StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Currald wrote:I guess I question why Saxton clings to the word destroyer, while ignoring the word cruiser. If Lucas (or whomever wrote the Episode in question) had no concept of proper naval nomenclature, why pay any attention whatsoever to the script cues for that purpose?

I don't know if Lucas had no knowledge of military nomenclature, but he seems to prefer the traditional term cruiser over any military specific term. But one can look to the script and other lititure and see what type of role the "cruisers" are used for and what missions they perform, thus answering the question. Hence this thread, I think.

MKSheppard wrote:Light Battleship: Imperator Class SDs

Heavy Battleships: Allegiance Class SDs.

INSANELY POWERFUL COMMAND SHIPS: Executor (really isn't anything
you can compare them to in a wet navy)

Then wherein do you fit Admiral Giel's flagship??

........





Ah, forget it. The conclusion I draw is that LucasArts butchers naval terminology just as much as Star Trek writers butcher engineering terminology. But it's nice to see that there are some sci-fi which follows correct naval terminology (such as Battlefleet Gothic) and those which invent their own naval terminology (such as the Culture).

The problem really is everyone here tries to fit ships into single-role classification. Nothing as big as an ISD is a single-role craft in SW, hence your failures. And Cruiser in the colloquial term(A ship that operates independently) is, of course, something widely used: Many SW ships are designed to operate by themselves!

SirNitram wrote:The problem really is everyone here tries to fit ships into single-role classification. Nothing as big as an ISD is a single-role craft in SW, hence your failures. And Cruiser in the colloquial term(A ship that operates independently) is, of course, something widely used: Many SW ships are designed to operate by themselves!

That's why I keep saying that there are tremendous differences of scale here. An ISD carries as many starfighters as a dedicated carrier today carries fighters. Yet the ISD has enough arms and armor to class as a destroyer, and is often seen functioning as a destroyer; it's also powerful enough to serve as a commandship when need be.

Crayz9000 wrote: That's why I keep saying that there are tremendous differences of scale here. An ISD carries as many starfighters as a dedicated carrier today carries fighters. Yet the ISD has enough arms and armor to class as a destroyer, and is often seen functioning as a destroyer; it's also powerful enough to serve as a commandship when need be.

GAH!

Not again.....

The ISD is a LIGHT BATTLESHIP, while the Allegiances are Heavy
Battleships.

Simon H.Johansen wrote: Then wherein do you fit Admiral Giel's flagship??

In the INSANELY POWERFUL COMMAND SHIP class.

Crayz9000 wrote: They call the Carrack a cruiser, while calling the almost same-sized Lancer a frigate. Care to explain that one?

Quite easily.

http://www.warships1.com

1905 Dreadnought Battleship 527 ft 21,845 tons
1920 London Class Heavy Cruisers 632.8' ft 13,380 tons

Lets not get into how much bigger the Hood class battlecruiser
was compared to the first battlecruisers:

1906 Invincible Class Battlecruiser 568'feet 20,135 tons
1930s Hood Class Battlecruiser 860.7' feet 46,880 tons

MKSheppard wrote:

Crayz9000 wrote: The ISD is a LIGHT BATTLESHIP, while the Allegiances are Heavy
Battleships.

Just a question... if the ISD is a battleship, then why it is so common?? I thought that cruisers usually made up the backbone in navies??

Simon H.Johansen wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Crayz9000 wrote: The ISD is a LIGHT BATTLESHIP, while the Allegiances are Heavy
Battleships.

Just a question... if the ISD is a battleship, then why it is so common?? I thought that cruisers usually made up the backbone in navies??

Thats why I have been listing the ISD as a classic Heavy Cruiser. Its considered one of the most powerful Imperial ships, yet is relatively common. Other ships out class it, but there are far fewer numbers of those ships.

Simon H.Johansen wrote: Just a question... if the ISD is a battleship, then why it is so common?? I thought that cruisers usually made up the backbone in navies??

Common? You're taking the personal Flagship of Lord Darth Vader
in ANH, and the personal DEATH SQUADRON of Lord Darth Vader
in ESB, and a cherry picked force of the best, most powerful ships
in the Imperial Navy in ROTJ as a "typical" Imperial Navy composition?

Please.

MKSheppard wrote:

Simon H.Johansen wrote: Just a question... if the ISD is a battleship, then why it is so common?? I thought that cruisers usually made up the backbone in navies??

Common? You're taking the personal Flagship of Lord Darth Vader
in ANH, and the personal DEATH SQUADRON of Lord Darth Vader
in ESB, and a cherry picked force of the best, most powerful ships
in the Imperial Navy in ROTJ as a "typical" Imperial Navy composition?

Please.

The US Navy delivered the first nuclear bomb to its air field on the islands on with an older Heavy Cruiser. Just because its a significant fleet doesn't mean you are using the largest ships at your disposal for everything.

Alyeska wrote: The US Navy delivered the first nuclear bomb to its air field on the islands on with an older Heavy Cruiser. Just because its a significant fleet doesn't mean you are using the largest ships at your disposal for everything.

The Indianapolis was commisioned in 1933, while the latest US Navy
Cruisers, the Baltimore Class, began to be comissioned in 1943..
the Indianapolis was the most modern US Navy cruiser for quite
a while, and a 10 year old hull is still quite good....

Hell, HMS Hood was considered to be one of the best Royal Navy Ships
in 1941, despite being comissioned in 1920!

<Vader>

"If the ships which you laugh at and mislabel as Imperial-class are truly
Star Destroyers, Rebel Scum, then where are their NUMBERS?"

"25,000 Star Destroyers out of a 10 million ship navy? Where are
the numbers required for the Destroyer role?"

<snap crackle thud>

MKSheppard wrote:

<Vader>

"If the ships which you laugh at and mislabel as Imperial-class are truly
Star Destroyers, Rebel Scum, then where are their NUMBERS?"

"25,000 Star Destroyers out of a 10 million ship navy? Where are
the numbers required for the Destroyer role?"

<snap crackle thud>

Thats a point I have been trying to make with the Destroyer claiming people. The ISD just does not fit that role no mater how badly you try and contort the picture.

MKSheppard wrote:

Crayz9000 wrote: That's why I keep saying that there are tremendous differences of scale here. An ISD carries as many starfighters as a dedicated carrier today carries fighters. Yet the ISD has enough arms and armor to class as a destroyer, and is often seen functioning as a destroyer; it's also powerful enough to serve as a commandship when need be.

GAH!

Not again.....

The ISD is a LIGHT BATTLESHIP, while the Allegiances are Heavy
Battleships.

Not a chance. An Alliegiance may fit as a LBB, but an ISD is not. Battleships don't act as carriers, stardocks, command craft, assault craft, and terror weapons.

Uh, and what DOES? An ICBM with a heli-pad bolted on top?

Currald wrote:Uh, and what DOES? An ICBM with a heli-pad bolted on top?

Go read the thread. *pokes the n00b* I've made the point that you can't properly compare them to RL ships because of this multirole capacity.

OK, final conclusion: Although the ISDs are labeled as escort-type ships, the Empire don't need bigger ships and therefore, they are usually used as cruisers and battleships.