Two questions about capital ships

[Elfdart]

1) How big is the Trade Federation Battleship? I saw 3000 meters in one of the guides, as well as one of the starship charts, but I'm not sure.

2) Why all the fuss over whether a large warship is called a dreadnaught, battleship, cruiser or destroyer?

[VT-16]

a) Yep, it's 3,170 meters long and has a circular shape, so it would in total be similar to a 6-7km long SSD.

b) Some people live in the early 90s where the only real "official" warship classification system had ships go corvettes<frigates<cruisers (everything above 400m, apparantly). And the problem is also confounded by authors who use different warship designations for the same ships. That tends to get people riled up when you try to discuss using actual naval terminology.

[Elfdart]

I agree that different authors using different names for the same ship causes confusion (as with the Blockade Runner), but what does real-life naval terminology have to do with Star Wars? They could call the Executor a "battlewagon" or "gunboat" or a "tuna-on-rye" and it doesn't change its size or role played in the movies.

[VT-16]

It apparantly generates some nerd-rage to compare them in analogs to real-life naval ships. Especially with the retarded designation of "Star Destroyer" for ships that span a 18km intervall. Now thankfully retconned out of existence.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I agree that different authors using different names for the same ship causes confusion (as with the Blockade Runner), but what does real-life naval terminology have to do with Star Wars? They could call the Executor a "battlewagon" or "gunboat" or a "tuna-on-rye" and it doesn't change its size or role played in the movies.

Well they used the fact the Executor was originally called a Star Destroyer a reason it should be in a 8 kilometer neighborhood as specified by WEG and not a 19 kilometer neighborhood as the movies obviously portrayed. They also liked to treat it as nothing more than an ISD with gigantism that the Imperial Navy built in spite of its on-screen professionalism like monster trucks by rednecks to compensate for cocksize. They have a vested interest in portraying the universe as small and all combat taking place between a handful of small ships where ISDs are GIGANTIC. Saxton changed the classification to "Star Dreadnought" to underline its size, important role, and that it was built to fight as part of a fleet just like the ISD, and that the ISD was a smaller support ship.

[Elfdart]

I should think that when a character in the movies refers to the Executor as a Star Destroyer, it shouldn't be taken literally as an official designation of the type of ship and is instead a generic term for "warship".

This is no different from the US admirals in Tora Tora Tora calling battleships "battlewagons". What kind of retard would seize on the "wagon" part and insist that the Iowa-class battleships have canvas roofs and are drawn by mules or oxen?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I should think that when a character in the movies refers to the Executor as a Star Destroyer, it shouldn't be taken literally as an official designation of the type of ship and is instead a generic term for "warship".

Exactly. You can imagine the TFN movie-hating freaks pissing themselves when GL refers casually to the Invisible Hand, a CIS ship, as a "Star Destroyer" in the ROTS commentary.

This is no different from the US admirals in Tora Tora Tora calling battleships "battlewagons". What kind of retard would seize on the "wagon" part and insist that the Iowa-class battleships have canvas roofs and are drawn by mules or oxen?

Battlewagon had been an established colloquialism for line battleships for some time, I think. I agree in principle but that might not be the best example.

[Mr Bean]

This is no different from the US admirals in Tora Tora Tora calling battleships "battlewagons". What kind of retard would seize on the "wagon" part and insist that the Iowa-class battleships have canvas roofs and are drawn by mules or oxen?

Your looking at it the wrong way Elfdart, it's not minamisim in some cases, if they call it a Star Destroyer holy fucking crap what does a Star Battleship look like?

At least that's my hopeful impression. But yes, blaim it directly on people who've never seen the ocean calling things "destroyers" "Coverettes" and "Escort Frigate"

[VT-16]

My all-time favorite is turning the Invincible-class dreadnaught into Invincible-class dreadnaught heavy cruiser in the Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook. Taking two different ship types and mashing them together. And this being a ship that's almost four times longer than the Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser. (Which is also a pretty hilarious name.)

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Want to know the really confusing part? Consider the word "Frigate."

In four centuries on one (our) world, that word changed it's meaning from;
a style of shipbuilding,
to a ship built with that style, as a qualifier to other titles- so you could have a frigated galleon-
to a ship built, in an evolutionarily different manner, to exploit the qualities associated with that style,
to a ship coincidentally the same size as those which had previously borne the title, despite having no operational similarity at all,
to a ship which fulfilled the same role as the immediate-previous generation of frigates despite being radically different in size and armament from them.

Over fifty-one million polities possibly consisting each of many worlds, and twenty-five millennia, how many bad journalists, neologisers, designation system reformers, political blowhards, overenthusiastic shipyard salesmen, incompetents and exaggerators do you think there are going to be?

I would not expect the general public of the GFFA to be particularly well informed or coherent on the subject, so in that way, the EU with it's confused and misapplied terminology probably had it right. Understated, if anything. "Look, Sir, it's an Imperial Tuna-on-Rye!" Nah, still doesn't sound quite right...although who's to say there isn't a world of acquatic beings somewhere who use the names of the predators they're familiar with as designation labels?

A Tuna-on-Rye would probably translate as "Fat, slow freighter- easy target, so easy it's practically on the sandwich already." "Starshark", on the other hand- worry.

The only people in universe who have an interest in simple, rational, straightforward and coherent are the Imperial Starfleet themselves, who probably do not object to their enemies being in a state of utter confusion but, for internal purposes, would prefer the designation of a ship to have some bearing on what it can do. Even they probably revert to manufacturer's designations and slang from time to time.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That still doesn't explain the internal inconsistency of role ratings within professional militaries like the Imperial Navy.

[Darth Raptor]

'Cause, you know, space is an ocean and cold navies have analogous ship classes with the wet navies of WWII. A cruiser is something that cruises and "Star Destroyer" is a KDY brand name. The simplest explanation is that a ship's "class" is as meaningless as who it's named after. That or it means something other than what it did in 1940. It's only because SW is sort of WWII in space that people are even attempting to make sense of it all. And failing. If Darth Vader wants to call the Executor a destroyer, I'm not going to argue with him. It obviously destroys stuff.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

I can think of a couple of explanations, none of them particularly good. There's the "well Warry" idea- they use it because it sounds better than referring to an Imperator class as a Balanced Capability Rapid Deployment Protection and Interdiction Platform, or an Executor class ship as a Fleet Rapid Pursuit Element Control and Cordination Vessel, Large. (NB; not entirely serious.)

Slightly more seriously, the Imperial Navy could be correctly and consistently applying an incoherent system. The Bureau of Ships and Services (first detailed in the 'blue book' SWRPG) could be the guilty party here; it is normally their job to assign transponder codes and verify and monitor them, and they are renowned as a closed corporation, basically politically neutral and a hereditary bureaucracy.

Yes, I am going back on my previous argument- I've thought about it a but more, and I think this is a better explanation. it would seem to be BoSS who decide what a ship is to be called, and the Imperial service is following their guidelines. Which are a mess of half- right tradition, manufacturer exaggeration and political mealy- mouthing.

Darth Raptor, my sarcasm detector went ping there, but you've hit a valid point. Whether you wanted to or not.

Class describes function, function indicates size- saying it's meaningless is the simpler explanation, but not an adequate one. There's a lot of variety there that needs to be categorised somehow, and on screen and in the EU that gets done with a mix of wet navy terminology.

What are the duties of the Imperial Starfleet? What would a rational, non-traditional description of the ships assigned to them look like? Something like the Soviet Navy system with it's descriptive acronyms? (and back to the "well Warry" explanation after all, then.)

[Darth Raptor]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Not really. Big ships don't go slower. Volume is not a reliable indicator of role. By volume, and according to WWII naval terminology, an Imperator is a destroyer. But its demonstrated role is more that of some bizarre frigate/carrier hybrid. How can it be a destroyer? There are no space subs in SW (thankfully) and they don't protect or cover any apparent weak points in larger ships. Larger ships are simply better at doing the same thing an ISD does. The answer is simple. "Star Destroyer" in SW does not mean "WWII destroyer in space". It's probably KDY's brand name for their iconic line of wedge-shaped, towered-bridged capital warships. Hence why the motherfucking Eclipse is called a destroyer by people who should know better. I find this way more likely than the commandant of the Imperial armed forces not being able to tell a destroyer from a dreadnought.

FYI, naval terminology today is not what it was sixty years ago. This despite still fighting in the same medium!

[Vehrec]

Big ships with big volumes do tend to be a larger investment of resources, and are protected accordingly. A fast ship might just be one with less armor, and therefore less damage it can take. Overall however, you do have a point

If I had to guess what a Star Destroyer destroys, I'd guess things in the 300-100 meter range that tote a large torpedo launcher/superheavy turbolaser around and are a credible threat en masse to large ships and itself, although the SD can accelerate fast enough to make it hard on the little guy. Torpedo boats basically to over-use the metaphor. Good gunnery crews might also make a star destroyer into a formidable Anti-fighter platform with flak fire and other antics. But as you say, nothing that cannot probably be done by the bigger ships.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Flak fire doesn't exist unless its a dedicated weapons. Energy weapons are not "dual mode." They fire massless energy, not multiple forms of ordinance.

Also, "it changes now" is a poor excuse when the SW galaxy is technologically and politically-economically static for the most part. Furthermore, a Star Destroyer is not a KDY term because RSD ships are Star Destroyers, and so is the Invisible Hand.

[Darth Raptor]

Also, "it changes now" is a poor excuse when the SW galaxy is technologically and politically-economically static for the most part.

My point was that advances in technology change how naval battles are fought. Going from the surface of an ocean to the depths of space is a drastic change in both technology and medium, even if it happened 25,000 years ago. It makes about as much sense as expecting the Imperial Navy to have trireme or ironclad analogues.

Furthermore, a Star Destroyer is not a KDY term because RSD ships are Star Destroyers, and so is the Invisible Hand.

Noted. Thanks.

[Elfdart]

Would it make more sense to label the ships based on role rather than size or armament?

[Elfdart]

Flak fire doesn't exist unless its a dedicated weapons. Energy weapons are not "dual mode." They fire massless energy, not multiple forms of ordinance.

Also, "it changes now" is a poor excuse when the SW galaxy is technologically and politically-economically static for the most part. Furthermore, a Star Destroyer is not a KDY term because RSD ships are Star Destroyers, and so is the Invisible Hand.

I guess everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to a popular name. Or the brand name is so common that anything similar gets the same label no matter what it's supposed to be called. Many people refer to any photocopier as a Xerox.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If anyone cares, I exhaustively documented the Executor type issue here.

[Connor MacLeod]

actually you probably can have "flak" weapons sincee some "turbolasers" exhibit projectile-like behaivour (and warheads can resemble energy bolts). Its just nto beam weapons that will be doing it. The "Complete" ICS seemed to differentiate "blaster" cannons as being some sort of plasma/projectile cannon (or at least a partticle beam weapon) and turbolasers being a beam weapon, or something to that effect. I never got around to actually buying that one.

As for the "name/class" thing, it was pretty much determined long ago that the SW classification systems make about as much sense as real life ones do, and have about as much consistency. (probably less so, given the difference in scale and complexity.)

[Illuminatus Primus]

actually you probably can have "flak" weapons sincee some "turbolasers" exhibit projectile-like behaivour (and warheads can resemble energy bolts). Its just nto beam weapons that will be doing it. The "Complete" ICS seemed to differentiate "blaster" cannons as being some sort of plasma/projectile cannon (or at least a partticle beam weapon) and turbolasers being a beam weapon, or something to that effect. I never got around to actually buying that one.

I said "unless its a dedicated weapon", i.e., it fires projectiles, which may or may not flak. And then I said "energy beams" don't explode. Clearly there CAN be flak guns, its just that the concept that magic plasmoids could explode like flak is incorrect.

[JointStrikeFighter]

If I had to guess what a Star Destroyer destroys, I'd guess things in the 300-100 meter range that tote a large torpedo launcher/superheavy turbolaser around and are a credible threat en masse to large ships and itself, although the SD can accelerate fast enough to make it hard on the little guy. Torpedo boats basically to over-use the metaphor. Good gunnery crews might also make a star destroyer into a formidable Anti-fighter platform with flak fire and other antics. But as you say, nothing that cannot probably be done by the bigger ships.

Ships like the Munificent class Star Frigates possibly fill a similar role to torpedo boats; they have got their massive heavy turbolaser but with insufficient reactor output to represent more than a small number of stowed kills.

[RogueIce]

Would it make more sense to label the ships based on role rather than size or armament?

I suppose this is the best way to do it. Does it matter if the Imperial Navy calls an Imperator a Star Destroyer and the Carrack a cruiser? Not really. It would matter if they tried to use an ISD as an escort for the Carrack but so far as I know, they don't.

The Star Wars galaxy may not give a damn about classification so far as "Frigate" "Cruiser" "Star Destroyer" "Star Dreadnought" etc is concerned. All they care about is what the ships can do and what role they fill. The names are simply whatever the manufacturer came up with, with perhaps some collequism thrown in for good measure.

So for instance, in the SW version of "Jane's Fleet Guide" or whatever, they simply put in "Role: Escort" or whatever, and the name is just a name. And of course it can vary depending on local conditions: sometimes the ISD is a commandship, sometimes it's an escort. Just like a Tico CG can be a command ship for a SAG, or the escort to a CVN.

[Dark Flame]

If I had to guess what a Star Destroyer destroys, I'd guess things in the 300-100 meter range that tote a large torpedo launcher/superheavy turbolaser around and are a credible threat en masse to large ships and itself, although the SD can accelerate fast enough to make it hard on the little guy.

Did you mean 30-100? If so, I know the Millenium Falcon is slightly smaller and not an average military ship of the line, but an ISD seemed to have quite a bit of trouble with it.

Torpedo boats basically to over-use the metaphor.

I always saw Skipray-type blasboats to be our torpedo boat analogs. Nearly as fast as a starfighter, but with significantly more punch, sacrificing armor. Much as American PT boats did.