StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SPOOFE wrote:

Isn't that 1E9 lower end figure suggests that the empire would have been able to provide an average of 1.000 ISDs (or ships with comparable firepower) for its million member worlds (completely ignoring the less important worlds)?

It's unknown just how many ISD's were permanently on police duty. Further, there were an additional 10 million colony systems/worlds, if I recall correctly, which would need further policing. Then there are the frontline forces... remember, there were fleets (or individual ships) that were darting all over the galaxy constantly in conquest (like Thrawn's ship before he returned).

The Empire was always in motion... the only way it managed to remain stable was by constantly adding new territory. It hadn't acquired ALL the galaxy by the time the films come around.

Imperial Sourcebook says it halted expanding because it didn't want all these colony worlds to enforce a presence on just yet.

vakundok wrote:

SPOOFE wrote:

Isn't that 1E9 lower end figure suggests that the empire would have been able to provide an average of 1.000 ISDs (or ships with comparable firepower) for its million member worlds (completely ignoring the less important worlds)?

It's unknown just how many ISD's were permanently on police duty. Further, there were an additional 10 million colony systems/worlds, if I recall correctly, which would need further policing. Then there are the frontline forces... remember, there were fleets (or individual ships) that were darting all over the galaxy constantly in conquest (like Thrawn's ship before he returned).

If we assume that a colony requires approximately one tenth the permanent presence of a member world, it is still 500 (and 50 per colony). If we assume that 90% of the fleet (25 millions of the Death Squad!) is assigned to frontline (the first time the rebellion provided a frontline was the battle of Endor) duty, escorting civilian convoys or special missions, it is still 50 (5).

Good christ, I covered this with Alyeska already. Are you just not reading the explanations that justify the numbers?

Ender wrote:Why the fuck would I change it from power when it is suppossed to be a figure for power?

You compared the power the DS can generate "over one day" to the power an ISD can generate in a second.
Let's see a single barelled autocannon against a six barelled autocannon (with the same caliber). Which one has the more firepower? If we follow your opinion (and forget about the rate of fire), their firepowers are equal.

Ender wrote:Good christ, I covered this with Alyeska already. Are you just not reading the explanations that justify the numbers?

Sorry, forget it.

Ender wrote:

FTeik wrote:

Ender wrote:You mean include things that didn't exist at the time? Ok

Torpedo-Spheres were already discribed in the ISB,

They are also strategic weapons platforms, not ships, and their known production run and easily estimated firepowe don't really skew it, especially when the 1 billion is already low end because I take "greater then half" to mean all.

Are you suggesting, that they are not part of the fleet, but controlled by the army?

which predates ANH and according to Mon Mothma in "Soldiers of the Empire" the superlaser of the DeathStar was nothing new, but simply the "most powerful superlaser ever built".

Yes, and you have what evidence that there were standard superlaser mounting ships at that time?

I have as much evidence for it, as you have against it.

Vessels like Admiral Giel´s flagship or General Tagge´s battlecruiser certainly predate ANH too.

Good shrist, this damn number is already low end, the total warships is lower then the commonl used Marina calcs, and you are bitching about this? Get a life.

Further, prove both of those were pre ANH.

I have to read Marina´s calcs again, but i´m sure, that they didn´t reached one billion ships.

As for the vessels pre-ANH: Of course the empire, which has been in power almost twenty years by the time of ANH only starts to build something bigger, than an ISD after the destruction of the first DeathStar.

Ender wrote:

SPOOFE wrote:

Isn't that 1E9 lower end figure suggests that the empire would have been able to provide an average of 1.000 ISDs (or ships with comparable firepower) for its million member worlds (completely ignoring the less important worlds)?

It's unknown just how many ISD's were permanently on police duty. Further, there were an additional 10 million colony systems/worlds, if I recall correctly, which would need further policing. Then there are the frontline forces... remember, there were fleets (or individual ships) that were darting all over the galaxy constantly in conquest (like Thrawn's ship before he returned).

The Empire was always in motion... the only way it managed to remain stable was by constantly adding new territory. It hadn't acquired ALL the galaxy by the time the films come around.

Imperial Sourcebook says it halted expanding because it didn't want all these colony worlds to enforce a presence on just yet.

The same ISB, that said, that "new sectors and regions are formed constantely"?

FTeik wrote:

Ender wrote:

SPOOFE wrote: It's unknown just how many ISD's were permanently on police duty. Further, there were an additional 10 million colony systems/worlds, if I recall correctly, which would need further policing. Then there are the frontline forces... remember, there were fleets (or individual ships) that were darting all over the galaxy constantly in conquest (like Thrawn's ship before he returned).

The Empire was always in motion... the only way it managed to remain stable was by constantly adding new territory. It hadn't acquired ALL the galaxy by the time the films come around.

Imperial Sourcebook says it halted expanding because it didn't want all these colony worlds to enforce a presence on just yet.

The same ISB, that said, that "new sectors and regions are formed constantely"?

That's open to interpretation. It could simply mean that they're reorganising the current layout, maybe merging 2 sectors into 1.

Ender wrote: If all ships are generically called "cruisrs" but specifically called star destroyers or star cruisers or star battlecruisers or star dreadnaughts, I'd say the "star whatever" is a very strong indicator.

Except as I've pointed out, Executor-class command ships are ALSO "Star Destroyers" or "Imperial Star Destroyers." And that is canonical. Suggests a title to me rather than a classification, since Executors are most certainly not destroyers.

there is a difference between the generic description and the actual name

So what makes "cruiser" a generic description over "Star Destroyer", "Super Star Destroyer", or "Star Cruiser" - since they are demonstrably just as vague, what exactly leads you to believe that you are right?

I've outlined this before, having done alot of research on it: The Imperial navy chose to do the opposite of what a number of earth governments and what the New Republic did. Many countries do not use the title destroyer for its destroyer class vessels because of the negative connotation. Instead they use frigate, cruiser, or in the NR's case, "star defender" (though defender appears to substitute for battleship, not destroyer). However, the Empire rules by fear, so they want that. So all thier large ships are going to be called destroyers. however, since ISDs were built in the tail end of the Old republic, they would still go under the old "star then class of ship" system. This old system had Star Dreadnaughts and Star Battlecruisers according to AOTC ICS, and fits with Star Cruiser, Star Destroyer, and the odd references (websites only, I don't know the true source) stating that the Katana ships were Dreadnaught class Star Frigates.

Thats a rather convoluted bit of logic to justify "Star Destroyer" as a classification rather than a title, don't you think? Moreover, how do apparent KDY-classifications apply to the Imperial fleet? The Empire grabs warships from more than just KDY.

Not having the novel handy, is the designation cruiser 3rd person or via a character? If its 3rd person, could you provide the quote, if its from a character, the images of a destroyer and cruiser are similar enough to easily be confused.

Yes, and they aren't from a character. Even if they are, how does that refute my point? Han points to the Executor as being a "command ship" in ROTJ and we accept that, so why would we disbelieve him when he says the Star Destroyer is a cruiser in ANH? He was in the Navy after all, wasn't he?

ANH novel, Pg 3-4 wrote: The source of those multiple energy beams suddenly hove into view - a lumbering Imperial cruiser, its massive outline bristling cactuslike with dozens of heavy weapons emplacements. Light ceased arching from those spines now as the cruiser moved in close. Intermittent explosions and flashes of light could be seen in those portions of the smaller ship which had taken hits. In the absolute cold of space, the cruiser snuggled up alongside its wounded prey.

Pg 13 wrote: When word came over the communicators that the last pocket of resistance on the rebel ship had been cleaned out, the Captain of the Imperial cruiser relaxed considerably.

Pg 14 wrote: Somewhere behind him, he knew, the crippled fighter and the Imperial cruiser were receding into imperceptibility.

Pg 21 wrote: A portable accessway had been sealed to it and a circlet of light showed at the far end of the tunnel, bridging space between the rebel craft and the cruiser.

Pg 23 wrote: He wiped the offensive matter away silently, watching her with interest as she was marched through the accessway into the cruiser.

Pg 23 wrote: "Holding her is dangerous," he ventured, likewise looking after her as she was escorted toward the cruiser.

Pg 24 wrote: "It shall be as you direct, Lord Vader," the Commander acknowledged. Both men entered th e accessway to the cruiser.

It is useful to note that while the novelization tends to apply a variety of terms to descripting the Tantive IV ("fighter", appears to be most consistent), the Devastator is rather consistently called a cruiser.

TESB novel, pg 103-104 wrote:Two Imperial cruisers slowly moved across the surface of the giant Asteroid. The Millenim Falcon had to be hidden somewhere within-but where?

As the ships skimmed the surface of the asteroid, they dropped bombs on its pock-marked terrain, trying to scare out the freighter. The shock waves from the explosives violently shook the spheroid, but still there was no sign of the Falcon. As it drifted above the asteroid, one of the Imperial Star Destroyers cast an eclisping shadow across the tunnel entrance.

Quote describes a pair of Star Destroyers assisting in bombarding the asteroid in hunting down the Falcon. They refer to them both as "Star Destroyers" and "cruisers".

ROTJ novel Pg 141 wrote: TIE fighters, first - they were much faster than the bulky Imperial cruisers, so they were the first to make contact with the Rebel invaders.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... destroyer/

STarwars.com wrote: The triangular silhouette of an Imperial cruiser has come a long way since its Republic-inspired design. While vessels of the Jedi order were met with feelings of pride and relief as they came soaring to solve galactic strife, the Imperial Star Destroyer's gargantuan size cleary inspires both awe and terror

Again, in the "Movies/canon" entry, they list the ISD as a "cruiser" and as a "Star Destroyer"

Until you remember that ships are classified not by length, but by tonnage. As Mon Cal cruisers are ovoid and not pyramidal, they will have something like 12x greater volume for the same XYZ dimensions. Given the same density (fuel and armor requirements would be similar, so there is no pressing need to argue differently), even the smaller EU ships would still outmass an ISD by a fair amount (almost double or so last time I did the math, 300 vs 800 or something)

You're correct about tonnage, but I'm curious about your scalings. By the WEG scalings I did for both canon and official, it was not significantly more massive (in fact, the 1200 meter ships were half the mass). Moreover I did scalings of the Liberty from available images (as well as using the dimensions given for the Liberty model) and it wasn't substantially more massive than an ISD, unless you assume the Mon Cal cruiser's construction uses denser materials - and those were generous because I assumed the main body was cylindrical and ignored the tapering at the front and the fact the aft third of the ship is mostly empty wher ethe engines are. Can you elaborate on these "measurements"?

(Except that all we really can do here is volumetric comparison, not mass/tonnage, since we lack density figures)

IP provided the quotes above. Cruisers and destroyers fulfill alot of the same roles (including command ships and what not) , but ultimatly the destroyer role fits better.

Only if you treat the ISD as being comparable to a guided missile destroyer and ignore the distinctions between guided missile destroyers and normal destroyers. But as you said, both fit the roles. But which do we have references to as ship class in canon, rather than titles?

Not by a long shot, last time this was argued pics were brought up showing that destroyers and cruisers are almost identical in looks and size. Unless you know what to look for, its hard to tell the difference.

True for naval ships, but its not really that easy to distinguish the wedge-shaped ships except by sensor scans or close up in great detail, is it? What I meant is that cruisers (especially around WW2) tended to get so powerful they were renamed as battlecruisers and such. And, that compared to destroyers, cruisers are closer in capability and design to a battleship than a destroyer is.

Suppossing for a minute you are right, how would you fit all the other identified dagger ships into the classification then?

Compared to Saxtons? The only real difference I can see I am making is that ISD's are not destroyers. They're on the lower end of the cruiser scale. I don't see how this equates a need to reclassify everything else.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: I guess destroyers didn't exist in WWII, as almost exclusively gun-armed ships under many of the same roles...oh wait. Submarine warfare is irrelevent, because its blatently obvious such things cannot be analogued from wet to space navies. The destroyer label is used throughout labelling of Sci Fi navies, but I've yet to find one that fights submarines.

And gee, what are the roles of destroyers? I found an answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer

Given what is stated there, they don't exactly sound like Star Destroyers. Naval destroyers, even way back in WW2, were used to protect other warships against enemy fighters, torpedo boats, and torpedoes AND submarines (the name "destroyer' is derived from the name 'torpedo boat destroyer', in fact). I don't exactly recall Star Destroyers being fast, manuverable warships used to intercept fighters and warheads that threatened bigger ships. I recall them being used to fight enemy cruisers or destroyers, or even to attack bigger craft. For that matter, DDG's don't carry small craft of any sort - something we clearly see Star Destroyers doing (and has been done with cruisers as well - Kiev-class cruisers being one such example.)

By the way, DD's they don't behave much like guided missile destroyers either as per those neat little links you provided, and despite your constant attempts to confuse the two. I hope you *do* realize there is a difference. In fact, did you notice in what you posted they refer to the destroyers in "plural" (both DDG and DG), whereas the cruiser entry is singular? If you delve into the rest of the discussion, it becomes evident that only the DDG is in fact multi-mission, but it is *also* distinct from the destroyer.)

Regarding submarines, I guess we just pretend stealthed or cloaked vessels don't exist, right? What about surprise hyperspace attacks (which seem eminently possible - interdictors were used in "Tyrant's Test" to protect the Intimidator from such surprise attacks.)

And this of course ignores the fact that ISD's are still *called* cruisers, and even if we accept your ludicrous notions about the DDG, the fact that the cruiser fills the same roles (Again by your own evidence) suggests that ISDs would not be inconsistent with being a cruiser in the least. And since I have evidenec of them being referred to cruisers, I have a strong basis for my argument that does not rely on ignoring or dismissing evidence or on interpretation. Case closed.

The roles of Guided Missile Destroyers and Cruisers (which are still a subset of destroyer and cruiser, the meaning of which has not changed much since WWII).

Can you please explain how this "wet navy guided missile" red herring has anything to do with the simple fact that WWII era destroyers and cruisers exactly fit the descriptions listed? And there's a reason they seperate features from description. Description does just that: give a general description of the purpose and role of a class. The Features describe how the modern vessels matching that description fullfill said description. WWII era Cruisers and Destroyers filled very similar if not nearly identical descriptions, merely changing the fact that they featured ballistic cannon to fullfill those descriptions, rather than guided missile.]

I just don't see how the "guided missile" and wet navy bits change the generally purposes of the said types.

Maybe because Star Wars combat is clearly representative of battleship-era combat (a point, I repeat, originally made by the fucking website. I have yet to see it refuted.) Battleship era combat and modern naval combat are not the same things? The two eras are not exactly comparable, you know. Aside from the obvious gun/missile difference, we could point out that missiles are *NOT* a primary weapon in the SW universe, whether fired from ships or fighters. In fact, Carriers are NOT the centerpiece of SW warfare, nor are the fighters they carry - big battleships or battleship-like vessels are. Didn't you watch return of the Jedi? In addition to that, missiles can be intercepted (and point defense interception of such is a key component to defense - you can't intercept energy weapons fire. And don't start engaging in semantics with shielding "intercepting" fire - there is a clear difference between active and passive defenses.) Of course, we'll just ignore that so you can engage in more word-twisting to back up your side, won't we?

Speaking of misdirections, I like how you started talking about MODERN naval warships then suddenly switched gears to WW2 warships once you started losing. For that matter, maybe you would like to share these "Definitons" on WW2 warships that you seem to now suddenly be citing?

Commandship is a specific ship-class. It overrides descriptions to the contrary, particularly coming from the Galactic Emperor who commissioned their construction and an Imperial Academy ace and human General who doubtless was expected to know the technicalities of such things.

I see you completely ignored my point in mentioning that the Executor is *called* a Star Destroyer and rebutted with speculative nitpicking (big surprise.) There is no contradiction between calling it a Star Destroyer and a Command Ship if Star Destroyer is a fucking title! Provide evidence that prevents "Star Destroyer" from being a title, especially since we have "Star Defenders" as well (and Super Star Destroyers, for that matter.)

And again, when the novel-level canon describes many differing-role vessels as cruisers, that does not necessarily make it particularly reliable. Remember according to Threepio there are many scales of measuring technology and war materiel, and where we're told the Tantive (IIRC) and the ISD are both cruisers, while not necessarily wrong, is not particularly useful to develop determinations about their utilization.

At worst, this maybe denies usage of the Tantive IV example, but its not like that is my sole reference to ISDs being referred to as "cruisers." On top of that, your "logic" applies just as well to calling ISDs a "destroyer" just because the name includes "Destroyer." The fact Executors are called "Destroyers" or "Super Star Destroyers" tends to weigh more heavily in favor of my viewpoint than yours.

And in any case, Han calls the Destroyer pursuing him from Tatooine in ANH a cruiser, and that is supported by what is in the script. (He also identifies the Executor as a Command ship.) and we know Han has a military background to draw on, so we have no reason to assume he is making it up or exaggerating. And there is still the SW.com databank as well.

However, within certain circumstances, they certainly are cruisers and even larger scale vessels. My assertion was merely that according to the central large-scale Imperial Navy, they are destroyers, and act accordingly in ESB and ANH (in ROTJ it is arguable they act as cruisers, but it isn't hard to see why destroyers would be able to execute a cruiser role against alien cruisers of similar but often lesser tonnage and inferior design). Again, I don't deny by the Imperial Remnant period and much of the EU the ISD is a battlecruiser/heavy cruiser or even fast battleship. I'm just saying the context of the Empire at her height and the large-scale fleets, it was intended as a destroyer.

Except that they are canonically cruisers, despite your denials to the contrary. Scream about "intention" all you want, but they aren't guided missile destroyers nor regular destroyers.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: The description of the meaning of the destroyer designation fits WWII destroyers armed with cannon. Red herrings.

Except that as pointed out:
1.) You were originally discussing modern warships, not WW2 era ships. Lets not start changing our minds, shall we? Especially given what Sea Skimmer noted (and whose opinion I would be wililng to trust on the issue. He clearly knows more about the subject than I do.)
2.) This also ignores the fact that a guided missile destroyer and a standard destroyer, as per the very links you posted, are two distinct ship types with two different roles. (regardless of whether they have guns or not. For your logic, you might has well have started screaming that DDG's also mount guns, and it would have been just as ineffective as your argument is now.)
3.) WW2 era combat and Modern era combat are not the same Again, stop changing your mind.
4.) Prove its a red herring, given how I have elaborated in relevant detail just how modern combat differs from WW2 combat, and how this relates to SW.

And even then, the fact that WW2 destroyers have cannon doesn't really support your point, since WW2 destroyers were not designed to engage larger enemy ships prior to carrying torpedoes. They were designed to engage smaller craft.

No, light cruisers are not fast pursuit ships, nor are they designed to chase down blockade runners or escort commandships/carriers launching ground assaults. The multiple-roles of the ISD are actually one of the characteristics which support a destroyer description, as the cruiser designation is much more narrow.

Except that as the definition I provided before for the destroyer illustrates, they are defensive warships designed to support the fleet line against torpedo and fighter attack. Cruisers *are* designed as multi role warships capable of independent operation. Moreover, they are armed well enough to engage enemy ships of equal size (and in numbers perhaps even greater size) both in support of other ships and not. They could even serve as command ships of small groups as well, evne though this isn't their primary role. Insofar as the blockade-runners go, does it occur to you that the term "Blockade runner" refers to a blockade, which suggests planetary/ground assault operations, which is in fact one of the roles of a cruiser (support of such, that is.) In fact, the Tantive IV had ran the blockade of Ralltiir, when pursued by the Devastator (which also shows Star Destroyers operating independently). The same with Hoth. It can also be pointed out that the Tantive IV and Hoth examples might also fall under "commerce raiding", since they involve the interception and capture/destruction of vessels that are freighters or cargo transports (the Corellian Corvette is a multi-purpose vessel, one of which does include carrying of cargo. In fact thats part and parcel of the "blockade runner" idea.)

Plus, the "independent operations" aspect is supported by later incidents in TESB both with the pursuit of the Falcon and when Vader scatters his fleet in an attempt to locate the vessel.

And third, another role often attributed to cruisers is the "Show the flag" role, something also well within th epurpose of the Star Destroyer.

For further information regarding ship roles:

http://users.swing.be/navbat/edito/navi ... avires.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/glossary_naval.htm

(PS: one of the main differences between light and heavy cruisers is simply in the kinds of guns carried and the armor. The first link covers that as well.)

Bullshit. Not all ships made by all species fall into the same classifications. You do not know how to determine ship types. LOA has precisely diddly shit to do with ship-types. Red herring.

Ah, more of your insistence that I dont know what I'm talking about, I'm wrong, and that its a fallacy. I guess I can't counter all the evidence- oh wait what evidence....

Of course, its not like comparison to the Mon Cals is crucial to my argument. As I said, if its relevant, then it supports my notion that ISD's are cruisers (EG the Liberty class and the MC80s), if it isn't, then it can't be used as evidence against ISD's being cruisers.

Stick a heavy and particularly diverse destroyer for huge multi-mile ships among picket navies with "cruisers" of Dreadnought-tonnage, and the why becomes obvious.

Cruisers can serve as escort/screening elements as well. Star Destroyers CAN operate at long ranges, and independently (EG, like a cruiser). They can fight off enemy warships with their guns and can support larger craft offensively in combat as well as defensively with thier guns. They carry craft (such cruisers have real life equivalents, like the Kiev-class cruiser). They support ground/surface operations. They can serve as command ships of a sort. All of which we see in canon and official as applying to STar Destroyers.

Commerce raiding and independent operations are more in line with a destroyers role by far. You still haven't accounted for its fast pursuit and blockade-runner-chasing and observed customs/patrol duties. In these large fleets its almost entirely an escort vessel.

Cruisers are more limited in spectra of mission than destroyers.

Care to provide evidence of these claims? I've never seen one source that remotely suggests destroyer roles are nearly as diverse as you suggest (keeping in mind yet again that we are talking about destroyers and not guided-missile destroyers, even if we assume your modern analogies applied.) In any case, even if we accept your evidence, cruisers would be as versatile AS DDG's - not surprising given the fact they seem to be essentially one and the same.

Anyhow, I already addressed the blockade-running (which might also fall under commerce raiding, since they would have to be able to run down the ships and a Corellian Corvette can be used to transport cargo when properly configured. This would also apply in the Hoth example, when they hunted down and captured/destroyed Rebel transports attempting to flee.), and I've never seen ISD's used in customs work (Thats what Customs vessels are for. You do know the Empire has ships dedicated to those purposes, right? They're in the SW encyclopedia for chrissake! In fact, neither destroyers nor cruisers did customs work. You going to call that one of my red herrings as well?)

FTeik wrote:

Ender wrote:

FTeik wrote:We shouldn´t ignore the possibility, that much of the firepower covered with the Dodonna-quote might be concentrated in some of the larger ships of the empire, torpedo-spheres and superlaser-platforms like the Tarkin.

More than one billion ships are overkill, if you ask me.

You mean include things that didn't exist at the time? Ok

Torpedo-Spheres were already discribed in the ISB, which predates ANH and according to Mon Mothma in "Soldiers of the Empire" the superlaser of the DeathStar was nothing new, but simply the "most powerful superlaser ever built". Vessels like Admiral Giel´s flagship or General Tagge´s battlecruiser certainly predate ANH too.

There are also only six of them, according to the same ISB as I recall things. Given that they apparently could not destroy planets with any sort of warship/battlemoon prior to the Death Star, its unlikely that the Torpedo spheres have 2e32 jouiles of firepower, and odds are far less than that (The ISB also suggests the power output of torpedo spheres is far less than that of Executor-class ships, given its inability to power the gravshock weapon properly)

Moreover, you would still require 1 million ships each possessing over 1e32 joules of firepower each to match the firepower of the superlaser blast. Even only a mere 1000 ships would require 1e35 joules.

(I would point out that one cannot ignore this fact of Imperial starfleet firepower vs the Death STar. Even were one to engage in semantics-dodges regarding whether or not Dodonna's statement included the superlaser, official materials on numerous occasions have equated the superlaser to the entire Imperial starfleet - the SWTJ, or specified that Dodonna's "half the star fleet" quote applied to the superlaser - BTM, EGW&T are just the two that occur at the top of my head.)

The ISB *could* also be dismissed on the grounds that it is official versus canon, but I do not prefer to do so. I can point out however, that the ISB is quite clearly based on the avaialble Intel the Alliance has about the Empire, and they clearly stated that the validit y of the information oculd not be guaranteed, so we don't *neccesarily* have to treat it as absolute.

To reinforce this, note that in Before the Storm that the Alliance/New Republic apparently NEVER acquired a full Imperial Order of Battle until the wreckage of the Gnisnal was explored, and even that was at least ten years out of date! And while Before the Storm does not explicitly say the Alliance or NR never had a full Order of Battle, it is quite simple to conclude that HAD either Alliance or Republic had such, it would have been handed over to the Asset Tracking office like the Gnisnal's was. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Rebels/Republic had never gotten hold of one prior. Which tends to suggest that the ISB figures are simply based on best available information, and not comprehensive by any means.

As for Pellaeon's quote from Spectre, it should be noted that according to the SW Encyclopedia, the 25,000 number applies solely to mile long ISDs, or even just a variant/subclass of mile long ISD (given that the EU ISD is distinctly different from the canon ISD, it can be argued the two are separate warships.) This does not apply to "Super Star Destroyers" (which can literally be interpreted to apply to Alleigance-class vessels and up.(), nor to smaller classes (like the Victory-class or its contemporaries.) Its also quite possible that the Empire employs warships of similar size to ISD's but are not Star Destroyers. The obviousl conclusion in regeards to the fleet sizes indicated by the ANH briefing is that a substantial amount of the fleet likely comprises much larger vessels whose firepower is substantially greater than the mile long destsroyers, and/or other mile-long (or around that size) vessels that are not Star Destroyers (not unusual - the ROTJ novelization makes mention of "Corellian Battleships, cruisers, and destroyers" as being distinct vessels - the script also mentions "Corellian battleships", and Han talks about the Empire having "Big Corellian ships" in the movie, and in the ANH novel about "Corellian cruisers".)

SPOOFE wrote:

Isn't that 1E9 lower end figure suggests that the empire would have been able to provide an average of 1.000 ISDs (or ships with comparable firepower) for its million member worlds (completely ignoring the less important worlds)?

It's unknown just how many ISD's were permanently on police duty. Further, there were an additional 10 million colony systems/worlds, if I recall correctly, which would need further policing. Then there are the frontline forces... remember, there were fleets (or individual ships) that were darting all over the galaxy constantly in conquest (like Thrawn's ship before he returned).

50 million protectorate worlds (Colonies), IIRC.

Alyeska wrote:1 billion to 52 trillion capitalships? You have got to be shitting me. You have no fucking idea how assinine this sounds.

Except that its canon. You cannot deny that without saying the evidence that leads to the conclusion is wrong (which requires proof of why its wrong.)

The Empire lost fucking 99.999% of their fleet in something like three years time.

Or, as we know quite easily, the Emperor simply recalled much of his fleet to the Deep Core (at least among the bigger ships) - and the others were lost in civil war among the Empire (the pre-Thrawn warlords) as well as in conflict with the New Republic. Given the apparently "massive" war Palpy launched to reatake the galaxy just after Thrawn's defeat (who did not really make all that great a dent in the NR even by The Last Command), its quite reasonable to assume he'd arranged for most of the Imperial fleet to withdraw to Byss until such a time as he was prepared to strike.

The Rebel Alliance and New Republic never had a strong navy but I seriously doubt a navy of less then 100,000 ships could ever hope to fight an enemy that outnumbers them 10,000-1 low end and ten-million to one high end.

If the Empire could put 20 ships in every single starsystem the Rebellion would never have one.

Given we never saw the Core systems in the OT and we don't see a great deal of the Outer Rim either, we can't really say how the fleet dispositions occured.

I might add that the ships that the Trade Federation deployed to blockade Naboo are comparable to tens of thousands of Star Destroyers alone (a single Trade Fed ship is about 30-50 times the volume of a single ISD. Alternately, the same Trade Fed battleships are 1/12th to 1/15th the volume of an Executor class, apparently. This suggests a comparative fleet size of hundreds of Executors or tens of thousands of Imperial Star Destroyers by volume. If the Trade Federation can deploy thousands of multi-mile warships for a single, "trivial" blockade, the Empire can surely do the same, should they choose to.

Would this be a time to suugest that the Imperial Navy does not classify firewpower with our modern terminology, but rather follows more closely more obscure ratings like perhaps, the Royal Navy classifaction for warships in the Age of Sail?


The argument that cruisers>>> destroyers >>> Frigates is a moot point when one remembers that the Loronar Light Strike Cruiser is inferior to a Star Destroyer and even a Mon Cal 40a. Similarly, the Dreadnaught , upon automation and several structural changes becomes an Assault Frigate. The Republic Cruiser is not as large and powerful as the Loronar Strike Cruiser, much less the Imperial Cruisers or Bulk Cruisers that perform Custom duties in the Empire time.


Perhaps, the titles of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, are mere taglines that describe at any one time their roles and functions. A Star Destroyer can be a cruiser in the old term, as we know that it is fast enough to intercept the Millenium Falcon in ANH and TESB as well as in the more modern term. We know from starwars.com that the ISD as a concept was a crossover between a BB and a carrier. Similarly, the Dreadnaught could really be a dreadnaught in its role, as it focussed and clustered firewpower in a few main heavy guns with a wide arc, and it was designed as a battle wagon. The crossover to the Assault Frigate thus made it the old Frigates of old, the workhorse of the navy as it was designed to perform independent patrols, escorts, sweeps, etc etc etc.

The Imperial Navy perhaps then has a second classification, or ratings to judge ships. It could be a version of the RN, with its First Rate, Second rate ratings based on number of guns and size, it could be based on a combination of speed and guns......................

PainRack wrote:Would this be a time to suugest that the Imperial Navy does not classify firewpower with our modern terminology, but rather follows more closely more obscure ratings like perhaps, the Royal Navy classifaction for warships in the Age of Sail?

The argument that cruisers>>> destroyers >>> Frigates is a moot point when one remembers that the Loronar Light Strike Cruiser is inferior to a Star Destroyer and even a Mon Cal 40a. Similarly, the Dreadnaught , upon automation and several structural changes becomes an Assault Frigate. The Republic Cruiser is not as large and powerful as the Loronar Strike Cruiser, much less the Imperial Cruisers or Bulk Cruisers that perform Custom duties in the Empire time.

Perhaps, the titles of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, are mere taglines that describe at any one time their roles and functions. A Star Destroyer can be a cruiser in the old term, as we know that it is fast enough to intercept the Millenium Falcon in ANH and TESB as well as in the more modern term. We know from starwars.com that the ISD as a concept was a crossover between a BB and a carrier. Similarly, the Dreadnaught could really be a dreadnaught in its role, as it focussed and clustered firewpower in a few main heavy guns with a wide arc, and it was designed as a battle wagon. The crossover to the Assault Frigate thus made it the old Frigates of old, the workhorse of the navy as it was designed to perform independent patrols, escorts, sweeps, etc etc etc.



The Imperial Navy perhaps then has a second classification, or ratings to judge ships. It could be a version of the RN, with its First Rate, Second rate ratings based on number of guns and size, it could be based on a combination of speed and guns......................

Possibly, and I have considered it as an alternative. Mike seems to think along these lines I believe - he interprets the "Star Destroyer" as being a battleship/carrier hybrid, I believe. Which does have real-life precedents, at least one of which was a cruiser-variant. The fact that they may not have a real-life analogue would probably be a good rationalization for the issue.

But even if I am not right and they are not strictly analogous to cruisers, but by that same token they are by no means destroyers either. Which is one of the main points of my argument.

SPOOFE wrote:

Isn't that 1E9 lower end figure suggests that the empire would have been able to provide an average of 1.000 ISDs (or ships with comparable firepower) for its million member worlds (completely ignoring the less important worlds)?

It's unknown just how many ISD's were permanently on police duty. Further, there were an additional 10 million colony systems/worlds, if I recall correctly,

Additional 50 million.

FTeik wrote:

Ender wrote:

FTeik wrote: Torpedo-Spheres were already discribed in the ISB,

They are also strategic weapons platforms, not ships, and their known production run and easily estimated firepowe don't really skew it, especially when the 1 billion is already low end because I take "greater then half" to mean all.

Are you suggesting, that they are not part of the fleet, but controlled by the army?

Strawman. the Death Star was also a strategic weapon platform. It was a mobile space station, not a ship. And it was most certainly run by the Navy.

which predates ANH and according to Mon Mothma in "Soldiers of the Empire" the superlaser of the DeathStar was nothing new, but simply the "most powerful superlaser ever built".

Yes, and you have what evidence that there were standard superlaser mounting ships at that time?

I have as much evidence for it, as you have against it.

Appeal to ignorance, shut the fuck up.

Vessels like Admiral Giel´s flagship or General Tagge´s battlecruiser certainly predate ANH too.

Good shrist, this damn number is already low end, the total warships is lower then the commonl used Marina calcs, and you are bitching about this? Get a life.

Further, prove both of those were pre ANH.

I have to read Marina´s calcs again, but i´m sure, that they didn´t reached one billion ships.

God damn, what the hell is wrong with you people and reading comprehension? Marina's "only warships" came out to 378 million. My "only warships" came out to 142 million. I got 1 billion by counting everything larger then a fighter.

As for the vessels pre-ANH: Of course the empire, which has been in power almost twenty years by the time of ANH only starts to build something bigger, than an ISD after the destruction of the first DeathStar.

You need proof, not sarcasm, that thos two classes were in production, not some unknown class with indeterminate firepower.

Simple, they were all destroyed by the crap-jedi, associated obscure uber-civilisations whipped from the authors ass, and the sheer wank-power of the X-wing novels. Not that I'm dissapointed by the EU's literary quality.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I might add that the ships that the Trade Federation deployed to blockade Naboo are comparable to tens of thousands of Star Destroyers alone (a single Trade Fed ship is about 30-50 times the volume of a single ISD. Alternately, the same Trade Fed battleships are 1/12th to 1/15th the volume of an Executor class, apparently. This suggests a comparative fleet size of hundreds of Executors or tens of thousands of Imperial Star Destroyers by volume. If the Trade Federation can deploy thousands of multi-mile warships for a single, "trivial" blockade, the Empire can surely do the same, should they choose to.

Comparing purpose built warships with armed merchant ships by volume is incredibly stupid and quite meaningless. The two are built to entirely different standards and merchant ships tend to have a rather larger percentage of empty space for the whole "cargo" thing.

Somehow I missed this...

vakundok wrote:

Ender wrote:Why the fuck would I change it from power when it is suppossed to be a figure for power?

You compared the power the DS can generate "over one day" to the power an ISD can generate in a second.

No retard, I didn't. 1E38 / (24*60*60) = 1.16E33 1.16E33 / 1E24 = ~1E9.
Now I realize most of us covered division in second grade, but apparently you missed that. And what's funny is that is the time averaged output of the generator, not the firepower like Dondonna said. If i want that, since the Death Star fired for .21 seconds, I'd do 1E38 / .21 = 4.76E38, then divide that by 1E24 to get 4.76E14.

Let's see a single barelled autocannon against a six barelled autocannon (with the same caliber). Which one has the more firepower? If we follow your opinion (and forget about the rate of fire), their firepowers are equal.

You are truly mindnumbingly stupid. You can't do correct division, you can't read what I post, and you clearly don't even know what you are talking about because if you did you would realize that I was fudging it to make it low. Shut up until you understand anything.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Comparing purpose built warships with armed merchant ships by volume is incredibly stupid and quite meaningless. The two are built to entirely different standards and merchant ships tend to have a rather larger percentage of empty space for the whole "cargo" thing.

I'm not comparing them in terms of capability, just in terms of numbers (since we were talking about Fleet sizes, after all.) Even though its obvious the Empire would build more effective vessels than a shipping company, the fact that they would have the equivalent of tens of thousands of Star Destroyers at hand for a "trivial" blockade says something about the Imperial Navy, even if in a conservative fashion.

(Besides which, the difference cannot be *that* massive between a "refitted" merchant ship and a warship, else how does on explain the fact the Mon Cal cruisers aren't easily mauled by ISDs?)

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Comparing purpose built warships with armed merchant ships by volume is incredibly stupid and quite meaningless. The two are built to entirely different standards and merchant ships tend to have a rather larger percentage of empty space for the whole "cargo" thing.

Not at all. While the TF battleships are inferior to purpose built warships. The fact that a mere shipping company can field that kind of tonnage is telling. Its all about the cost of materials really; more material likely went into the TFB's (yes I know they are likly unarmored, etc). I mean sure a modern Aegis destroy costs over half a billion, but honestly how many supertankers could your really by for that money. I'd wager not to many.

Heres an idea find out the real world ratio of warships to merchant ships of comparable size. Then estimate the probable number of merchant ships in the Galaxy. Finally extrapolate the number of warships in the Empire. I bet good money that Ender's Billion ship estimate would be low.

Connor MacLeod wrote:I'm not comparing them in terms of capability, just in terms of numbers (since we were talking about Fleet sizes, after all.) Even though its obvious the Empire would build more effective vessels than a shipping company, the fact that they would have the equivalent of tens of thousands of Star Destroyers at hand for a "trivial" blockade says something about the Imperial Navy, even if in a conservative fashion.

(Besides which, the difference cannot be *that* massive between a "refitted" merchant ship and a warship, else how does on explain the fact the Mon Cal cruisers aren't easily mauled by ISDs?)

Use a higher proportion of active systems. It is in fact canon novelization that the average MC is inferior to the SD in both firepower and protection. They probably really won at Endor by brawling close enough to avoid the enemy's best weapons.

Then they went to do the MCs in the EU. They want to make the Rebels look outnumbered and outgunned but still let them win. Since it is difficult at best to win with an inferior ship in an OPEN-SPACE BATTLE, it was probably then when they added those redundant shield generators, giving them a more parity situation.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: Use a higher proportion of active systems. It is in fact canon novelization that the average MC is inferior to the SD in both firepower and protection. They probably really won at Endor by brawling close enough to avoid the enemy's best weapons.

True, except for the following:

1.) Ackbar flat out stated (and this was repeated in the novelization) that at close range they didn't stand much of a chance against the Imperials. Moreoever, your statement made by Ackbar's captain about the Imperials "out gunning" the Rebels and being more heavily armored occured after Ackbar gave the orders for the fleet to move closer. This actually suggests the opposite of what you said, although its doubtless true that the heavy turrets would not be able to be used closer-up. In fact, if anything, the disparity in firepower is acknowledged in official sources - the difference in effective firepower is attributed more towards accuracy (and probably, range).

2.) Even granting the above is true to some measure, the difference between the Imperials and Rebels cannot be *that* great. According to "Truce at Bakura", the Rebels only lost 20% of their fleet to the Empire according to Ackbar. This suggests that the difference in capabilities, while there, is not neccesarily a substantial one. (indeed, nothing suggests that it is.) And as you might have noticed, I did in fact point out there WAS a difference, just not a massive one.

We shoudl also note the Rebels were able to defeat not only the six Star Destroyers mentioned in other sources (like HTTE), but a Rebel cruiser was able to disable the Imperial communications ship (a much larger vessel than a Star Destroyer), even though the cruiser itself was lost - and there was the damage the novel and certain other sources intimated it suffered (the novel suggests it might have lost forward shields as well as the bridge shields, and took damage to its guidance/control systems, and others.)

3.) We shoudl also note the disposition of Rebel and Imperial forces - the Empire had a larger number of heavier warships (mostly STar Destroyers, plus the communications

Then they went to do the MCs in the EU. They want to make the Rebels look outnumbered and outgunned but still let them win. Since it is difficult at best to win with an inferior ship in an OPEN-SPACE BATTLE, it was probably then when they added those redundant shield generators, giving them a more parity situation.

This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to ignore SoD to me, so if you do not mean what I think you mean (ie, "the EU stuff is just an excuse to balance the forces so we should ignore the official statements for no good reason.") I think you should consider rephrasing.

In any case, the exact wording is that they are out-gunned (true), and more heavily armored (true). this does nto mean they have greater shields, neccesarily.

Connor MacLeod wrote:True, except for the following:

1.) Ackbar flat out stated (and this was repeated in the novelization) that at close range they didn't stand much of a chance against the Imperials. Moreoever, your statement made by Ackbar's captain about the Imperials "out gunning" the Rebels and being more heavily armored occured after Ackbar gave the orders for the fleet to move closer. This actually suggests the opposite of what you said, although its doubtless true that the heavy turrets would not be able to be used closer-up. In fact, if anything, the disparity in firepower is acknowledged in official sources - the difference in effective firepower is attributed more towards accuracy (and probably, range).

Yup, if you go by WEG, the ISD-I has 60 TLs of 5D versus 48 of 4D, IIRC. I suppose the firepower and armor advantage was always there, but it will be even more pronounced in close, until of course you get inside min range, which was probably the unexpected part of the story..

IIRC, they all have the same 75 Long Space range. The MC80's FC rating is 2D, the ISD-I's "XX9" is rated for 4D; the ISD-II has poorer FC ratings (1 and 0.)

We shoudl also note the Rebels were able to defeat not only the six Star Destroyers mentioned in other sources (like HTTE), but a Rebel cruiser was able to disable the Imperial communications ship (a much larger vessel than a Star Destroyer), even though the cruiser itself was lost - and there was the damage the novel and certain other sources intimated it suffered (the novel suggests it might have lost forward shields as well as the bridge shields, and took damage to its guidance/control systems, and others.)

Thrawn however, who no doubt has a much better idea of what happened (he has any surviving combat records, while we get a few flashes,) also implied with reasonable competence, the six destroyers should not have been lost. Drive any ship incompetently enough against an enemy with even a marginal ability to hurt you and you are lost.

The novel implies there was a major hull breach but the damage was repairable (and in only a few minutes given the way the battle is going.) Main power is still available and the jamming field is still up. The guns still fire. The sensors still seem to work. I really wonder how "disabled" the ship was, except for the hole, which one clean penetration might have created and some failed shields.

The other ship sounds like it had been vaporized completely.

3.) We shoudl also note the disposition of Rebel and Imperial forces - the Empire had a larger number of heavier warships (mostly STar Destroyers, plus the communications

Well, depends on how you juggle the numbers and read the sources. You could say the Rebels were outnumbered 27 to 10, or you could say the Rebels outnumbered the Imps about 60-27. I'm one of those who tend to read the latter.

This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to ignore SoD to me, so if you do not mean what I think you mean (ie, "the EU stuff is just an excuse to balance the forces so we should ignore the official statements for no good reason.") I think you should consider rephrasing.

In any case, the exact wording is that they are out-gunned (true), and more heavily armored (true). this does nto mean they have greater shields, neccesarily.

I think you are reading the statement in the right way, but NOT in the spirit in which it was intended. I have no intention to try to pry that redundant shield advantage from them. It is more like groaning out an inward suspicion.

It is kind of like Star Trek episodes. We might be chowing it down, applying SOD and rationalizing them, but we are groaning at the scientific ineptitude and inconsistencies at the same time.

Of course the novelization does not contradict the idea, or it'd have been shot. But seriously, if I tell you my ship has little chance against the enemy, and he has superior firepower and armor, would your conclusion been "But you will have superior shielding?" Only an EU author can do such logic