Imperial Star Destroyer or Imperator class Star Destroyer ?

[Alyeska]

Although I agree with you completely Chris, I must say I wouldn't consider the ISDs to be Battleships of the Empire. I personally would put it at Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser. Battleships were very expensive and precious (atleast is my understanding) where as Cruisers were the bulk of the fleet. But this is just a nitpick and makes no real change to what you are trying to put across

I have been saying this for years. The ISD class has shown itself to be the perfect cruiser. Given its status as one of the foremost assault ships and the typical lead of a task force it is easily a Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser.

Calling it a destroyer because it occasionaly escorted bigger ships is absurd. Might as well talk about the Iowa class Destroyers in WW2 since most of their mission through the whole war was carrier escort.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I have been saying this for years. The ISD class has shown itself to be the perfect cruiser. Given its status as one of the foremost assault ships and the typical lead of a task force it is easily a Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser.

Those missions were ad hoc roles for the ship based on its dual-purpose as a mobile pacification tool for the Empire's permanent occupation forces. The smallish WEG forces are not the Starfleet's idea of a taskforce. Just because a destroyer has the ability to stand up to inferior ships like a cruiser doesn't make it not a destroyer.

Calling it a destroyer because it occasionaly escorted bigger ships is absurd. Might as well talk about the Iowa class Destroyers in WW2 since most of their mission through the whole war was carrier escort.

The problem being that they're called SDs for a reason, and that was the intent of KDY and Starfleet, was for the ISD to serve as a heavy destroyer for their massive armadas. Because of the lack of a conventional enemy the vast majority of the time they DO serve as cruisers. But the idea in the KDY-scale and OOB is for the ISD to serve in the support/destroyer role.

And your analogy is poor: you're talking about the end of the Age of Battleships, which precisely is in line with my point. They were designed as anti-ship leviathans, not heavy carrier escorts, that's an ad hoc utilization by changes in times. Likewise with the ISD. Against the Rebels is often served in the cruiser role in lieu of the reserved or sparse KDY Cruisers, limiting the intended destroyer role to large escort duties, often for Executor-class commandships, or in Giel's armada, or Palpatine's Dark Empire-era fleets.

Hell, under your system depending on utilizations and the "scale" of the fleet in question, huge ranges in tonnage and weaponry could be different roles. The Dreadnought HC, for example, often served as a frigate or picket ship, but classed as a heavy cruiser for its intended scale and purpose: the police and security forces in the Old Republic against smallish merc and pirate forces.

[Ender]

If it is the name itself then why is the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer not also considered a Destroyer?

EU screwup, much like a ship identical to Executor being said to be 8km long.

So you are saying...
Victory-class Star Destroyer
Executor-class Star Destroyer
Imperial-class Star Destroyer
Allegiance-class Star Destroyer
Defender-class Star Destroyer

All destroyers?

So tell me what a Cruiser is in the Star Wars universe, a Carrier, a Battle Cruiser, a Battle Ship

And if an ISD is a Destroyer then what is a Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser? I mean it is significantly weaker than an ISD in every single respect yet it is a Heavy Cruiser?

*rubs temples*

Someone pass me the asprin.

For the THIRD FUCKING THREAD THIS WEEK


You cannot go by names to determine class. the Empire's common usage fo the term "destroyer" has far more to do with psychological politics then actual classification. It is the same thing modern countries do in reverse: A number of countries today refer to their destroyers as either "frigates" or "cruisers" because it sounds more peaceful. By calling all their ships "destroyers", it is more initimdating. It should also be pointed out we know that the NR plays the same game, calling its ships "cruisers" or "star defenders" instead of "destroyers" or "battleships" with few exceptions. It was also stated by 3PO in Vector Prime that a number of ship classification scales existed, including some that were laughable.

Ships are classified based on their tonnage, their weaponry, and their role. By examining those with regards to each ship is how you find out what it truly is. An Imperial class and the Victory class both clearly fall as Destroyers, and the Allegiance is debatably either a heavy destroyer or a light cruiser. Executors, the Vengence, Eclipses, Sovereigns are all very clearly AGFs based off their role in battle, despite what they are called. And I am still waiting to hear back from K-Mac about the Nebula/Defender.

And as I have said multiple times before, at great length, a "Super class" also has basis in reality, we have "supercarriers" today. In that case all it means is a carrier larger then the typical tonnage for the class. Thus you can quite easily have Executor class Super Star Destroyers.


http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/fac ... html#ships If anyone cares to investigate at all.

[The Dark]

Calling it a destroyer because it occasionaly escorted bigger ships is absurd. Might as well talk about the Iowa class Destroyers in WW2 since most of their mission through the whole war was carrier escort.

Erm...I'm almost 100% sure the Iowa class outmassed all the carriers it escorted. It was definitely more massive than the Essex-class that were the primary Fleet Carriers of WWII (by about 8,000 tons). Midway outmassed the Fast Battleships, but it wasn't actively serving by the end of the war. Escorting bigger ships was the province of the Destroyer, the Cruisers (Light and Heavy), and the Escort Carrier.

[Connor MacLeod]

The nomenclature bit had to do with canon KDY vessels.

The Defender, the Majestic, and the Republic was not KDY vessels, and not canon.

There you go with the fancy words again. So if we're talking canon
then the debate is straightforward. Its Imperial. So we live with it and stop playing childish name games.

And just to forestall further argument, I suppose we should point out that if we accept your ludicrous logic, that means that the Mandel blueprints (which at best rate official) would be WELL overidden by now by "newer" information, again by YOUR logic. Either way, it remains Imperial-class both in canon and official.

[Ender]

It is also Canon that they are Cruisers if you watch A New Hope when the yare fleeing the Star Destroyers Han says along the lines "Cruisers, coming right for us"

You can't say this is because he is "running away". There is such a huge difference between a destroyer and a cruiser, he was also at one point in the Imperial academy, that is something you don't mistake. If a carrier was chasing you down in your little speedboat would you say "Destroyer coming right for us" and what if you were also in the Navy at one point? I don't think so.

Could you tell which is which between those two if you had a split second view? I couldn't. And I'm in the Navy right now.

[Illuminatus Primus]

These fast warships provide multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities, and can operate independently or as part of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious ready groups, and underway replenishment groups.

Rather close to an ISD, actually. Massive mission profile, dual defense/offensive capabilities, and a wide range of stand-alone or support roles.

[Ender]

These fast warships provide multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities, and can operate independently or as part of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious ready groups, and underway replenishment groups.

Rather close to an ISD, actually. Massive mission profile, dual defense/offensive capabilities, and a wide range of stand-alone or support roles.

Exactly. Only place an ISD and a destroyer don't match up in mission profile is anti sub warfare and thats because there are no god damned subs in space.

[Connor MacLeod]

The "Super" class is officially 8 km (or second-tier canon 12.8, depending on ytour source.) The Executor itself is 17.6 km by movie canon (unless you want to get into one of those nitpicky arguments about the inaccuracies of scaling methods.) An "Executor-class" vessel, being of the same class as the Executor itself (like the Intimidator), would be of similar size.

I think it's easier just to throw out the "Super-class" silliness altogether, rather than to make the assumption that they're two different vessels. It is never implied that there are two versions of the vessel; instead just conflicting lengths for the same vessel (SOTE labeling Darth Vader's Executor as a Super-class being a good example).

The two ships have distinct differneces, aside from engine configuration.. their shapes and dimensions and ratios differ. I see no reason to throw it out on the basis of silliness, especially if it offers a justified explanation for the confusion between sizes. (By your logic, we should throw out the SWHS, games, the animated series, and so on just because they are "silly.")

[Connor MacLeod]

Christ, we're still playing name games? Someone could point out that the canon novelization for ANH and the script (As well as the canon statements by Han himself, a former Imperial cadet and therefore knowledgable about Imperial ships) that the "Devastator" and other Imperial "star Destroyers" are referred to as cruisers. They're referred to as cruisers on the site.

But that would be more pointless name games because some people are too obsessed with said names.

Given the massive propensity for the Empire to use a wedge-shape design for its vessels, there are probably destroyer-class vessels that resemble ISDs as well as other "classifications" so, as usual the names don't matter. Unless you want to obsess about them pointlessly. I'll go back to considering capabilities.

[Ender]

Christ, we're still playing name games? Someone could point out that the canon novelization for ANH and the script (As well as the canon statements by Han himself, a former Imperial cadet and therefore knowledgable about Imperial ships) that the "Devastator" and other Imperial "star Destroyers" are referred to as cruisers. They're referred to as cruisers on the site.

But that would be more pointless name games because some people are too obsessed with said names.

Given the massive propensity for the Empire to use a wedge-shape design for its vessels, there are probably destroyer-class vessels that resemble ISDs as well as other "classifications" so, as usual the names don't matter. Unless you want to obsess about them pointlessly. I'll go back to considering capabilities.

Unfortunatly it does matter, being able to properly classify them and knowing thier abilities lets you set up a baseline to estimate the capabilities of other ships relative to it based off their classifications. EG a cruiser should be slower but more heavily armed and defended then a destroyer, but a frigate will pack a similar though slightly lighter armermant and trade defense for speed.

Which is one of the methods Saxton used in developing the ICS

[AniThyng]

name games name games for goodness sake didn't the US Navy use to class the Tico's as DESTROYERS like thier cousins the Spruances until they realised there was a 'cruiser gap' and arbitarily reclassed the Tico's to by cruisers? they aren't much larger then Spruances, hell same hull, but they are classed dramatically diferrently.

[Ender]

name games name games for goodness sake didn't the US Navy use to class the Tico's as DESTROYERS like thier cousins the Spruances until they realised there was a 'cruiser gap' and arbitarily reclassed the Tico's to by cruisers? they aren't much larger then Spruances, hell same hull, but they are classed dramatically diferrently.

There is also a gap between firepower.

[Connor MacLeod]

[quote="EnderUnfortunatly it does matter, being able to properly classify them and knowing thier abilities lets you set up a baseline to estimate the capabilities of other ships relative to it based off their classifications. EG a cruiser should be slower but more heavily armed and defended then a destroyer, but a frigate will pack a similar though slightly lighter armermant and trade defense for speed.
[/quote]

Except the debate isnta bout whether or not there are destroyers, cruisers, battleships, etc. Its about whether an ISD is a destroyer, cruiser, battleship, or chuck wagon. At this point its largely degenerated into pointless name games. We can certainly designate classes, but we dont exactly have to have names for them.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The two ships have distinct differneces, aside from engine configuration.. their shapes and dimensions and ratios differ. I see no reason to throw it out on the basis of silliness, especially if it offers a justified explanation for the confusion between sizes. (By your logic, we should throw out the SWHS, games, the animated series, and so on just because they are "silly.")

Where can we find a Super-class vessel?

The Executor-class's include:

HIMS Executor
HIMS Lusankya
HIMS Iron Fist
HIMS Razor's Kiss
HIMS Terror
HIMS Guardian
HIMS Intimidator
HIMS Knight Hammer

The Super-class IS a misidentification of the Executor-class. That is why it should be thrown out. I don't understand why everyone acts like we're in a vacuum isolated from the obvious intent. Remember under Suspension of Disbelief EU sources can be regarded like history books or documentaries, and the Super-class almost universally seems a mis-identification of the Executor, and should be treated as such.

[AniThyng]

There is also a gap between firepower.

well, yes, there is a gap. so why were they both destroyers in the first place?
the USN didn't rename them because they felt the Tico's deserved to be cruisers, they did it for political and PR reasons, didn;t they?

[Connor MacLeod]

Where can we find a Super-class vessel?

The Executor-class's include:

HIMS Executor
HIMS Lusankya
HIMS Iron Fist
HIMS Razor's Kiss
HIMS Terror
HIMS Guardian
HIMS Intimidator
HIMS Knight Hammer

Oh yes, we'll certainly find those vessels among the listing of ships known to be Executor class vessels, even though its quite obviously a completely different class of vessel mistakenly identified as Executor class ships.

We don't see communications ships, yet we're not questioning their existence. We don't see alot of the variations Saxton has noted, yet that does not mean they do not exist.

The Super-class IS a misidentification of the Executor-class.

I thought I said that when I pointed out its distinctly different from the Executor class.

That is why it should be thrown out. I don't understand why everyone acts like we're in a vacuum isolated from the obvious intent. Remember under Suspension of Disbelief EU sources can be regarded like history books or documentaries, and the Super-class almost universally seems a mis-identification of the Executor, and should be treated as such.

Because some of us, unlike you, realize the importance of harmonizing sources rather than arbitrarily tossing them out. Its a point I've been rathre firmly pointing out to you throughout this entire discussion. We could throw out Hobbie and Veers surviving because canon overrides official, but we choose not to. We could throw out alot of canon because it appears to override official, but we do not. Does the reasons for this not OCCUR to you in the least?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh yes, we'll certainly find those vessels among the listing of ships known to be Executor class vessels, even though its quite obviously a completely different class of vessel mistakenly identified as Executor class ships.

What?

Because some of us, unlike you, realize the importance of harmonizing sources rather than arbitrarily tossing them out. Its a point I've been rathre firmly pointing out to you throughout this entire discussion. We could throw out Hobbie and Veers surviving because canon overrides official, but we choose not to. We could throw out alot of canon because it appears to override official, but we do not. Does the reasons for this not OCCUR to you in the least?

Because we KNOW the intent for Christ's sake. We know what the error is. Canon overrides Official. The "Super-class" vessels are Executors. We don't drop out Hobbie and Veers because LFL chose to sanction multiple sources on multiple occasions which made it change.

Like I said, the Suspension of Disbelief assumption means you treat the movies as direct objective observations (limited only be the medium of transmission, ie., "slow mo" in the trench in ANH and lens irregularities), and all other levels are treated like history books or other secondary sources. We recognize the WEG as a window into SW where a misinterpretation of the Executor is made. Therefore the "Super" class vessels are intended to be the same as the Executor ship in the movies.

[Connor MacLeod]

What?

You expected ships that are 8/12.8 km long to show up in a list of vessels known to be 17.6 km long and of a completely different class. IE a pointlessly foolish rebuttal.

Because we KNOW the intent for Christ's sake. We know what the error is. Canon overrides Official. The "Super-class" vessels are Executors. We don't drop out Hobbie and Veers because LFL chose to sanction multiple sources on multiple occasions which made it change.

And they chose to sanction the existence of a 12.8/8 km vessel. Live with it. We know there is a scaling error, we treat it as a labeling mistake, where the fucking hell do you expect the mistake to actually come form? I unlike you can offer a possibility to that. You on the other hand just scream "I don't want it, throw it out!" and plug your ears while singing loudly.

Like I said, the Suspension of Disbelief assumption means you treat the movies as direct objective observations (limited only be the medium of transmission, ie., "slow mo" in the trench in ANH and lens irregularities), and all other levels are treated like history books or other secondary sources. We recognize the WEG as a window into SW where a misinterpretation of the Executor is made. Therefore the "Super" class vessels are intended to be the same as the Executor ship in the movies.

Or in other words, you're looking desperately for a little loophole to prop up your piddly argument on because of some irrational aversion to the notion that two seperate vessels just *might* exist. Again, it may have eluded your notice, but we dismiss sources as a *last resort* - and you have not established any valid reason WHY it should be dismissed aside from "I don't like it!" Sorry, you lose, try again another day.

This is in fact a fundamental base upon which the rational analysis of SW is based upon. Saxton has advocated it, I know Mike has advocated it (and done so on various occasions. In fact his argument about "Suspension of disbelief" is intended for that purpose, but that hardly makes it teh only or best answer. You may not have noticed, but Mike is someone who favors a very flexible and variagated approach to the issue. You on the other hand, appear willing to throw everything out the very moment it offends your personal sense of what SW should be.)
This is one o fthe key foundations that I have learned to handle analysis by, and if you can't understand that, you are merely wasting my time.

[Alyeska]

Connor, that list is of Executor class ships. The Lusankya is the fucking sister ship to the Executor. Stackpole's 8km error must be tossed out the window. That means any SSD that is linked to the Executor or can be traced back to the Lusankya (Razors Kiss and Iron Fist certainly can) is the 17.6km long version.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You expected ships that are 8/12.8 km long to show up in a list of vessels known to be 17.6 km long and of a completely different class. IE a pointlessly foolish rebuttal.

Most of those ships ARE CALLED Super-class vessels, yet we KNOW that they are the same vessel as Executor.

This is in fact a fundamental base upon which the rational analysis of SW is based upon. Saxton has advocated it, I know Mike has advocated it (and done so on various occasions. In fact his argument about "Suspension of disbelief" is intended for that purpose, but that hardly makes it teh only or best answer. You may not have noticed, but Mike is someone who favors a very flexible and variagated approach to the issue. You on the other hand, appear willing to throw everything out the very moment it offends your personal sense of what SW should be.)
This is one o fthe key foundations that I have learned to handle analysis by, and if you can't understand that, you are merely wasting my time.

Conceded.

[Connor MacLeod]

Most of those ships ARE CALLED Super-class vessels, yet we KNOW that they are the same vessel as Executor.

Yet how can this be so? If the Executor is 17.6 Km, has distinctly different features, scale, engine arrangements, cityscapes, and whatnot compared to the Super-class, then how the hell can they be the SAME SHIP?

The stats on the Super-class STar Destroyer (Derived form hte ISB) prove otherwise:


Super Star Destroyer
Craft: Kuat Drive Yards' Super Star Destroyer
Type: Super-class Star Destroyer
Scale: Capital
Length: 8,000 meters
Skill: Capital ship piloting: Super Star Destroyer
Crew: 279,144, gunners: 1,590, skeleton: 50,000/+10
Crew Skill: Astrogation 4D, capital ship gunnery 6D, capital ship piloting 6D+2, capital ship shields 5D+2, sensors 5D
Passengers: 38,000 (troops)
Cargo Capacity: 250,000 metric tons
Consumables: 6 years
Cost: Not available for sale
Hyperdrive Multiplier: x2
Hyperdrive Backup: x10
Nav Computer: Yes
Maneuverability: 1D
Space: 4
Hull: 10D
Shields: 8D

Sensors:
Passive: 75/1D+2
Scan: 150/3D+2
Search: 300/5D
Focus: 8/6D+2

Weapons:
250 Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Arc: 100 front. 75 left. 75 right
Crew: 1(100), 2(150)
Skill: Capital ship gunnery
Fire Control: 1D
Space Range: 3-15/35/75
Atmosphere Range: 6-30/70/150 km
Damage: 7D

250 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Arc: 100 front, 50 left, SO right, 50 back
Crew: 2
Skill: Capital ship gunnery
Space Range: 5-20/40/60
Atmosphere Range: 10-20/80/120 km
Damage: 10D

250 Concussion Missile Tubes
Fire Arc: 50 front, 75 left, 75 right, 50 back
Crew: 1
Skill: Capital ship gunnery
Fire Control: 2D
Space Range: 2-12/30/60
Atmosphere Range: 4-24/60/120 km
Damage: 9D

250 Ion Cannons
Fire Arc: 100 front, 50 left, 50 right, 50 back
Crew: 1(100), 2 (150)
Skill: Capital ship gunnery
Fire Control: 4D
Space Range: 1-10/25/50
Atmosphere Range: 2-20/50/100 km
Damage: 4D

40 Tractor Beam Projectors
Fire Arc: 20 front, 10 left, 10 right
Crew: 1
Skill: Capital ship gunnery
Fire Control: 4D
Space Range: 1-5/15/30
Atmosphere Range: : 2-10/30/60 km
Damage: 9D"
[/quote]

Furthermore as I pointed out, dimensional comparisons (IAs well as engine comparisons, comaprisons of the official "thousands of Ties" the executor-class Knight HAmmer carried to the mere 144 a Super class carries, and so forht, prove they are in fact two distinct vessels.

We are ALREADY treating them as an identification error, the assumption that a ship exists for them to be misidentified as is not that great a leap in logic, and does not re quire any special assumptions on our part aside from those that canon already provides (canon overrides official.) The fact we are harmonizing sources as opposeds to arbitrarily dismissing them further reinforces the argument.

In short, to successfully carry out your dismissal, you must *prove* the two are totally irreconcilable. You cannot claim they are the same ship because by definition they are already separate ships. Burden of proof is on you to provide this. Suspension of disbelief and dismissal is not a "get out of evidence" free card, it is the LAST FUCKING RESORT when we know we cannot in any way reconcile an incident (Like the Endor Holocaust.) This is NOT one of those incidents, nor have you proven it as such.

[Kuja]

In short, to successfully carry out your dismissal, you must *prove* the two are totally irreconcilable.

The Lusankya is stated to be the Executor's sister ship. (Bacta War, Isard's Revenge)

The Executor is stated to be a Super-class Star Destroyer. (SOTE)

The Lusankya the Iron Fist, and the Razor's Kiss are all stated to be 8km long. (Iron Fist, Isard's Revenge)

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Kuja, we are trying to avoid such idiocy...

[Connor MacLeod]

In short, to successfully carry out your dismissal, you must *prove* the two are totally irreconcilable.

The Lusankya is stated to be the Executor's sister ship. (Bacta War, Isard's Revenge)

The Executor is stated to be a Super-class Star Destroyer. (SOTE)

The Lusankya the Iron Fist, and the Razor's Kiss are all stated to be 8km long. (Iron Fist, Isard's Revenge)

Yet it is proven that they cannot be Super-class because the said ship class is 8km/12.8 km, while the Executor classes and her sister shipsa are all 17.6 km. Since we are already assuming an error exists regardlesss, this is irrelevant. We are discussing whether or not a Five/eight-mile ship is irreconcilable as a separate ship, which is a completely *different* issue. Sorry, try again.

I further point out that on his "Rationalizations" page on the Executor discussion, Saxton does admit its possible for a five (or in this case eight) mile version to exist, but that it would be (as I said) most explicitly not an Executor-class.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#rationalisations