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.
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.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
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.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska, don't draw conclusions from unavailable or very unconclusive evidence: we have no data on the relative quantities of larger-than-ISD vessels.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
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.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
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.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet
"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert
"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
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.
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.
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.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
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.
"Every single Jedi is now an enemy of the Republic. Do what must be done! Do not hesitate...show no mercy!"
-His Imperial Majesty, Palpatine I
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.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
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 )
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
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.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
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.
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.
"So you want to live on a planet?"
"No. I think I'd find it a bit small and wierd."
"Aren't they dangerous? Don't they get hit by stuff?"
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.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
)
