StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Connor MacLeod wrote:Prior to the development of the British HMS "Dreadnought" (whose battery consisted of 10 12" guns - (Whereas "pre-dreadnought" battleships, such as the "Lord Nelson" class, which carried 4 12" guns and 10 9.2" guns) "Pre Dreadnought" vessels carried only a few "big guns" and a larger number of "medium" guns. The Dreadnought dispensed with the "medium" guns to make room for a larger number of heavy guns. The design was so effective that all battleships afterwards are generally known s "dreadnought" battleships (while those before are called "Pre-dreadnought.")

So really, "Dreadnought" and "battleship" are technically the same thing - "Dreadnought" is simply indicative of a particular kind of battleship.

Isn't that what I just said?

Anyway, saying Executor isn't a dreadnought because she doesn't have a uniform armament is false, since the Dreadnought herself had two separate batteries, and it's arguable that Executors primary battery is in fact uniform. Are there any other reasons not to call her a dreadnought - aside from the deplorable overuse of this term in popular culture?

Ender wrote:The Rendelli built dreadnaught is in the star frigate range, not picket cruiser.

well that depends on whose classification system you choose to use doesn't it? I

The idea of a Defender class star destroyer is bullshit, WEG and later WOTC fucked up. It was the Nebula class star Destroyer, the Defender class carrier.

How so? Nebulas were only mentioned once and that was in the Hand of Thrawn Duology (and those were Diamalan warships IIRC, not by the Republic's navy) And given the faceoff between 3 ISDs and the Republic forces around Bothawui (which IIRC did include Diamalan warships) its debatable whether they are comparable to Defenders (which are supposed to be nearly comparable to an ISD-2 in firepower.)

That alone would suggest they are in fact not comparable. (There is only McDowell's "behind the scenes" assertions that this does in fact constitute an error. And even if it *were* an error, this makes absolutely no difference.)

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Ender wrote:The Rendelli built dreadnaught is in the star frigate range, not picket cruiser.

well that depends on whose classification system you choose to use doesn't it? I

Going by the new classification system that we have been seeing for the past 3 years then.

The idea of a Defender class star destroyer is bullshit, WEG and later WOTC fucked up. It was the Nebula class star Destroyer, the Defender class carrier.

How so? Nebulas were only mentioned once and that was in the Hand of Thrawn Duology (and those were Diamalan warships IIRC, not by the Republic's navy)

Err, no. The Nebula class star destroyer is mentioned in the BFC. It was also named again in the Essential Chronology IIRC. We are, as far as I know, never told what the diamalan warships were.

And given the faceoff between 3 ISDs and the Republic forces around Bothawui (which IIRC did include Diamalan warships) its debatable whether they are comparable to Defenders (which are supposed to be nearly comparable to an ISD-2 in firepower.)

Yes, yet another fuck up, they duplicated the text and weapons loadout for the republic class

That alone would suggest they are in fact not comparable. (There is only McDowell's "behind the scenes" assertions that this does in fact constitute an error. And even if it *were* an error, this makes absolutely no difference.)

If they transposed the names for the ships, and gave it an incorrect loadout, yes it would matter.

Stark wrote: Anyway, saying Executor isn't a dreadnought because she doesn't have a uniform armament is false, since the Dreadnought herself had two separate batteries, and it's arguable that Executors primary battery is in fact uniform.

Are there any other reasons not to call her a dreadnought - aside from the deplorable overuse of this term in popular culture?

[/quote]

the 12 pounders? The Nelson class had those too, and those weren't designed to engage actual warships. Even the "secondary" armament incorporated by later Dreadnoughts was not really designed to engage battleships the way the "intermediate" battery on pre-dreadnoughts was.

Supposedly the Executor has "hundreds" of ISD-sized heavy turrets, yet according to the ITW:SWT book it has thousands. And the heaviest guns it supposedly carries is no larger than an ISD HTL (meaning that you have a battleship mounting "destroyer" or "cruiser" guns, even though bigger guns obviously do exist.) Add to the fact that the Executor is never seen to operate as battleships do in the movies, and the fact it has dedicated carrier duties, and no, its not really a "Dreadnought" in the "traditional" naval definition.

Ender wrote:Going by the new classification system that we have been seeing for the past 3 years then.

What classification system? Its still as confused and arbitrary as it has always been.

Err, no. The Nebula class star destroyer is mentioned in the BFC. It was also named again in the Essential Chronology IIRC. We are, as far as I know, never told what the diamalan warships were.

I recall the Chronology one, but I've never seen the Nebulas mentioned in the BFC. As for the Diamalan ships, page 330 (hardcover) of "Spectre of the Past" mentions both Nebula AND Endurance-class warships being dispatched to Bothawui by the Diamalans.

Yes, yet another fuck up, they duplicated the text and weapons loadout for the republic class

Er, WTF? Where did you get the idea that they duplicated the Republic-class?

If they transposed the names for the ships, and gave it an incorrect loadout, yes it would matter.

Prove it then, please.

applejack wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

applejack wrote: Not really. Saxton's "Star" classification is a pretty good place to start. You can just rationalize the ill-fitting classifications as simply being the in-house scaling of lesser manufacturers and not that of the Imperial Starfleet.

Well sure you can, jkust as long as you realize that its pretty arbitrary at that point. (which is generally true of most of the available classificatiosn really. SW naval terminology tends to be just as confusing, contradictory, and arbitrary as it has proven IRL. )

Yeah, IIRC Saxton outright says that the naval scaling conventions are arbitrary at some part of the introduction to his Warships page. I just like the "Star" classification because it grounds how I can classify ships of SW.

Sure, but it requires the arbitrary dismissal of the equally canon referencse to smaller ships (ie Rebel Escort frigates) being "Star cruisers", and that the Executor is a "Star Destroyer." in order to work.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Sure, but it requires the arbitrary dismissal of the equally canon referencse to smaller ships (ie Rebel Escort frigates) being "Star cruisers", and that the Executor is a "Star Destroyer." in order to work.

I thought those could be rationalized some way, such as colloquialisms and stuff like that.

Connor MacLeod wrote:the 12 pounders? The Nelson class had those too, and those weren't designed to engage actual warships. Even the "secondary" armament incorporated by later Dreadnoughts was not really designed to engage battleships the way the "intermediate" battery on pre-dreadnoughts was.

Supposedly the Executor has "hundreds" of ISD-sized heavy turrets, yet according to the ITW:SWT book it has thousands. And the heaviest guns it supposedly carries is no larger than an ISD HTL (meaning that you have a battleship mounting "destroyer" or "cruiser" guns, even though bigger guns obviously do exist.) Add to the fact that the Executor is never seen to operate as battleships do in the movies, and the fact it has dedicated carrier duties, and no, its not really a "Dreadnought" in the "traditional" naval definition.

LOL I didn't realise the 3inchers were 12pdrs. That's pretty terrible. However, Executor has a uniform primary battery (of many, many unimpressive guns), and it's other weapons aren't intended for use against proper warships. It's substantial (apparent) carrier role counts it out of 'battleship' as easily as 'dreadnought'.

As an aside, where did the popular use of 'dreadnought' to designate 'heavy battleships' come from? It occurs everywhere from games to books, television and movies. Does it just sound better? 'Battlecruiser' is far more popular than 'battleship', I assume for that reason.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Ender wrote:Going by the new classification system that we have been seeing for the past 3 years then.

What classification system? Its still as confused and arbitrary as it has always been.

There seems to be a new one based off power and mass. Or atleast that was how i interperated the basis behind the new designations for ships.

Err, no. The Nebula class star destroyer is mentioned in the BFC. It was also named again in the Essential Chronology IIRC. We are, as far as I know, never told what the diamalan warships were.

I recall the Chronology one, but I've never seen the Nebulas mentioned in the BFC. As for the Diamalan ships, page 330 (hardcover) of "Spectre of the Past" mentions both Nebula AND Endurance-class warships being dispatched to Bothawui by the Diamalans.

Ah. Missed that one.

Yes, yet another fuck up, they duplicated the text and weapons loadout for the republic class

Er, WTF? Where did you get the idea that they duplicated the Republic-class?

Weapons load out for the two is identical. Both have 40 htl batteries, 40 htl cannons, 20 ion cannons, and a full wing of starfighters. Someone did some lazy research.

If they transposed the names for the ships, and gave it an incorrect loadout, yes it would matter.

Prove it then, please.

alright, but it will take a bit to dig through 3 books.

Ender wrote: There seems to be a new one based off power and mass. Or atleast that was how i interperated the basis behind the new designations for ships.

Yes, but that would fall under "arbitrary" wouldn't it? (Arbitrary in terms of the criteria used as well as the specific "classifications" used. )

Weapons load out for the two is identical. Both have 40 htl batteries, 40 htl cannons, 20 ion cannons, and a full wing of starfighters. Someone did some lazy research.

You obviously haven't read Cracken's Threat Dossier, or you wouldn['t make such a simplistic "comparison". (Neglecting the fact that the weapons arrangements differ, the damage differs, the fire control differ, and the fact that the Defender has 8 missile launchers, 2 fewer tractor beams, and lsightly worse sensors than the Republic. As well as being slightly faster.)

Besides which, the "Nebulas" (or the Republics) were never really defined in terms of the novel very well to begin with,

[quote
alright, but it will take a bit to dig through 3 books.[/quote]

Be my guest. Of course, if you tell me which books, page numbers might suffice as well (since I probably have all the books)

Stark wrote: LOL I didn't realise the 3inchers were 12pdrs. That's pretty terrible.
However, Executor has a uniform primary battery (of many, many unimpressive guns), and it's other weapons aren't intended for use against proper warships.

Japanese Akagi-class carriers were armed with 8-inch guns (cruiser scale guns), and they were hardly battleships (and it would qualify as a "uniform primary battery.) And there are of course hte hybrid battleships.

It's substantial (apparent) carrier role counts it out of 'battleship' as easily as 'dreadnought'.

Sure it does. I never said I believed it was a battleship in the first place.

As an aside, where did the popular use of 'dreadnought' to designate 'heavy battleships' come from? It occurs everywhere from games to books, television and movies. Does it just sound better? 'Battlecruiser' is far more popular than 'battleship', I assume for that reason.

Its rather arbitrary insofar as I know. Much like how "battlecruiser" is popularily used. (like Dreadnoughts and battlecruisers in the Weberverse novels.)

applejack wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:Sure, but it requires the arbitrary dismissal of the equally canon referencse to smaller ships (ie Rebel Escort frigates) being "Star cruisers", and that the Executor is a "Star Destroyer." in order to work.

I thought those could be rationalized some way, such as colloquialisms and stuff like that.

Sure it can, but isnt that rather arbitrary? For one thing you'd have to assume a partticular definition of "Star Destroyer" (in this case, "Star Destroyer" actually means a destroyer) before it could be considered "wrong".

I thought Weber's use of Dreadnaught stemmed from the turn-of-the-century era, where HMS Dreadnaught (and dreadnaught-type battleships) made all preexisting battleships obsolete. They in turn were made obsolete by WW1 Era 'Superdreadnaughts', which eventually were renamed back to battleships. Right?

I'm not sure I understand what the "uniform main battery" has to do with anything.

It seems to me that most warships of Star Wars are only loosely comparable to 20th century vessels. They seem to have perfected a hybrid carrier-warship system that is far more effective at both rolls than any real ship ever has been.

Why do SW warships have to have uniform main batteries to fill the roles of battleships? Just because 20th century battleships did?

Connor MacLeod wrote:Sure it can, but isnt that rather arbitrary?

Yeah. I thought we established this already.

Connor MacLeod wrote:For one thing you'd have to assume a partticular definition of "Star Destroyer" (in this case, "Star Destroyer" actually means a destroyer) before it could be considered "wrong".

Meh. Like I said, it's a good place to start off.

Why do the classifications of the Executor and the Viscount matter in a battle?

Trooper TK12746 wrote:Why do the classifications of the Executor and the Viscount matter in a battle?

I guess it doesn't directly, but their naval scale might tell us something about the kind of power they wield and thus how they may fare against each other in battle. In this case, a NR Star Defender is a rough equivalent, in terms of the naval scaling of the NR starfleet, to SSDs in the Imperial Starfleet. Not that I think that a Viscount necessarily matches an Executor in battle because of its classification, but it is the NR's Star Dreadnaught, apparently.

It would seem to me that it would give us clues as to their employment. Beyond that, I don't know

If we say an SSD is a more powerful ship, then it makes sense that the SSD would win. Its shields are extremely powerful and it has enough fighters to protect its bridge should the shields go down. How many fighters does the Viscount have? And could they take 144 TIE Defenders (since that is what the Remnant uses)?

SVPD wrote:I'm not sure I understand what the "uniform main battery" has to do with anything.

It's just an point I've heard raised several times against the 'Star Dreadnought' classification. Since SW nomenclature is borked as it is, it always irked me when people would use what seemed to me to be a pretty empty argument against something that a) had plenty of holes already and b) doesn't really matter. Personally, I don't think there's a convienient Earth analogy to the Executor, so call it what you want.

......a NR Star Defender is a rough equivalent, in terms of the naval scaling of the NR starfleet, to SSDs in the Imperial Starfleet. Not that I think that a Viscount necessarily matches an Executor in battle because of its classification, but it is the NR's Star Dreadnaught, apparently.

Which just shows us another example of the NR's military inferiority to the Empire.

Just a little Thread Hijack here... Does anyone have any actual IMAGES of the Viscount? Concept art? fan pics? Etc?

The link earlier in the thread has a picture of it, I think. Although I am not sure that is really the Viscount.

Here:
http://www.njoproject.com/ns/s_viscount.shtml

But then there is also a question in my mind no one here can answer to. The EU authors used the 8 kilometer figure for the SSD, the official information that was then, if it had been confirmed stated to be 17.6 km from the very beginning, you don't think the Star Defender MIGHT have been almost equal as large as the 17.6 km Executor?

No, the NR is too pacifistic to build a dedicated warship that big. And the only armament figures for the Viscount (As far as I know) are found on the following link:
http://newrepublic.homestead.com/shipstats.html

And the figures in the SWGTVAV 's figures for the SSD armament are wrong, check the following links for good SSD figures.
http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/SSD.html
http://hangarbay.tripod.com/td-executor.html