Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
I think Han Solo refers to them as Imperial Cruisers when he flees from Tatooine.Stormbringer wrote:Where at exactly? I always saw them referred to as destroyers.Jim Raynor wrote:ISDs being cruisers did not originate in the EU. They were called "Imperial Cruisers" in A New Hope.
That doesn't mean they're cruisers. A smuggler making an offhand reference to ships that might or might not be ISDs isn't the best reference.Slartibartfast wrote:I think Han Solo refers to them as Imperial Cruisers when he flees from Tatooine.Stormbringer wrote:Where at exactly? I always saw them referred to as destroyers.Jim Raynor wrote:ISDs being cruisers did not originate in the EU. They were called "Imperial Cruisers" in A New Hope.
One of the endless WEG adventures.Jim Raynor wrote:Where do the Obliterator class come from? I've never heard of them.
Erm.... if you accept the Eclipse-class from Dark Empire, why don't you accept the many ships from Dark Empire which were far bigger than ISDs but much smaller than Executor or Eclipse???Alyeska wrote:The problem is that you are deriving the word Destroyer for the Imperial and Victory because of the Star Destroyer bit. That does not work because the Executor, Sovereign, and Eclipse are also Star Destroyers but they certainly weren't intended as mere escort ships.
Nah, we know that in order to destroy stars, they need wonder weapons like the Sun-Crusher.Lucas just wanted to find a name that describes a such big and powerful starship.
So I think the name Star Destroyer rather means that it's capable to destroy worlds or even a star system without real problems.
He was indeed, but it could be that he saw some of the REAL Imperial Cruisers, but escorted by ISDs, and we didn't see the cruisers onscreen.I think Han Solo refers to them as Imperial Cruisers when he flees from Tatooine.
Ooops, I meant THREE times as big.Simon H.Johansen wrote: In one particular picture, we see an ISD escorting a warship that is twice as long as an ISD!!! What shall we call that warship, which is much bigger than a Destroyer but much smaller than a battleship - else than a cruiser??
What the series shows is that the Empire had a large number of different types of Battle Cruisers and Pocket Battleships. It doesn't change the fact that ISDs are Heavy Cruisers.Simon H.Johansen wrote:Ooops, I meant THREE times as big.Simon H.Johansen wrote: In one particular picture, we see an ISD escorting a warship that is twice as long as an ISD!!! What shall we call that warship, which is much bigger than a Destroyer but much smaller than a battleship - else than a cruiser??
Here's the picture:
Now, what would you call THAT, folks??
And there's no reason to discard this one as proof of the ISD's status as escort ship, as most of you also accept the Eclipse and Allegiance from the very same series as this!!
(I must excuse myself if I sound impolite)
Hard, but not THAT hard. You get a scale thing going when ships get to a certain size. Just compare the Carrack or Strike cruisers with the ISD and you get a damned large size difference.Illuminatus Primus wrote:The greatest credit to the "destroyer" theory is their blockade-style use in the OT and the sheer scale difference between them and the high-end ships, like Executor and Giel's flagship.
It's hard to get around that.
Yep, but a battlecruiser is still a cruiser. I admit that the ship on the picture is in the very heaviest end of the cruisers and can easily be used as a battleship - perhaps the pictured ship is a "grand cruiser"* that can serve as a battleship as well as a heavy cruiser.Alyeska wrote:What the series shows is that the Empire had a large number of different types of Battle Cruisers and Pocket Battleships. It doesn't change the fact that ISDs are Heavy Cruisers.
If an ISD is intended to perform primarly capital ship tasks, then why the heck is it called a Destroyer rather than a Cruiser???Durring WW2 Battleships were used to escort Carriers and Heavy Cruisers typically rode along with assault formations as "escorts". Just because a ship escorts doesn't make it a escort type ship. You have to look at all the missions it has conducted. A Heavy Cruiser will conduct escort missions, but it will also conduct offensive missions as a lead ship class or offensive escort. A destroyer when used in offensive missions RARELY is used as a direct combat vessel when you have the larger ships. It is there to protect the other ships. The only reason Destroyers are used in offensive roles today is because there is no conflict that has sparked the need for ships larger then a cruiser (excluding carriers) and as such the traditional duties get altered someone when there are ship types missing
It is not called a destroyer, it is called a STAR Destroyer. You can use the same line of reasoning and claim the Eclipse, Executor, and Sovereign are all mere Destroyers. The thing is, Star Destroyer is part of the ships NAME, not class.Simon H.Johansen wrote:If an ISD is intended to perform primarly capital ship tasks, then why the heck is it called a Destroyer rather than a Cruiser???
The conclusion is that the ISD is either an escort-sized ship with cruiser armaments, or a cruiser capable of destroyer duties. Either way, I conclude that it's both a cruiser and an escort-scale ship.
*The term is used in Battlefleet Gothic to describe Vengeance-class and Repulsive-class pocket battleships.
Part of the ship's name?? Explain, I can't see what you mean.Alyeska wrote:It is not called a destroyer, it is called a STAR Destroyer. You can use the same line of reasoning and claim the Eclipse, Executor, and Sovereign are all mere Destroyers. The thing is, Star Destroyer is part of the ships NAME, not class.
And escorts often outnumber the heavier ships which they are designed to escort. BTW, the ISD is only used as a capital ship because the largest capital ships the Rebellion have are dwarfed by Empire's biggest boats.And no, the ISD is not an escort scale ship. It massively outnumbered the heavier types of ships and was commonly used as its own lead command ship in fleet operations.
Erm... I thought there were quite many ships around Byss, where we see many ships which truly are bigger than ISDs but smaller than Giel's flagship.It was only used as escort for "Showboat" type fleets meant to scare rather then truly defeat the enemy
You are using the claim that since the Imperial Star Destroyer has the word Destroyer in its name, that must be proof its a Destroyer. Under that line of reasoning the Victory Star Destroyer is also a destroyer. That ALSO means that the Executor, Eclipse, and Sovereign ships must be destroyers. Destroyer is part of the ships name. VSD, ISD, SSD, ESSD, and SSSD. They all have Star Destroyer in their name but that does not make them destroyers.Simon H.Johansen wrote:Part of the ship's name?? Explain, I can't see what you mean.Alyeska wrote:It is not called a destroyer, it is called a STAR Destroyer. You can use the same line of reasoning and claim the Eclipse, Executor, and Sovereign are all mere Destroyers. The thing is, Star Destroyer is part of the ships NAME, not class.
I never claimed that the Eclipse and Executor are mere destroyers, because they are they biggest warships short of Death Stars. BTW, they're not Star Destroyers, they're SUPER Star Destroyers.
No, the average Mon Calamario Cruiser was less then 1.6km and was weaker then an ISD.And escorts often outnumber the heavier ships which they are designed to escort. BTW, the ISD is only used as a capital ship because the largest capital ships the Rebellion have are dwarfed by Empire's biggest boats.And no, the ISD is not an escort scale ship. It massively outnumbered the heavier types of ships and was commonly used as its own lead command ship in fleet operations.
If the average Mon Calamari cruiser was 5-6 km long, I think the ISDs would serve as escorts. But they are used as capital ships because they are the equivalent of ships used as cruisers by the Rebels.
These types of ships are only vaguely mentioned or scene in the comics. The vast majority of the examples with the EU has the ISD either escorting the super heavy ships or operating as command ship. Both common for a cruiser type ship.Erm... I thought there were quite many ships around Byss, where we see many ships which truly are bigger than ISDs but smaller than Giel's flagship.It was only used as escort for "Showboat" type fleets meant to scare rather then truly defeat the enemy
That is because several people adressed the SAME thing at different times. I had to repeat myself because they hadn't bothered to read the entire thread.Crayz9000 wrote:[skimmed through everything, including Alyeska being extremely repetitive]
No, the ISD isn't the only example out there, but its a very common example. There can be multiple types of ships in a fleet with several filling the same role. The USN had more then 3 different types of Heavy Cruisers durring WW2. They had almost a dozen Battleship classes. That doesn't disprove the ISD as a cruiser.This is the reason why I just stick with Saxton's explanation. It follows an already established model, with analogues to all of the various classes, and still fits into the Star Wars universe.
Face it, Alyeska. The Imperator isn't the only Imperial warship out there, nor is it the most numerous. Star Destroyer is very likely a blanket term for the Imperial dagger-type warships.
Which is standard. A Cruiser typically does not act as its own command ship except in safer regions. Even when they take part in offensive actions they move in combination with heavier ships.You want examples?
Tatooine - Imperator serves as command vessel in impoverished region where resistance is low, thus making a larger vessel redundant. Fits destroyer role.
No, it does not. Cruisers are meant to act in an offensive action and they commonly do this in combination with heavier ships. A cruiser can operate alone, but it can also operate together with other ships. Durring WW2 Battleships AND Heavy Cruisers took part in multiple combined offensive actions. A destroyer would not even take part in an active blockade and would not be designed with combat and killing other ships as its primary role. I can claim that the Iowa class ship of WW2 was just a destroyer because it escort carriers all the time, doesn't make that true.Battle of Hoth - Command vessel is the Executor with Imperators serving as escorts. Fits destroyer role.
Just because the largest ship is the command ship doesn't magically make its entire escort fleet or combination fleet a group of destroyers. You need additional striking power to assist in the combat. You bring along Cruisers for aditional striking power, you only bring along destroyers for DEFENSIVE power. In other words you bring along as much striking power as you need, you never factor in the defensive firepower to save you. Under your line of reasoning the Empire brought the Executor as the striking power, which it was outgunned by the Rebell fleet. The fact that SOOO many ISDs were escorting the Executor shows they were a combined fleet for massive offensive firepower. This is not evidence of them being destroyers.Battle of Endor - Executor was commandship, escorted by dozens of Imperators. Numerous other ships were present, including a communications ship and several larger Star Destroyer types that do not fit under the Imperator mold. Again, fits the destroyer mold.
The Empire hardly ever had enough ships to really allow for massive fleets. Even when they did have a massive fleet it was an Imperial commander with a massive ego as well and they wanted to inspire terror.Then, in the EU:
In small forces, Imperators generally serve as commandships. This is not inconsistent with Saxton's model, given that lesser ships fill the picket ship, gunship/corvette, and frigate roles.
That does not invalidate the position of the ISD. You can have multiple classes of ships filling multiple roles. As previously mentioned the US navy as of WW2 had 3 or more Heavy Cruiser classes, at least one Battle Cruiser class, and 8 different Battleship types.Byss - Hundreds of Imperial warships, including Imperators but also many other distinct classes that are larger than the Imperator.
As I said earlier, PB is somewhat of a quasi rank, kinda like Grand Cruiser. It designates something that is more powerful then a Cruiser, less firepower but more armor then a battle cruiser, and is designed similar but less armed or armored to a battleship.Frankly, your classing of everything between the Allegiance and the Executor as a "pocket BB" or similar is a moronic idea. I haven't heard of pocket battleships varying in size by a factor of 10 or more.
Zahn had the Strike and Carrack ships referred to as cruisers. Also let us not forget that they list Assault Frigates as more powerful then these "cruisers" and the Nebulon-B being relatively equal to a Strike cruiser.Now, about the Carrack "cruiser" and Loronar Strike "cruiser"...
Chalk it up to WEG's incompetance. Nah, that's a weak argument. Anyway, it's been explained before in the EU that Loronar Corporation has a somewhat bloated estimate of their own scale, and thus calls their weak ships 'cruisers.' The Imperial Navy does not seem to do the same; all references to those ships as 'cruisers' have been from independent smugglers or Rebels, neither of which have the same size or scale as the Imperial Navy.
The Imperial class is very far from a mere destroyer.Hence, a Mon Calamari cruiser is equal to an Imperator, which is a destroyer...
OK, enough rambling.
Slippery slope fallacy. The ISDs and VSDs qualify as destroyers because they are some of the SMALLER ships of the Empire. However, the Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign are the BIGGEST Imperial warships this side of a Death Star, therefore they are not destroyers.Alyeska wrote: You are using the claim that since the Imperial Star Destroyer has the word Destroyer in its name, that must be proof its a Destroyer. Under that line of reasoning the Victory Star Destroyer is also a destroyer. That ALSO means that the Executor, Eclipse, and Sovereign ships must be destroyers. Destroyer is part of the ships name. VSD, ISD, SSD, ESSD, and SSSD. They all have Star Destroyer in their name but that does not make them destroyers.
Okay, I meant ISD-scaled OR SMALLER.No, the average Mon Calamario Cruiser was less then 1.6km and was weaker then an ISD.
These types of ships are only vaguely mentioned or scene in the comics. The vast majority of the examples with the EU has the ISD either escorting the super heavy ships or operating as command ship. Both common for a cruiser type ship.[/quote)
ISDs are used as command ships when larger vessels aren't needed - ie. most of the incident, as Rebel ships tend to be quite smaller than Imperial ships. Because of this, ISDs perform capital ship tasks as well as escort tasks.
If the Empire's prime enemy was the Imperium of Mankind from Warhammer 40K and Battlefleet Gothic, then the ISDs would serve as escorts, as the Imperium's cruisers are 3-5km long and their escorts are ISD-sized.
No, this is not a slippery slope fallacy. You are using the claim that because ISD has Destroyer in its name it must be proof that its a destroyer. I am pointing out the problem with your assumption.Simon H.Johansen wrote:Slippery slope fallacy. The ISDs and VSDs qualify as destroyers because they are some of the SMALLER ships of the Empire. However, the Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign are the BIGGEST Imperial warships this side of a Death Star, therefore they are not destroyers.Alyeska wrote: You are using the claim that since the Imperial Star Destroyer has the word Destroyer in its name, that must be proof its a Destroyer. Under that line of reasoning the Victory Star Destroyer is also a destroyer. That ALSO means that the Executor, Eclipse, and Sovereign ships must be destroyers. Destroyer is part of the ships name. VSD, ISD, SSD, ESSD, and SSSD. They all have Star Destroyer in their name but that does not make them destroyers.
It is not uncommon for writers of a series to make up their own ship designs. Most writers do not know the proper designations. And I never claimed the Empire screwed up their own designations. We have never seen the ISD referred to directly as a destroyer type ship. We have the basic description of 5 different ships using Star Destroyer. This alone proves that the ISD is not being described as a destroyer.Okay, I meant ISD-scaled OR SMALLER.No, the average Mon Calamario Cruiser was less then 1.6km and was weaker then an ISD.
I still can't believe that the Imperial Navy butchers naval terminology as much as you claim. I tolerate it when Battlefleet Gothic treats frigates as bigger than destroyers, but using the term "destroyer" to describe a cruiser or even a heavy battleship is just ludicrous.
Using one scifi group as an example like that doesn't really work. I can just as easily point out that in Freespace the larger ships are called Destroyers while the smallest capships are cruisers.You just provided the evidence that proves the ISD is a cruiser type ship. It performs offensive actions and command ship actions. Destroyers do not have this capability and would not be put in such a situation.These types of ships are only vaguely mentioned or scene in the comics. The vast majority of the examples with the EU has the ISD either escorting the super heavy ships or operating as command ship. Both common for a cruiser type ship.[/quote)
ISDs are used as command ships when larger vessels aren't needed - ie. most of the incident, as Rebel ships tend to be quite smaller than Imperial ships. Because of this, ISDs perform capital ship tasks as well as escort tasks.
If the Empire's prime enemy was the Imperium of Mankind from Warhammer 40K and Battlefleet Gothic, then the ISDs would serve as escorts, as the Imperium's cruisers are 3-5km long and their escorts are ISD-sized.
Actually, this is supported by statements by those working in the production of DE and source materials thereof refering to the "Modular TaskForce Cruiser."Crayz9000 wrote:Now, about the Carrack "cruiser" and Loronar Strike "cruiser"...
Chalk it up to WEG's incompetance. Nah, that's a weak argument. Anyway, it's been explained before in the EU that Loronar Corporation has a somewhat bloated estimate of their own scale, and thus calls their weak ships 'cruisers.' The Imperial Navy does not seem to do the same; all references to those ships as 'cruisers' have been from independent smugglers or Rebels, neither of which have the same size or scale as the Imperial Navy.
I think not. Life is too short.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Yeah, but read the novel,
"Waste reference???"its waste reference left over from original descriptions of the ISD.
Then your opinion thereof is sadly irrelevent.Currald wrote:I think not. Life is too short.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Yeah, but read the novel,
Original descriptions put the ISD as smaller, novel refers to it as a "lumbering cruiser, bristling with weaponry" IIRC and doesn't use the description Star Destroyer much. Then often does use description in ESB.Currald wrote:"Waste reference???"Illuminatus Primus wrote:its waste reference left over from original descriptions of the ISD.
Poor WEG/EU deluded one.Exonerate wrote:The Destroyer part just comes the "STAR DESTROYER" thing. It's just part of the name, as somebody said above. I'd put it around a battleship class, or dreadnaught.