWI was irrelevent? Only the gun itself matters?

Do you want a medal for the ability to nitpick towards a blindingly obvious truth that is never contested, you insignifigant little prick?

You're just dense. And those are bigs words for the little man who clipped away the upper 2/3rds of my post because I am right.

What's that? You're a lying little prick? Yes, yes you are! I never stated the 'Roles are nearly equal'. I stated it was 'Hopelessly multirole', because it's fighter complement is tiny compared to a pure carrier of the same size. This is the tone of your reply: You make up something that isn't there and attack it. What's that? A strawman!

No, idiot. The point is one ability is so insignificant compared to another that in a fleet its role will generally lie with the other. I'll spell this out for you: the Eclipse is not functionally multirole because in an armada it is going to serve as a battleship, and very little as a carrier or troopship.

Multirole is only a significant remark when the ship in question stands a chance in hell of actually doing more than one thing when playing its niche in the fleet.

I explicitly stated it wasn't a battleship in my first post in this thread:

The ISD is not a dedicated ship-to-ship brawler,

No shit, but you still think apparently that that is peculiar to a battleship, and you do not know what you're talking about.

I could nitpick your own nitpicks, but I'm not going to play this stupid game. I never claimed the ISD was as good as a dedicated vessel with Job X. I stated it was multirole, and you mindlessly began shrieking about how it can't do the job as well as a dedicated craft the same size. Congratulations! You have elementary school level insight.

Really, Martin? What dedicated vessel the same size did I cite in the entire thread? Not one. You're making stuff up about my posts again. Need you be reminded where that went last time?

The point is that the ISD is multirole only in the sense it can drop off a tenth of its troops on an already disarmed world if nothing else can. Guess what? That means it can drop off troops from its marine complement in a pinch; a desperation, a substitution. That's not what the ISD will do in its perspective niche in a full fleet. The ISD's ship-to-ship engagement (esp. of smaller, weaker vessels), pursuit ability, and surface bombardment abilities are its most important and relevent roles.

Most of this token shit is so insignificant by comparison to its other roles and other ships fulfilling the same role in the ISD's fleet that it is not a very defining characteristic.

Wow! No shit? Isn't that just what I said in my last post, that a multirole ship isn't as good as a dedicated one? Do you just enjoy repeating back my own statements?

"Doesn't do as good a job" doesn't mean "they do different jobs because ship A physically cannot do what ship B" does. Do you understand at all what naval role means. We're discussing what the ship's purpose is in terms of the Imperial Navy.

[Illuminatus Primus]

To add(Because I hate using my ability to edit posts to add content to a post): This stuff about the troops being unable to suppress a planetary population is quite silly. The Gra Ploven(sp?) rebellion in Shield of Lies was suppressed. Not by troops; by the ISD's own guns.

The Stormtroopers don't need to act alone. They have seventy two fighters with kT and up weaponry to fly support, and an orbiting starship which can, quite simply, flatten any city that tries to dig in. The fact that the ISD Forger flash-fried 200,000 with steam clouds should make this one obvious, but I guess some people are shortsighted.

Martin, you're a dumbfuck. An amphib helps launch invasions. Pointing out that an unprotected world can be cowtoed by bombardments doesn't do anything to contradict the fact that your own statements precluded the fact that the ISD is not an amphib.

[SirNitram]

Martin, you're a dumbfuck. An amphib helps launch invasions. Pointing out that an unprotected world can be cowtoed by bombardments doesn't do anything to contradict the fact that your own statements precluded the fact that the ISD is not an amphib.

No! It's not! I never claimed it was! You're just continuing this mind-numbingly stupid tactic of referring to dedicated vessels when I'm talking about a multirole ship, and the probable reason for the main symbol of Imperial power to be that way. No, the ISD is NOT an amphib. I'm assuming you mean an amphibious assault ship, one designed to facilitate a landing onto a hostile world and help establish a beachead.

The ISD is however, equipped to suppress terrorism and minor rebellions. Could this be because it was designed in an era when the Empire controlled everything? Yes, yes it could.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No! It's not! I never claimed it was! You're just continuing this mind-numbingly stupid tactic of referring to dedicated vessels when I'm talking about a multirole ship, and the probable reason for the main symbol of Imperial power to be that way. No, the ISD is NOT an amphib. I'm assuming you mean an amphibious assault ship, one designed to facilitate a landing onto a hostile world and help establish a beachead.

The ISD is however, equipped to suppress terrorism and minor rebellions. Could this be because it was designed in an era when the Empire controlled everything? Yes, yes it could.

Alright, the troop carrying and landing capacity of the ISD is frequently compared to an amphib. This other "it does surface bombardment" remark means nothing. All ships do that. So it doesn't behave as an amphib with troops, and it does surface bombardment; an insignificant characteristic. Like I said, most of the "multirole" abilities you list are mundane, rather common, and hardly defining characteristics.

And this means you're conceding that silly dreadnought shit, right?

[SirNitram]

'Look at me! I'm Primus! I can ignore explicit statements in the canon about the ISD setting up planetary garrisons! I can ignore the point and nitpick around! I can say the blindingly obvious that dedicated vessels at better than multirole!'

No, dumbass, you just do not understand a large number of naval roles, and don't get that some craft, despite analogous structural forms, cannot perform the roles of the larger? I suppose you think the distinction between 5'' and 12'' guns in WWI was irrelevent? Only the gun itself matters?

Do strawmen make you feel good? I said the ISD was multirole and stated several tasks it can do half-assed. I said other ships, of larger sizes, were multirole. In your syphilis diseased brain, how does this become 'There's no difference'!

Do you want a medal for the ability to nitpick towards a blindingly obvious truth that is never contested, you insignifigant little prick?

You're just dense. And those are bigs words for the little man who clipped away the upper 2/3rds of my post because I am right.

No, I just dislike longwinded nitpicking idiots who think repeating what I myself said makes them look neato-keen.

What's that? You're a lying little prick? Yes, yes you are! I never stated the 'Roles are nearly equal'. I stated it was 'Hopelessly multirole', because it's fighter complement is tiny compared to a pure carrier of the same size. This is the tone of your reply: You make up something that isn't there and attack it. What's that? A strawman!

No, idiot. The point is one ability is so insignificant compared to another that in a fleet its role will generally lie with the other. I'll spell this out for you: the Eclipse is not functionally multirole because in an armada it is going to serve as a battleship, and very little as a carrier or troopship.

Yet, for some reason, the designers went to the trouble of including fighter hangars big enough for a Victory, and lots of ground troops... Could it be I'm attempting to talk about that odd habit in Imperial shipbuilding? Yes, yes it could.

Multirole is only a significant remark when the ship in question stands a chance in hell of actually doing more than one thing when playing its niche in the fleet.

An ISD canonically can suppress ground rebellions, is flatly stated to be able to establish a garrison.. Of course, you evade this point and state it shouldn't be able to.

I explicitly stated it wasn't a battleship in my first post in this thread:

The ISD is not a dedicated ship-to-ship brawler,

No shit, but you still think apparently that that is peculiar to a battleship, and you do not know what you're talking about.

Never said only battleships were dedicated brawlers, dumbass. But not being a dedicated brawler definately knocks you further away from being a BB.

I could nitpick your own nitpicks, but I'm not going to play this stupid game. I never claimed the ISD was as good as a dedicated vessel with Job X. I stated it was multirole, and you mindlessly began shrieking about how it can't do the job as well as a dedicated craft the same size. Congratulations! You have elementary school level insight.

Really, Martin? What dedicated vessel the same size did I cite in the entire thread? Not one. You're making stuff up about my posts again. Need you be reminded where that went last time?

You've got alot of nerve to claim someone else is making stuff up, kiddo. Of course, I know you rather endlessly whine about how everyone else is the big meanie, so I don't particularly care.

You certainly seem to cite the Acclamator in an above post.. A dedicated troop ship! Not the same size, no, but it's revolving around the same point, that a dedicated ship does these things better. You also prattle on about how, for it's size, it has very, very few starfighters.. Which rather leads into how a dedicated carrier would do a superior job.

The point is that the ISD is multirole only in the sense it can drop off a tenth of its troops on an already disarmed world if nothing else can. Guess what? That means it can drop off troops from its marine complement in a pinch; a desperation, a substitution. That's not what the ISD will do in its perspective niche in a full fleet. The ISD's ship-to-ship engagement (esp. of smaller, weaker vessels), pursuit ability, and surface bombardment abilities are its most important and relevent roles.

It can 'drop off troops in a pinch'? Then why are they equipped with prefab bases? Why do we canonically see them participate in a landing operation?

Most of this token shit is so insignificant by comparison to its other roles and other ships fulfilling the same role in the ISD's fleet that it is not a very defining characteristic.

Wow! No shit? Isn't that just what I said in my last post, that a multirole ship isn't as good as a dedicated one? Do you just enjoy repeating back my own statements?

"Doesn't do as good a job" doesn't mean "they do different jobs because ship A physically cannot do what ship B" does. Do you understand at all what naval role means. We're discussing what the ship's purpose is in terms of the Imperial Navy.

No, we're not discussing that at all. We're listening to you whine that an ISD isn't an amphibious ship, despite the fact no one claimed it was. We're listening to you whine about how it carries a tiny fighter complement for it's size, which no one contested. We're listening to you make up claims about how the Stormtrooper force on an ISD is utterly insiginifigant, despite the fact it's got it's own base onboard, specifically for becoming a planetary garrison(Something you seem to keep stating is flatly impossible, yet there it is).

[SirNitram]

Alright, the troop carrying and landing capacity of the ISD is frequently compared to an amphib. This other "it does surface bombardment" remark means nothing. All ships do that. So it doesn't behave as an amphib with troops, and it does surface bombardment; an insignificant characteristic. Like I said, most of the "multirole" abilities you list are mundane, rather common, and hardly defining characteristics.

Yet they take away from the ability of the ISD to be a dedicated fleet combatant, and if you'd stop this nitpickery I'd be formulating a reasonable reason why the Empire is fucking around with these half-assed capabilities on their ships.

And this means you're conceding that silly dreadnought shit, right?

HMS Dreadnought was designed to operate alone. The ISD operates alone. That is the comparison I drew, because there are many times in the EU, and one or two in the OT, that we see an ISD without support.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Do strawmen make you feel good? I said the ISD was multirole and stated several tasks it can do half-assed. I said other ships, of larger sizes, were multirole. In your syphilis diseased brain, how does this become 'There's no difference'!

It does several tasks barely and some quite well; we should describe its behavior in terms of the other rather than noncommittally and dumbly toning that it is "multirole" because its not monolithically capable of only one thing. And your "larger" craft examples were shitty.

No, I just dislike longwinded nitpicking idiots who think repeating what I myself said makes them look neato-keen.

Actually most of that was you not knowing what a battleship, a dreadnought, etc. were, and me educating you.

Yet, for some reason, the designers went to the trouble of including fighter hangars big enough for a Victory, and lots of ground troops... Could it be I'm attempting to talk about that odd habit in Imperial shipbuilding? Yes, yes it could.

If it takes up less than a tenth of the volume on your battleship to make it capable of a few tiny independent operations, why not? That doesn't make it not 90% a battleship.

An ISD canonically can suppress ground rebellions, is flatly stated to be able to establish a garrison.. Of course, you evade this point and state it shouldn't be able to.

It can't launch an invasion because it lands garrisons instead by your own remark. I suppose the USS Iowa was an amphib because it can shell towns, stupid?

Never said only battleships were dedicated brawlers, dumbass. But not being a dedicated brawler definately knocks you further away from being a BB.

You're the one who compared her to the HMS Dreadnought, buddy.

You certainly seem to cite the Acclamator in an above post.. A dedicated troop ship! Not the same size, no, but it's revolving around the same point, that a dedicated ship does these things better. You also prattle on about how, for it's size, it has very, very few starfighters.. Which rather leads into how a dedicated carrier would do a superior job.

Which means that its carrying ability is rather insignificant when one goes about identifying what it does, comprende?

It can 'drop off troops in a pinch'? Then why are they equipped with prefab bases? Why do we canonically see them participate in a landing operation?

The Hoth troops and armor came from HIMS Executor, idiot. And the bases are more fringe outposts and camps than bases. Compare those things to the Enclave on Gall.

No, we're not discussing that at all. We're listening to you whine that an ISD isn't an amphibious ship, despite the fact no one claimed it was. We're listening to you whine about how it carries a tiny fighter complement for it's size, which no one contested. We're listening to you make up claims about how the Stormtrooper force on an ISD is utterly insiginifigant, despite the fact it's got it's own base onboard, specifically for becoming a planetary garrison(Something you seem to keep stating is flatly impossible, yet there it is).

No, I said it can't launch an invasion and is a shitty choice for doing so. The fact it can establish tiny outposts on shitholes with a token 10,000 troops (if that) does not make that a significant utilization of it. For one, its never been observed to do that. Craming subsidiary tasks into a ship doesn't change its primary roles or tasks.

Its simply mundane and stupidly obvious to remark it does just do one thing. That's obvious. This discussion started because people insisted it could not be identified with a few primary roles, but instead did a plethora of things when it really is not comparable to a BB, an amphib, or a CV.

[SirNitram]

Do strawmen make you feel good? I said the ISD was multirole and stated several tasks it can do half-assed. I said other ships, of larger sizes, were multirole. In your syphilis diseased brain, how does this become 'There's no difference'!

It does several tasks barely and some quite well; we should describe its behavior in terms of the other rather than noncommittally and dumbly toning that it is "multirole" because its not monolithically capable of only one thing. And your "larger" craft examples were shitty.

Clearly there's a breakdown of language. You obsessively beleive any 'multirole' craft must do a larger number of things medicorely, whereas I beleive it simply means it can function in more than one role.

No, I just dislike longwinded nitpicking idiots who think repeating what I myself said makes them look neato-keen.

Actually most of that was you not knowing what a battleship, a dreadnought, etc. were, and me educating you.

Keeping lying to yourself, kid.

Yet, for some reason, the designers went to the trouble of including fighter hangars big enough for a Victory, and lots of ground troops... Could it be I'm attempting to talk about that odd habit in Imperial shipbuilding? Yes, yes it could.

If it takes up less than a tenth of the volume on your battleship to make it capable of a few tiny independent operations, why not? That doesn't make it not 90% a battleship.

And the whole purpose of my post was to analyze why that 10% isn't being dedicated to yet more reactors, guns, and shields, and actually have a discussion instead of you convincing yourself you've been doing any education.

An ISD canonically can suppress ground rebellions, is flatly stated to be able to establish a garrison.. Of course, you evade this point and state it shouldn't be able to.

It can't launch an invasion because it lands garrisons instead by your own remark. I suppose the USS Iowa was an amphib because it can shell towns, stupid?

Are you obsessed with strawmanning me, child? I have repeatedly stated it is not an amphib, you idiot. I am responding to your point that it cannot possibly deal with trouble on a six billion or higher population world.

Never said only battleships were dedicated brawlers, dumbass. But not being a dedicated brawler definately knocks you further away from being a BB.

You're the one who compared her to the HMS Dreadnought, buddy.

Only for it's capability to operate alone, little one.

You certainly seem to cite the Acclamator in an above post.. A dedicated troop ship! Not the same size, no, but it's revolving around the same point, that a dedicated ship does these things better. You also prattle on about how, for it's size, it has very, very few starfighters.. Which rather leads into how a dedicated carrier would do a superior job.

Which means that its carrying ability is rather insignificant when one goes about identifying what it does, comprende?

I don't appear to have been saying anything about it's naval classification in this thread. Maybe you should stop and actually read.

It can 'drop off troops in a pinch'? Then why are they equipped with prefab bases? Why do we canonically see them participate in a landing operation?

The Hoth troops and armor came from HIMS Executor, idiot. And the bases are more fringe outposts and camps than bases. Compare those things to the Enclave on Gall.

Really? What source for them being from the Executor.. The numbers seen certainly don't preclude a single ISD from facilitating it, though it could have been from the Executor's bays.

I can't recall Gall and it's Enclave right now. Refresh my memory, please.

No, we're not discussing that at all. We're listening to you whine that an ISD isn't an amphibious ship, despite the fact no one claimed it was. We're listening to you whine about how it carries a tiny fighter complement for it's size, which no one contested. We're listening to you make up claims about how the Stormtrooper force on an ISD is utterly insiginifigant, despite the fact it's got it's own base onboard, specifically for becoming a planetary garrison(Something you seem to keep stating is flatly impossible, yet there it is).

No, I said it can't launch an invasion and is a shitty choice for doing so. The fact it can establish tiny outposts on shitholes with a token 10,000 troops (if that) does not make that a significant utilization of it. For one, its never been observed to do that. Craming subsidiary tasks into a ship doesn't change its primary roles or tasks.

And I've never said it must be reclassified. I have been attempting to get a conversasion going on a likely reason for half-assing all these jobs onto the ISD and other vessels in Imperial service.

Its simply mundane and stupidly obvious to remark it does just do one thing. That's obvious. This discussion started because people insisted it could not be identified with a few primary roles, but instead did a plethora of things when it really is not comparable to a BB, an amphib, or a CV.

If I had called it a BB, Amphib, or CV, you'd have a reason to say this. Instead, you strawman. How cute.

[PainRack]

Boohoo IP. You were the one who decided to wade in and comment on our off the cuff remarks about the ubiqitous nature of the ISD.

Concession accepted. I'll make whatever remarks I want, pinhead. You treated the roles the ISD encompasses as including some peculiar to the battleship, which is not true, and I stated such. The fact you are too stupid to grasp this until after several posts is not my problem, and I don't feel bad.

Boohoo indeed.

Okay, since you so brillantly wish to continue this.

Why is one of the roles the ISD encompass not equivalent to a "battleship"? A battleship primary purpose is sea control and its primary mission are anti capital ship operations. This involves the destruction of the enemy main fleets.

Has the ISD performed this mission? During the Battle of Sluis Van, the battleships performed the role of bombarding and occupying the outer shipyard defences, equivalent to coastal battleships designed to destroy naval forts, EXCLUSIVELY the role of battleships. During the battle of Endor, they were involved in a pincer movement to isolate the Rebel fleet, while the lesser elements of the sector fleet blockaded the system hyperspace routes. The brawl that resulted from the enemy decision to attack the ISDs at close range echoed the decisions of the Japanese navy to attack the Russian fleet off Port Arthur. Due to the pecularities of the civil war, ISDs often acted as the ships of the line, anchoring the main battle fleet and comprising the most important, dangerous target in a fleet. A single ISD was capable of defeating 3 retrofitted, Katanna class Dreadnaughts as in HTTE, showing that in many cases, it is eminently superior to the capital vessels of other opponents.

So Yes you nittard. The ISD does resemble battleships.

[Coyote]

Also, IP, you asked what the primary tasks Batleships ended up carrying out in World War Two... the answer is, "Shore Bombardment". There were few Battleship-to-Battleship brawls after the sinking of the Bismark.

BUt then since the ISD carries out surface bombardment and BDZ's, well, then, there is one more way in which it has "Battleship-like characteristics".

You're missing something here, IP... neither myself, nor Painrack, nor Sir Nitram are saying "the ISD IS this or that"... It is neither a carrier, nor amphib, nor BB/Dreadnought...only that it combines a number of characteristics of all these. It even combines some of the characteristics of the DD as you yourself point out...

But you seem to lean an awful lot on the comparison between an ISD and an Earth Navy Destroyer-- but the helicopters of a Navy Destroyer are dedicated to ASW and transport-- the TIE compliment clearly has a more expanded role than this, although the TIE Bomber squadron could be a close comparison in the ASW role (ie, vs. Millenium Falcon in ESB).

Navy Destroyers are also fleet escorts and work closely with frigates in mine/countermine operations. You're staking the likeness of the ISD to a ship with which there really is only a tenuous comparison-- there is more of a connection between the hybrid carrier/battleship/(or battlecruiser)/lander that we're talking about than with a raw Destroyer. We only saw ISD as Fleet Escorts once, with the Executor, in ESB.

We have seen ISDs operate alone, in ship-to-ship without launching fighters, and in ship-to-ship with fighters, and we've seen the Executor deploy alone. The IMperial NAvy apparantly has no worries about these ships being able to meet battle without support.

Bear in mind their enemies are using ships that closely resemble the ISD configuration of a multirole taskforce cruiser. Except the Mon Cals are using converted liners, whereas the ISD is a purpose-built platform, thus making it superior to any jerry-rigged opponent.

[FTeik]

But the problem with calling the ISD a battleship is, that the Imperial Navy contains vessels hundreds, if not thousand times more voluminous and powerful, than the ISD.

Shall we call them Super-Battleships, since the ISD is a battleship or what?

With that we are back at the "Super-Class" or "SuperStarDestroyer"-bullshit.

You all should keep in mind, that when we see the ISD performing as a battleship it is fighting by comparison insignificant outer-rim-insurrections or as main ship-of-the-line-vessel for remanent fractions of the empire after several years of civil war.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Also, IP, you asked what the primary tasks Batleships ended up carrying out in World War Two... the answer is, "Shore Bombardment". There were few Battleship-to-Battleship brawls after the sinking of the Bismark.

Except shore bombardment is not anything that makes a battleship special, because destroyers and cruisers also do that. Which I could have sworn IP pointed out already.

As for BBvBB, how can you forget that tragic last one between Scharnhorst and Duke of York (I'm pretty sure that's the last one)? Or even Kirishima vs South Dakota and North Carolina? Yes, "few" is technically correct, but these are important battles, man!

BUt then since the ISD carries out surface bombardment and BDZ's, well, then, there is one more way in which it has "Battleship-like characteristics".

It also has an extremely poor ability to penetrate "fortification" (planetary shield) in relationship to the Battleship Eclipse. That's a destroyer quality.

You're missing something here, IP... neither myself, nor Painrack, nor Sir Nitram are saying "the ISD IS this or that"... It is neither a carrier, nor amphib, nor BB/Dreadnought...only that it combines a number of characteristics of all these. It even combines some of the characteristics of the DD as you yourself point out...

If you are saying that, I'd say you've missed the real meat of the debate.

First, I'd note that at various times, SirNitram and Painrack both mentioned and used battleship or "battlecarrier" analogies. They may not be saying "It is a battleship" flat out, but they are definitely tending to it (and while I'm more on IP's side on this issue, I don't think the blood is wiping out all logical thought from my brain just yet).

Second, I'd note that this is merely a fight between a Saxtonian and a WEGite point of view on this issue. No one seriously disputes that the ISD is at least slightly multirole. Here's the difference, graphicalized with different sized text to represent relative importance.

IP
ISD = DD/CV/LST
Eclipse = BB/CV/LST

Painrack and SirNitram
ISD = BB/CV/LST
Eclipse = BB/CV/LST

You can barely see the CV/LST part in IP's conception, can you? And IP figures, "Since I would have to make the CV/LST part in unreadable, Point 1 sized font to accurately represent its relative worth, I might as well cut the crap and cut it out."

You can also see Painrack and SirNitram's portrayal - the Eclipse is a scaled up version of the ISD concept! Note how because they figure it is roughly multirole, all the 3 major components are of the same size, and herein lies Problem 1.

IP already went over much of Problem 1, but I'd still go over post-specific points below.

Problem 2, of course, is the main level. IP argues that a 1600m ship, regardless of its role optimization, is effectively DD level. Painrack and SirNitram argue it is more the BB level. You will notice this is one of Saxton vs WEG arguments. WEG, of course, doesn't have a problem because in its mind, there is only one vessel class above the ISD, so they treat the Executor as an "exception". This, of course, falls down given the true variety in the 1.6 to 17.6km zone. Viewed in that light, the larger ships can no longer be treated as "exceptions", and must be integrated into the main classification scheme. And by putting the ISD in the BB "power class", basically you are trapped with nowhere to go.

But you seem to lean an awful lot on the comparison between an ISD and an Earth Navy Destroyer-- but the helicopters of a Navy Destroyer are dedicated to ASW and transport-- the TIE compliment clearly has a more expanded role than this, although the TIE Bomber squadron could be a close comparison in the ASW role (ie, vs. Millenium Falcon in ESB).

That's 'cause it is scaled up to the point where it can carry a bit more than the highest priority. A ISD typically has six squadrons. A surface ship is weak against a sub (and the escorts are thus tasked against them), so it carries ASW heloes. If it has long range missiles, it carries a OTH helo to allow it to target over the horizon. So it carries such heloes.

Of course, there are few subs in Star Wars (and in any case, the main sensor array will be far more effective in penetrating those cloaks). The ISD's weaponry allows it to handle all but the smallest (starfighter) targets with ease, and its only other difficulty is probably low collateral damage precision attack. Thinking in that light, a ISD can be scaled to a six-helo destroyer, with heloes given to compensate for its weaknesses. Typically, it will have 3 AAW heloes, 1 precision attack helo (armed with say Hellfires), 1 transport helo to transport the onboard FAST contingent, and a OTH helo. Given the fact a modern helo can be more multirole, this stuff can be mashed into 2-3 RL heloes, making it even more precisely analogous. But even the six-helo destroyer does not a carrier make, both in proportion to the dedicated US (or even Russian/French) carriers or in terms of adequacy of leading an air assault over any serious opposition.

If my target is an isolated village with only a few cops on duty, I can use a helo on a destroyer, transport a squad of FAST Marines over and have them capture and occupy it if so required. It doesn't make my destroyer a LST, or it being meaningful help when faced against real opposition.

Navy Destroyers are also fleet escorts and work closely with frigates in mine/countermine operations.

MCM is a new one on me, but ISDs do escort when there's a larger ship. As for working with frigates, they do do that in light patrol duties - see Battle Squadron.

You're staking the likeness of the ISD to a ship with which there really is only a tenuous comparison-- there is more of a connection between the hybrid carrier/battleship/(or battlecruiser)/lander that we're talking about than with a raw Destroyer. We only saw ISD as Fleet Escorts once, with the Executor, in ESB.

And ROTJ. I would also note that the "one" time you see ISDs as Fleet Escorts, we quickly saw a black market arty piece (and a second rate one - it was only a -150 and there are more powerful -180 pieces) knock one out without blinking. Real battleship toughness here...

We have seen ISDs operate alone, in ship-to-ship without launching fighters, and in ship-to-ship with fighters, and we've seen the Executor deploy alone. The IMperial NAvy apparantly has no worries about these ships being able to meet battle without support.

Three words - against weak opposition. While it is not the US way (they would send as many carriers as can be mobilized), I doubt the US will feel too worried about sending just one of its Arleigh Burke destroyers to handle say the Phillipine Navy. At least they won't be worried about it being sunk, given the limited abilities of the Phillipine Navy. And a ISD is even safer because shields provide a last ditch defense against the sheer luck factor.

[SirNitram]

BUt then since the ISD carries out surface bombardment and BDZ's, well, then, there is one more way in which it has "Battleship-like characteristics".

It also has an extremely poor ability to penetrate "fortification" (planetary shield) in relationship to the Battleship Eclipse. That's a destroyer quality.

How dishonest. Using a vessel designed much later than the ISD to designate the ISD's purpose. How very dishonest of you.

You're missing something here, IP... neither myself, nor Painrack, nor Sir Nitram are saying "the ISD IS this or that"... It is neither a carrier, nor amphib, nor BB/Dreadnought...only that it combines a number of characteristics of all these. It even combines some of the characteristics of the DD as you yourself point out...

If you are saying that, I'd say you've missed the real meat of the debate.

First, I'd note that at various times, SirNitram and Painrack both mentioned and used battleship or "battlecarrier" analogies. They may not be saying "It is a battleship" flat out, but they are definitely tending to it (and while I'm more on IP's side on this issue, I don't think the blood is wiping out all logical thought from my brain just yet).

You're full of shit, Kaz. The entire fucking point of my posts has been that it's not specialized enough that, even if she was the biggest and baddest fleet combatant, she wouldn't be a BB.

Second, I'd note that this is merely a fight between a Saxtonian and a WEGite point of view on this issue. No one seriously disputes that the ISD is at least slightly multirole. Here's the difference, graphicalized with different sized text to represent relative importance.

IP
ISD = DD/CV/LST
Eclipse = BB/CV/LST

Painrack and SirNitram
ISD = BB/CV/LST
Eclipse = BB/CV/LST

You can barely see the CV/LST part in IP's conception, can you? And IP figures, "Since I would have to make the CV/LST part in unreadable, Point 1 sized font to accurately represent its relative worth, I might as well cut the crap and cut it out."

You can also see Painrack and SirNitram's portrayal - the Eclipse is a scaled up version of the ISD concept! Note how because they figure it is roughly multirole, all the 3 major components are of the same size, and herein lies Problem 1.

The Eclipse is in no way a scaled up ISD concept; it's a completely different concept(Command + Siege Artillery platform, with the other capabilities added on after). It merely shares the Imperial Navy multirole fetish.

IP already went over much of Problem 1, but I'd still go over post-specific points below.

Problem 2, of course, is the main level. IP argues that a 1600m ship, regardless of its role optimization, is effectively DD level. Painrack and SirNitram argue it is more the BB level. You will notice this is one of Saxton vs WEG arguments. WEG, of course, doesn't have a problem because in its mind, there is only one vessel class above the ISD, so they treat the Executor as an "exception". This, of course, falls down given the true variety in the 1.6 to 17.6km zone. Viewed in that light, the larger ships can no longer be treated as "exceptions", and must be integrated into the main classification scheme. And by putting the ISD in the BB "power class", basically you are trapped with nowhere to go.

Where did I say it was BB level? Jesus Christ, are people reading some invisible posts made of ectoplasm? The closest you could twist into this strawman is that I said it tends to operate as the heaviest fleet combatant in a Sector Fleet.. But to say this makes it BB-level is to imply that BB-level is extremely relative.

We have seen ISDs operate alone, in ship-to-ship without launching fighters, and in ship-to-ship with fighters, and we've seen the Executor deploy alone. The IMperial NAvy apparantly has no worries about these ships being able to meet battle without support.

Three words - against weak opposition. While it is not the US way (they would send as many carriers as can be mobilized), I doubt the US will feel too worried about sending just one of its Arleigh Burke destroyers to handle say the Phillipine Navy. At least they won't be worried about it being sunk, given the limited abilities of the Phillipine Navy. And a ISD is even safer because shields provide a last ditch defense against the sheer luck factor.[/quote]

That opposition is all that there was to face when the ISD was designed. The Galaxy was united, for the most part; the ISD's capabilities are enough that it can perform a multitude of police actions. Interdict smuggling, crush small planetary uprisings, set up a temporary HQ for army forces, et cetera.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

How dishonest. Using a vessel designed much later than the ISD to designate the ISD's purpose. How very dishonest of you.

It is, due to sheer firepower gaps, also much less efficient than the Executor, and almost certainly also the Praetors, Mandators, Procurators of the previous generation. SO don't nit.

And perhaps you just missed the part where I noted the G-canon vulnerability of our destroyers?

You're full of shit, Kaz. The entire fucking point of my posts has been that it's not specialized enough that, even if she was the biggest and baddest fleet combatant, she wouldn't be a BB.

Sorry, pal. But that's definitely the impression I got from reading your posts, and perhaps IP reads them the same way. Perhaps you can restate yourself. Besides, I'm sure I mentioned Power Class, and I'm sure IP is at least as concerned about that.

As for "not specialized enough". IP's argument would be that two heloes and a platoon of Marines not a hybrid make of a destroyer. A tiny bit of multirole doesn't make something into a real "hybrid".

The Eclipse is in no way a scaled up ISD concept; it's a completely different concept(Command + Siege Artillery platform, with the other capabilities added on after). It merely shares the Imperial Navy multirole fetish.

And here's the argument. IP's argument is that the it is multirole, but it is merely multirole - so small it is effectively ignorable in proportion, just as two heloes on a destroyer doesn't mean it becomes a hybrid.

Where did I say it was BB level? Jesus Christ, are people reading some invisible posts made of ectoplasm? The closest you could twist into this strawman is that I said it tends to operate as the heaviest fleet combatant in a Sector Fleet.. But to say this makes it BB-level is to imply that BB-level is extremely relative.

Then what the fuck are lines like these:

Because frankly that doesn't happen. This mindless idea of 'Battleship MUST equal biggest' misses the whole idea of the battleship: Dedicated fleet combatant.

or

the existance of the Bismark did not demand the reclassification of the West Virginia. Just because much bigger fleet brawlers existed(Especially in later periods), does not remove the ISD's similarity to the original Dreadnought.

If someone that wasn't all heated up from dueling with you for a whole year (and furiously enough that several posts were exchanged in a few hours) still gets that impression from reading your posts, perhaps what you should be doing, rather than screaming strawman, is restate your position, without the drag of your previous posts.

By the way, considering IIRC the original dreadnought (I presume you mena the 600m Dreadnought "Cruiser") sometimes doesn't even carry fighters, one can argue how similar it is.

That opposition is all that there was to face when the ISD was designed. The Galaxy was united, for the most part; the ISD's capabilities are enough that it can perform a multitude of police actions. Interdict smuggling, crush small planetary uprisings, set up a temporary HQ for army forces, et cetera.

All that says is that the opposition is such that destroyers (OK DD/CV/LST) may deal with it on the outskirts. It doesn't change its power class. I guess if you stop using battleship analogies and acknowledge the very limited ability of the onboard support units, I'm sure IP would stop lynching you.

[SirNitram]

How dishonest. Using a vessel designed much later than the ISD to designate the ISD's purpose. How very dishonest of you.

It is, due to sheer firepower gaps, also much less efficient than the Executor, and almost certainly also the Praetors, Mandators, Procurators of the previous generation. SO don't nit.

Please cite the source for the size/power of the Procurators/Mandators/Praetors. Though if it's Spoiler stuff for EpIII, kindly just say it's from EpIII. I, however, was under the impression all we had so far was a passing comment that they were more than an Acclamator. And so is a Victory.

And perhaps you just missed the part where I noted the G-canon vulnerability of our destroyers?

You're full of shit, Kaz. The entire fucking point of my posts has been that it's not specialized enough that, even if she was the biggest and baddest fleet combatant, she wouldn't be a BB.

Sorry, pal. But that's definitely the impression I got from reading your posts, and perhaps IP reads them the same way. Perhaps you can restate yourself. Besides, I'm sure I mentioned Power Class, and I'm sure IP is at least as concerned about that.

Perhaps you should read what's about being written instead of making shit up and claiming it's implied. I am not responsible for your paranoid delusions.

As for "not specialized enough". IP's argument would be that two heloes and a platoon of Marines not a hybrid make of a destroyer. A tiny bit of multirole doesn't make something into a real "hybrid".

More than a fourth of your crew being soldiers(Not to mention the pilots for the vehicles, maintenence, et cetera) is not 'a tiny bit' of specialization, no matter what you and IP would like to think.

(And yes, that's right. The ISD's crew from WEG is listed at 37,085 individuals, with 9,700 being Stormtroopers. If people want to be specific, we can work out the number of pilots, vehicular and starfighter, exist. And then try and speculate on the number of support personnel for these roles.)

The Eclipse is in no way a scaled up ISD concept; it's a completely different concept(Command + Siege Artillery platform, with the other capabilities added on after). It merely shares the Imperial Navy multirole fetish.

And here's the argument. IP's argument is that the it is multirole, but it is merely multirole - so small it is effectively ignorable in proportion, just as two heloes on a destroyer doesn't mean it becomes a hybrid.

So why is around a fourth of the crew Stormtroopers?

Where did I say it was BB level? Jesus Christ, are people reading some invisible posts made of ectoplasm? The closest you could twist into this strawman is that I said it tends to operate as the heaviest fleet combatant in a Sector Fleet.. But to say this makes it BB-level is to imply that BB-level is extremely relative.

Then what the fuck are lines like these:

Because frankly that doesn't happen. This mindless idea of 'Battleship MUST equal biggest' misses the whole idea of the battleship: Dedicated fleet combatant.

or

the existance of the Bismark did not demand the reclassification of the West Virginia. Just because much bigger fleet brawlers existed(Especially in later periods), does not remove the ISD's similarity to the original Dreadnought.

If someone that wasn't all heated up from dueling with you for a whole year (and furiously enough that several posts were exchanged in a few hours) still gets that impression from reading your posts, perhaps what you should be doing, rather than screaming strawman, is restate your position, without the drag of your previous posts.

Why, Kaz, should I give a shit what 'impression' you get when it's clearly not what's written? It's your delusion, not mine. Both are entirely relevant points, but it's not like relevant points seem to be ruling this thread.

(By the way: Thanks for admitting you are doing just as I suspected and not reading my posts. I have specifically stated several times that the ISD is NOT a dedicated fleet combatant, so my comment about a BB being such excludes it automatically!)

By the way, considering IIRC the original dreadnought (I presume you mena the 600m Dreadnought "Cruiser") sometimes doesn't even carry fighters, one can argue how similar it is.

Was a reference to HMS Dreadnought, not the SW Dreadnought, and it was solely limited to her ability to deploy alone. Would it kill you to read the posts instead of kneejerking?

That opposition is all that there was to face when the ISD was designed. The Galaxy was united, for the most part; the ISD's capabilities are enough that it can perform a multitude of police actions. Interdict smuggling, crush small planetary uprisings, set up a temporary HQ for army forces, et cetera.

All that says is that the opposition is such that destroyers (OK DD/CV/LST) may deal with it on the outskirts. It doesn't change its power class. I guess if you stop using battleship analogies and acknowledge the very limited ability of the onboard support units, I'm sure IP would stop lynching you.

If appeasing little brats who can't even read my posts without inventing crap to scream at was my goal, I'd do that.

[frigidmagi]

Sorry, pal. But that's definitely the impression I got from reading your posts, and perhaps IP reads them the same way. Perhaps you can restate yourself. Besides, I'm sure I mentioned Power Class, and I'm sure IP is at least as concerned about that.

Impressions? What the Fuck are you smoking and how far did you shove it up your ass to get the direct opposite "impression" from what he said you loonie?

The ISD is not a dedicated ship-to-ship brawler, as shown by her heavy troop complement, onboard stardock facilities, fighter wing, and similar. The same can be said of the Eclipse, Sovereign, Expanded ISD(That funky comic one which looks like they stretched an ISD up and along), and Allegiance class.

His first fucking post, not, say again NOT a dedicated to ship to ship brawling, what was it battleships did? Oh yeah... Ship to Ship brawling with those big guns. Strike 1!

It's not a battleship. And it can't be a ship of the line, because 'line' tactics have never been shown to be in the Imperial tactics.

Where's that fucking impression? Strike 2!

The entire fucking point of my posts has been that it's not specialized enough that, even if she was the biggest and baddest fleet combatant, she wouldn't be a BB.

Hear that Kaz? That's the sound of the fucking point quizzing by your head 6ft over at mach 3. It took me 10 seconds to find these to you blind bastard, READ THE POSTS THEN SPOUT OFF! Because now, it's Strike 3 you're outta here!

[SirNitram]

Was going over old posts archive'd back at ASVS, and found the following post from when the Imperial Sourcebook was being scoured. Some relevant points to the discussion of the importance/impact of the Stormtroopers aboard.

Stormtroopers technically do fit into the Order of Battle. But these elite
troops continue to be a source of mystery to the regular Army, even at the
level of their organization. The major difference seems to be the complete
lack of support personnel. It is known that the stormtroopers do siphon off
some supplies from the normal chain of logistics, but not nearly enough to
support a force as large as the stormtroopers appear to be. Whether they can
somehow "live off the land," have a shadow network which resupplies them in
order to enhance their mystery, or really not be in need of resupply is
simply not known.

The end result is that a stormtrooper unit is a pure combat unit.

I was wrong: There will be no support units for the 9,700 Stormtroopers onboard.

A stormtrooper battalion has 820 men. just like any other battalion. But
every single individual is either combat command or a trooper - there is
even a complete absence of staff officers.

Other differences, although minor, do appear. Stormtrooper squads vary in
number of men to a greater degree than in the regular Army. The level of
organization corresponding to a battlegroup is called a legion. While there
is no larger unit of stormtrooper organization than the legion, legions have
been known to appear from other sectors to join in a major offensive with
legions which belong to the Sector Group.

...

Corps: Corps are generally composed of four battlegroups, commanded by a
major general. This organization often covers all troops in a planetary
invasion force.

...

Sector Army: Generally composed of two to four systems armies, commanded by
a surface marshall. This organization covers all troops in a given sector.

How big is a 'battlegroup'? Here:

For example, a baseline armored battlegroup has 10,090 troopers out of a unit strength of 16,346, with 1,132 repulsorlift vehicles and 318 tanks. If every unit were augmented in accordance with the planned growth of the OB, a full strength battlegroup would have 318,062 troops in a unit total 324,318, as many support droids as troops, 36,084 repulsorcraft and 14,480 heavy tanks.

During the Galactic Civil War, A piddling 65,384 troops, 4,532 repulsorlift 'craft', and 1272 tanks is an invasion force. The ISD's normal Stormtrooper complement isn't so small anymore. Of course, the planned growth would have things over an order of magnitude bigger.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm going to respond to the previous point when I have some more time, but I'd like to note that you don't know what you're talking about, Martin. HMS Dreadnought was not peculiarly able to deploy independently. Strictly speaking all cruiser-and-larger vessels at that times could deploy independently (this was part of their definition). As time went on, all destroyers could also deploy independently.

If you're remarking on the fact that HMS Dreadnought did deploy alone, this is both true and false. HMS Dreadnought did deploy alone for trials, and any uniquely lone role was only a consequence of the fact they only had a single one. There was nothing intrinsically special about that. Dreadnought was a battleship designed to fight on a line of battle. Unsurprisingly, she was attached to a unit, the Home Fleet, as flagship from 1907 to 1912.

[SirNitram]

I'm going to respond to the previous point when I have some more time, but I'd like to note that you don't know what you're talking about, Martin. HMS Dreadnought was not peculiarly able to deploy independently. Strictly speaking all cruiser-and-larger vessels at that times could deploy independently (this was part of their definition). As time went on, all destroyers could also deploy independently.

Wow, I lack perfect recall of pre-20th century naval deployment. Whoop-de-fuck.

If you're remarking on the fact that HMS Dreadnought did deploy alone, this is both true and false. HMS Dreadnought did deploy alone for trials, and any uniquely lone role was only a consequence of the fact they only had a single one. There was nothing intrinsically special about that. Dreadnought was a battleship designed to fight on a line of battle. Unsurprisingly, she was attached to a unit, the Home Fleet, as flagship from 1907 to 1912.

And almost all ISD's are attached to units: Sector Fleets, Vader's Death Squadron, Warlord private navies....

[Illuminatus Primus]

And almost all ISD's are attached to units: Sector Fleets, Vader's Death Squadron, Warlord private navies....

So is every ship in every navy. What was your point with this tangent anyway?

Look, HMS Dreadnought was a large revolutionary fast battleship with a uniform battery. The ISD is not a revolutionary battleship distinguished by its size, speed, and uniform battery from its progenitors. They have no significant similarities.

[SirNitram]

And almost all ISD's are attached to units: Sector Fleets, Vader's Death Squadron, Warlord private navies....

So is every ship in every navy. What was your point with this tangent anyway?

Over your head several posts ago, accelerated over the horizon, and gone because you're obsessing over minutae.

Look, HMS Dreadnought was a large revolutionary fast battleship with a uniform battery. The ISD is not a revolutionary battleship distinguished by its size, speed, and uniform battery from its progenitors. They have no significant similarities.

A debator who was not an obsessive little brat trying to start a fight would have simply left this behind by now. Seriously, what's driving you to drag this out when I've explained the why's and wherefore's? Do you think you get some magic fairy points for these stupid little games?

[Illuminatus Primus]

And almost all ISD's are attached to units: Sector Fleets, Vader's Death Squadron, Warlord private navies....

So is every ship in every navy. What was your point with this tangent anyway?

Over your head several posts ago, accelerated over the horizon, and gone because you're obsessing over minutae.

Look, HMS Dreadnought was a large revolutionary fast battleship with a uniform battery. The ISD is not a revolutionary battleship distinguished by its size, speed, and uniform battery from its progenitors. They have no significant similarities.

A debator who was not an obsessive little brat trying to start a fight would have simply left this behind by now. Seriously, what's driving you to drag this out when I've explained the why's and wherefore's? Do you think you get some magic fairy points for these stupid little games?

You pointed out they both perform/are intended to perform independent tasks, and your analog was shown false. So you just change your remark to "they're both in fleets"? Then its not a peculiar characteristic tying the two together.

Quite simply they're not comparable at all.