Star "Dreadnaught" vs. Star "Destroyer"?

[Alyeska]

If it says Imperial Star Destroyer and nothing more, it could entail all the different Star Destroyer-classes in the Imperial Navy. And there´s plenty of them.

Don't create a problem where none bloody exist. The intent of the writers and the descriptions of the ships in question area ALWAYS as ISDs. Your doing nothing more then trying to make an issue out of something totaly irrelevent. The class name is Imperial and people often say Imperial Star Destroyer. IN SERIES you often see them say Victory Star Destroyer, Super Star Destroyer. You didn't see them say Victory class Star Destroyer, they said Victory. Therefor, when you see people say Imperial Star Destroyer you know what they are saying.

[Gorefiend]

There is a more solid effort in the newer publications (read, those who don´t just copy WEG material) to refer to more proper classes, ie. mentioning Procurator-class Star Cruisers, Preator-class Star Battlecruisers, Mandator- and Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts.

i have those sources as well ^^ and no insulting weg, it pretty much made the star wars galaxy

it's just funny that such an old weg roleplaying source already said that ships will be called something different by every second person.

[hewhocaves]

hmmm... lets think about this a little bit deeper than just as a naming convention. We see a lot of ISDs in the movies, and not much else. I believe at one point in ANH Han refers to them as 'cruisers' rather than ISDs.

Yes, the obvious "you're no fun anymore" answer is that ILAM's model shop had a limited budget and timeframe. It's much easier to make one ship and shoot it multiple times than to make a dozen different ships. And yes, we know that in the real world, no navy would do that. It would look more like the rebel fleet, with a bunch of different sizes and shapes. Lastly, we could argue 'canon' about the novels and the EU until we use up all the oxygen on the planet and still we couldn't come to a conclusion. This, after all, isn't Tolkien where one guy has the final say and checks everything personally (hmmm.. sounds more like Santa). This is a large conglomerate with rubber stamps everywhere.

What I always 'took' from the movies and the EU was that ISDs were the mainstay of the fleet. Maybe they were envisioned as escort ships for much larger battleships that were never built, but I took the name 'star destroyer' as a metaphor for it's destructive power - just like the term dread·nought literally means "fearing nothing". In both cases we're talking about vessels that are expected to kick ass and take names.

Okay, now lets look a little closer at the ISD. Its a pretty impressive ship in it's own right, certainly not one designed for a short cruise or a single mission type. It's versatile. For those of you who have not memorized the compliment of the ISD, here it is:
http://hangarbay.tripod.com/td-isd2.html

It can hold a total of six TIE squadrons, a full trooper divison and enough firepower to either blow smaller stuff out of the sky (fighters, etc... ) or beat up on something its own size. It's a self contained world, probably more akin to an aircraft carrier than a battleship. And that makes sense. The SW world is all about fighter craft, so there's no real point in building stuff TOO large because one lucky shot and its a floating scrap in space.

There are a few things that still don't add up, and again, it's probably the fault of the movie than SW continuity. The ISD makes an excellent weapons platform; you would expect to see more variety in the weapons on it, then. For example, a siege ISD with a large, non-moveable gun that's almost a mini death star. This could fire at planetary objectives from beyond most surface cannon range. (imagine Hoth with one of those. Blam! and there's no ROTJ and consequently no annoying ewoks. You use the rest of the fleet to pick off the survivors.) You should also see an ISD that's been gutted from within to have, say 10 or 12 Tie squadrons on it (dump the stormtrooper division). You would probably downgrade the turbolasers to make them useless against cap. ships, but more efective agaisnt fighters. Then you'd have a true carrier within the same framework. The point is that when you are mass producing for a galaxy, it's much more efficient to standardize as much as possible.

Of course the ultimate in standarization is what we have - ISDs all over the place. Ships that can do everything a little bit and come together in packs to do bigger jobs (guard the DSII, etc...) If that's the way you're building your navy - if standarization takes serious precedence over specialization, then it's not going to matter whether you call your ship a cruiser, a destroyer, a battleship or what not. They're all going to be the same.

Anyway, that's my nickel spent. Feel free to rip it to shreds.

John

[VT-16]

it's just funny that such an old weg roleplaying source already said that ships will be called something different by every second person.

In other words, they made a nice excuse to ignore proper classification, with all the different authors around. Good thinking, I guess.

The class name is Imperial and people often say Imperial Star Destroyer. IN SERIES you often see them say Victory Star Destroyer, Super Star Destroyer. You didn't see them say Victory class Star Destroyer, they said Victory. Therefor, when you see people say Imperial Star Destroyer you know what they are saying.

Fine, fine. 25 000 ISD Mk. I's and II's.

What I always 'took' from the movies and the EU was that ISDs were the mainstay of the fleet. Maybe they were envisioned as escort ships for much larger battleships that were never built, but I took the name 'star destroyer' as a metaphor for it's destructive power

Oh, there are larger ships alright, the Comm ship in ROTJ and the "Big, Correllian ships" referenced by Han in ANH (I doubt he was referring to Corvettes or Gunships). Admiral Giel´s flagship might be one of those (see Technical Commentaries for more on that).

Then there´s the myriads gathered by Palpatine´s clone in Dark Empire, many of which are bigger than the ISDs.

probably more akin to an aircraft carrier than a battleship.

Yes, it´s basically a combination of destroyer, carrier and cruiser, capable of carrying out a variety of tasks. For a more "true" destroyer, watch ROTJ. There´s at least one ship there with no underside-hangar and not reactorbulb sticking out. Ideal for ship-to-ship combat (detailed in the Tech. Comm.).

The point is that when you are mass producing for a galaxy, it's much more efficient to standardize as much as possible.

That´s true to a certain point, and many capital ship-classes seem to be based roughly around the ISD frame. (There´s even ISD interdictors.)

[nightmare]

There are older battleships and the like which in comparison to Imperial-era ships are mere frigates or less. As far as I'm concerned, "Star Destroyer" refers to a type, the new triangular classes of vessels, much like "dreadnaught" in IRL terms came to be a term for modern battleships in general. Kind of like the New Republic "New Class" program. In that sense, "Super Star Destroyer" makes as much sense as "Super Battleship", a term used in conjunction with the IJRN Yamato-class BB.

The ISD was probably meant to be precisely that - a destroyer, and Executors would be the command ships, with a whole range of other ships in between. But this grand plan of Palpatine's never fully came to be, much like when his upscaled plans in Dark Empire when he meant to have fleets of Sovereigns with Eclipses as command vessels were cut short. So as a leftover of grander days, the ISD factually became to be what it was compared to the still prevailing and much more numerous, older, smaller ship types - a heavy cruiser, or in some instances, even a battleship.

Just my two cents and all..

[ImperialBishop]

It's probably worth noting that in the movies we're only seeing a tiny, tiny fragment of the Imperial forces. There's simply no reason to engage the huge "battleships" of Executor-class ships with a guerrilla forces of the Rebels. The ISDs are being used in a "destroyer" mode: pusuit of smaller, lighter-armed ships; pickett ships for larger fleet movements; etc.

My best guess is that the number of "battleship" -esque ships in the Imperial navy is probably quite low (remember, there were only 20 battleships in the Royal Navy in 1914, and only 33 were involved at the Battle of Jutland in 1916), and the ISDs, being probably of all similar design and manufacture, are easier to build, maintain, and man than Executor-class battleships.

The Empire probably didn't think the Alliance was that much of a threat, hence the lack of capital ships at Yavin (on both sides). It's not until ROTJ that we see capital ship v. capital ship actions in the films, and even then they were on orders to stay back from the action. So I'm not sure any hard-and-fast statements on naval tactics can be made from the movies.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If it says Imperial Star Destroyer and nothing more, it could entail all the different Star Destroyer-classes in the Imperial Navy. And there´s plenty of them.

Don't create a problem where none bloody exist. The intent of the writers and the descriptions of the ships in question area ALWAYS as ISDs. Your doing nothing more then trying to make an issue out of something totaly irrelevent. The class name is Imperial and people often say Imperial Star Destroyer. IN SERIES you often see them say Victory Star Destroyer, Super Star Destroyer. You didn't see them say Victory class Star Destroyer, they said Victory. Therefor, when you see people say Imperial Star Destroyer you know what they are saying.

You cannot argue that from a conclusive perspective. There are several instances where VSDs and Executors are called "Imperial Star Destroyers."

[Gorefiend]

You cannot argue that from a conclusive perspective. There are several instances where VSDs and Executors are called "Imperial Star Destroyers."

when? i could not remeber anytime that happens.

[FTeik]

TESB-novel for examle: "The large Imperial Star Destroyer was even biggern, than the five Star Destroyers escorting it."

Or something like that.

[The Original Nex]

I was thinking about the Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser, and Carrack-class Light Cruiser issue, and how they don't seem to fit in with Imperial Naval Terminology.

The Imperial Navy puchesses ships from several corporations, including KDY, Rendili, Damorian, Seinar etc.

Consider that the Dreadnaught-class and Carrack-class ships are not made by Kuat Drive Yards.

Kuat seems to have a thing for gigantic warships right on up to Executor and Eclipse classes of Star Dreadnoughts.
The "Star" prefix may be something attached by KDY, not the Imperial Navy.

The Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser is made by Rendili. Why should Rendili use the same classification system as Kuat? Rendili may just make altogether smaller vessels, such that a 600m ship is a Heavy Cruiser by Rendili standards, even though by KDY naming standards it would be a frigate.

The Carrack-class Light Cruiser was made by Damorian Systems, an old, out-of-buisness corporation. They may have made altogether smaller ships than even Rendili, such that a 350m ship is a Light Cruiser by Damorian Standards even though by KDY naming standards, it would be a frigate or corvette.
Note that Pellaeon has called Carracks gunships before, which is more in tune to what they would be under a KDY naming system (which may be the system that was adopted by the Imperials).

The Immobiliser-class Cruiser is built by Santhe/Seinar Cor. SSC is a company that specializes in starfighter contracts. So ANY decently sized capital ship they might contruct would be, by their standards, at least considered a Cruiser, even though KDY would call it a frigate.

And someone will probably bring up that Rendili created the Victory-class Star Destroyer, but IIRC, they built it under a KDY subcontract, so KDY, may have had the naming rights yo it, thus the "Star" prefix and the Destroyer designation.

So, it may be that there's no problem at all. Only different Class Designation Systems for different companies, which make alltogether different sized ships.

[Knife]

The only way you can rationalize alot of the types of SW capships is to go to a two teir system. STAR-whatever type ships that exceed a certain tonnage and regular-whatever.

With reguards to the Dreadnaugt and Carrack, they seem to be rather easy in rationalize. The Heavy Cruiser is some 600 meters long with a health payload of weapons for its size while the Carrack a little more than half it's size and about two thirds the fire power.

According to EGVV, the Dreadnaught has (10) turbolaser cannons, (20) quad turbosaser cannons and (10) turbolaser batteries.

The Carrack has (10) heavy turbolasers, (20) ion cannons and five tractor beams.

So if you give an ion cannon the rought fire power of a quad laser, a Carrack quite close to being as heavily armed as the larger ship. Light Cruiser probably relates to its size rather than anything or perhaps due to her size, her shields aren't as good as a Dreadnaught. But with all that firepower, she's hardly a Frigate. More like a pocket battlecruiser.

Stardestroyers and their bigger cousins seem to be the next scale up where a Stardestroyer may be built to serve as a destroyer for even larger ships, she herself is larger than a typical Cruiser.

I still don't buy into the Stardestroyer=destroyer bit, but still it seems that there are two levels of ship classification going on in SW reguardless of the role of a SD.

[PainRack]

Let's not forget that ISDs are often called "dreadnoughts", "battle-cruisers" and "battle-wagons" in the RPG adventures and comics.

The easiest way to rationalise the mess is that SW clearly has a two-teir system. I don't exactly agree with the "Star" and "non-Star" system, preferring the "role" and "ability" system, in which ships are classified by type(a frigate performs this type of mission/role/characteristic wise, a Star Frigate also performs this type of mission even though it may be more powerful than a cruiser) and ability.

[Alyeska]

If it says Imperial Star Destroyer and nothing more, it could entail all the different Star Destroyer-classes in the Imperial Navy. And there´s plenty of them.

Don't create a problem where none bloody exist. The intent of the writers and the descriptions of the ships in question area ALWAYS as ISDs. Your doing nothing more then trying to make an issue out of something totaly irrelevent. The class name is Imperial and people often say Imperial Star Destroyer. IN SERIES you often see them say Victory Star Destroyer, Super Star Destroyer. You didn't see them say Victory class Star Destroyer, they said Victory. Therefor, when you see people say Imperial Star Destroyer you know what they are saying.

You cannot argue that from a conclusive perspective. There are several instances where VSDs and Executors are called "Imperial Star Destroyers."

I am aware of no such instances, but even if they did occur, it would be the exception that proves the rule. The vast majority of the time, when the term Imperial Star Destroyer is used, the Imperial CLASS is the one being referred to. This is also the same when it comes to SSD in reference to the Executor class. That people say Victory Star Destroyer without adding class should make it clear that people just drop the whole word when talking about the ship.

[ImperialBishop]

Kuat seems to have a thing for gigantic warships right on up to Executor and Eclipse classes of Star Dreadnoughts.
The "Star" prefix may be something attached by KDY, not the Imperial Navy.

I dont' think that makes any sense. "Star Destroyer" is a type of ship with a specific role. I don't think the literature shows that to be KDY designation. After all, the Empire would be thye one making the designation, not the shipyards. At least, that's the way it works on Earth.

The Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser is made by Rendili. Why should Rendili use the same classification system as Kuat? Rendili may just make altogether smaller vessels, such that a 600m ship is a Heavy Cruiser by Rendili standards, even though by KDY naming standards it would be a frigate.

The problem, though, is that the SWU uses "dreadnaught" to mean both a general class of ships (all big guns, heavy armor) and a particular class of cruiser. Maybe I'm not following you somewhere?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I am aware of no such instances, but even if they did occur, it would be the exception that proves the rule. The vast majority of the time, when the term Imperial Star Destroyer is used, the Imperial CLASS is the one being referred to. This is also the same when it comes to SSD in reference to the Executor class. That people say Victory Star Destroyer without adding class should make it clear that people just drop the whole word when talking about the ship.

It does not matter. You cannot say that catagorically, Imperial Star Destroyers are Imperial-class Star Destroyers because it simply is not true. Super Star Destroyers are not catagorically Executor-class battlecruisers.

The reason is obvious. You cannot argue backward from "Imperial Star Destroyer" or "Super Star Destroyer" and arrive conclusively at "Imperial-class Star Destroyer" and "Executor-class battlecruiser."

Colloquialisms and informal truncations do not make for consistent, conclusive terminology, so do not treat it as such.

The words should mean the same thing here that they do there; afterall, all SW literature is assumed autotranslated from Basic to English equivalent under SoD.

Another thing to remember is more than just KDY produced Star Destroyers.

[The Original Nex]

Kuat seems to have a thing for gigantic warships right on up to Executor and Eclipse classes of Star Dreadnoughts.
The "Star" prefix may be something attached by KDY, not the Imperial Navy.

I dont' think that makes any sense. "Star Destroyer" is a type of ship with a specific role. I don't think the literature shows that to be KDY designation. After all, the Empire would be thye one making the designation, not the shipyards. At least, that's the way it works on Earth.

No, a "Destroyer" is a type of ship with a specific role, KDY makes all its ships big, such that a Destroyer is 1600m long. Maybe the Empire does add the "Star" prefix and not KDY, but that seems to be a designation that's used on KDY designs more often than not.

The Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser is made by Rendili. Why should Rendili use the same classification system as Kuat? Rendili may just make altogether smaller vessels, such that a 600m ship is a Heavy Cruiser by Rendili standards, even though by KDY naming standards it would be a frigate.

The problem, though, is that the SWU uses "dreadnaught" to mean both a general class of ships (all big guns, heavy armor) and a particular class of cruiser. Maybe I'm not following you somewhere?

I think you're not following.

By the KDY standard, a "Heavy Cruiser" ought to be on the order of several kilometers long, not 600 meters. Rendili does not have to give designations based on the KDY system though, so for them, a "Heavy Cruiser" may be 600 meters.

[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.

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.

And we have precisely no evidence that the narrative in the stories published is a representative sample of the proportions of ships. We simply do not see enough or many important places at key times to be able to make any conclusion. Sometimes the best resolution to a question is "insufficient evidence for a meaningful answer." You do not always need to contrive something based on a few slapdash pieces of easily widely interpreted information.

[The Original Nex]

Another thing to remember is more than just KDY produced Star Destroyers.

Rendili is the only other one I can think of. Wasn't the VicStar made on a KDY subcontract?

[Firefox]

According to SWTC, the VicStars were Rendili in origin, with no KDY basis.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Republic-class is also Rendili. The Nebula is another.

[Gorefiend]

The Nebula Class also know as Defender Class is build by the New Republic's REC, as ugly as it is it could't be a pure kuati ship anyway ;]

[Sephirius]

I think of it this way

Star Destroyer- Literally enough firepower to destroy a star, a destroyer of stars. Not a ship class. (we all know that VSD's and ASD's don't have enough power to do this, the Republic/Empire probably just came up with a fearsome name for it, while also exaggerating their power. Never do we see anything bigger than them save for the Executor in the OT or PT. )

Han could also possibly making up a fib about there being 'big corellian ships' or he could be referring to a Bulwark Battlecruiser. (Are they made at Corellia? )

[FTeik]

Doesn't work, since we already have Star Cruisers, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnaughts in SW.

[Imperial Overlord]

According to SWTC, the VicStars were Rendili in origin, with no KDY basis.

According the the WOTC, Rendili is owned by KDY.

[Jim Raynor]

The Nebula Class also know as Defender Class is build by the New Republic's REC, as ugly as it is it could't be a pure kuati ship anyway ;]

Wizards of the Coast retconned the ship's appearance in their relatively recent Starships of the Galaxy book. Now it's quite sleek and eye pleasing.