Twice as long as half of it: the size of the Super Star Destroyer

You mean other than listing by source. In the academic world, I list source, YOU research it.

It may be slang, except for one thing. Slang, as defined by the dictionary is either INFORMAL usuage or a technical term. The term Dreadnought however, is NOT informal usuage, but a highly specialised technical term used to differentiate between two different types of battleship. Considering that in the relevent memo, the Admirality was discussing the losses between non-dreadnought type battleships and dreadnoughts, its obvious that its the second, aka, technical term.

Right. You used dictionaries to tell me what the definition of slang was. I showed you the appropriate definition. You gave the title of a reference book, if it even is that. That information was worthless.

Except for one thing.
You never showed that its an INFORMAL term. I showed that it isn't. Its not MY problem that you refuse to do the academic search. Perhaps if the information was relatively rare, aka, I will not expect anyone here to be able to know that Sam said "don't go where I can't follow" in the novel, you might have a point. Considering that the definition of Dreadnought as a battleship design is prevalent however, I adequately fulfilled burden of proof.

How dense are you? You won't find a single ship classified as a "Dreadnought", merely described as one. Those "all-big-gun" ships are battleships, you blundering, incomprehending dolt. Even if "dreadnought" is a type of battleship, it remains classified a battleship.

Ah huh. And what does Dreadnought mean again? Yes, the technical term, for classifying the newer type of battleship design. Same as how the term "gun cruiser" and "missile cruiser" came into the official lexicon as a classification. Aka, its NOT informal use.

No offense, but I wouldn't put too much weight on the visuals of Marvel's SW comics.

How nice. The Red herring you present here stinks perfectly. Except the fact is, the term DREADNOUGHT is what is being discussed. There is no way in hell that the 600m long Dreadnaught cruiser looks like the Dreadnought in the Marvel comics.

You'd be amazed how much of SW literature disagrees with you.

Really? There's a single SW literature out there saying that Dreadnought isn't an official class name and that its informal use? Where?

Yes, that is indeed what I said.

So? What's the problem then? The Dreadnaught cruiser isn't a Star Dreadnaught.

Of course...ITW was predated by about forty sources that cite Executor as a Super Star Destroyer, so when it was published doesn't mean much, eh?

Anyway, we know the Dreadnoughts are actually Dreadnought-class Cruisers, so you can forget about them being battleships.

So? I never suggested they were battleships. You're the only one who even made that allusion, what with the whole Dreadnaught cruisers can't beat ISD in DFR, therefore, Executer cannot be called Dreadnought. Which brings the whole huh face I'm now displaying permanetly for the rest of this thread.

So....Dreadnoughts are the largest Republic warship up until the Victory, eh? So, in that case, they'd be battleships. Then what would a Victory be?

A destroyer, based on the Victory multipurpose role.

*glances at the bolded section*

Anyway, what does that prove? ISDs served as flagships just as much. Pellaeon commanded his final offensive from the bridge of the Chimaera, even with the Reaper available. Thrawn commanded the entirety of the Imperial forces from an ISD. Zaarin's flagship was the ISD Glory. ISDs are as capable of command as SSDs.

How nice, you revisit points I went through but you ignored.
1. Thrawn largest strike force was 3-6 ISDs built around a flotilla of strike cru

 

"You mean other than listing by source. In the academic world, I list source, YOU research it."

That's a pretty odd way for you to determine what's slang and not.

"It may be slang, except for one thing. Slang, as defined by the dictionary is either INFORMAL usuage or a technical term. The term Dreadnought however, is NOT informal usuage, but a highly specialised technical term used to differentiate between two different types of battleship."

You just contradicted yourself there.

"Considering that in the relevent memo, the Admirality was discussing the losses between non-dreadnought type battleships and dreadnoughts, its obvious that its the second, aka, technical term."

And by your own word, a technical term is slang.



"Except for one thing.
You never showed that its an INFORMAL term. I showed that it isn't. Its not MY problem that you refuse to do the academic search. Perhaps if the information was relatively rare, aka, I will not expect anyone here to be able to know that Sam said "don't go where I can't follow" in the novel, you might have a point. Considering that the definition of Dreadnought as a battleship design is prevalent however, I adequately fulfilled burden of proof."

10,000+ hits and a failure to find the book in a catelog search of the public libraries of the county area leaves me in the same position Sam is in.

"Ah huh. And what does Dreadnought mean again? Yes, the technical term, for classifying the newer type of battleship design. Same as how the term "gun cruiser" and "missile cruiser" came into the official lexicon as a classification. Aka, its NOT informal use."

"Slang, as defined by the dictionary is either INFORMAL usuage or a technical term."

"How nice. The Red herring you present here stinks perfectly. Except the fact is, the term DREADNOUGHT is what is being discussed. There is no way in hell that the 600m long Dreadnaught cruiser looks like the Dreadnought in the Marvel comics."

I agree.

"Really? There's a single SW literature out there saying that Dreadnought isn't an official class name and that its informal use? Where?"

Well, when they call the ship Executor-class Super Star Destroyer, Super Star Destroyer, Super-class Star Destroyer etc, they're disagreeing, indirectly, of course.

"So? What's the problem then? The Dreadnaught cruiser isn't a Star Dreadnaught."

I've made that blindingly obvious.

"So? I never suggested they were battleships. You're the only one who even made that allusion, what with the whole Dreadnaught cruisers can't beat ISD in DFR, therefore, Executer cannot be called Dreadnought. Which brings the whole huh face I'm now displaying permanetly for the rest of this thread."

"Even when taken in SWU context, the very fact that the Dreadnought were supposed to be the largest Republic warship until the advent of the Victory class star destroyer, ignoring the Invincible 3km long vessel, that's more than adequate for a meaning of "battleship"."

*cough*

You made the assertion, not me.

"A destroyer, based on the Victory multipurpose role."



"1. Thrawn largest strike force was 3-6 ISDs built around a flotilla of strike cruisers and dreadnoughts."

Thrawn was running a galaxy-spanning campaign that lasted several months, seeing the occupation of a size of territory far, far, far beyond the capability of 6 ISDs to capture. The force at Bilbringi has been estimated to be about several sector fleets.

"Admiral Piett force was built around Death Squadron of 5 ISDs and the Executor, along with the sector fleet, bringing the total up to 30 ISDs at least, with up to 40 odd vessels being present at the battle of Endor, IGNORING the fact that Truce at Bakura sourcebook also placed the sector fleet lesser warships and interdictor cruisers at the outskirts of the system, thus meaning that the Executor as a command ship commanded MORE vessels than the ISD."

Your point?

"And even then, Thrawn still requ

 

I'm a little late in this topic since I didn't know about it til a week ago. I agree with Executor Class Super Star Destroyer. The lame slang excuse doesn't fly, btw the name Imperator is unofficial so are the blueprints. Sensor globe theory debunked and Imperator name debunked. Case closed. 19 kilometers is 12 miles long, thats a big ship. Vader has to make up for something with his lack of loins.

 

It lives!!

 

It never ceases to amaze me that a thread like this actually gets bumped from time to time...

Now to get some ballistic armour before the shells start to fly.

 

Imperator class shows up in ICS, and in Dark Lord
Sensor Globes are in Bacta war and ITW: Original Trilogy.

 

The sensor globes were actually mentioned in Bacta War? Which part?

 

You have resurrected the forbidden thread on the debate with no name. For this you must die.

 

Ordinarily I don't condone threatening other users...


... in this case I'll let it slide and agree with you...

//cries

 

Here we go again.

Not to mention, that ILM calls them Imperator and sensor-globes respectively.

 

To paraphrase: "A-Wings flew across the superstructure, destroying turbolasers and sensor domes as they went."

 

Are you certain those are the two large spheres on the top of the command pylon?

As for Imperator, the name change is stupid at worst, irrelevant at best. Frankly, it's actually named both, if they're the same ship class at all

 

No, it fits nicely with ship-classes like Acclamator, Venator, Lictor, Victor (see NEC), Executor.

An Executor has several more sensor-domes than those on top of the command-tower.

 

Actially, most of the -tor class-names appear for the first time in Saxton's pro-fic, and smell rather as though they're intended to retrospectively "prove" his fan-theory linking -tor names, class ships, dagger hulls, and Kuat Drive Yards...

Unfortunately for this theory, an unbiased survey of prior canon shows that while -tor names are undoubtedly widespread, and borne by a noteworthy number of class ships, they're by no means so monotonously common as Saxton made them in his own storytelling - and neither the -tor names nor the dagger design are in any way especially connected with KDY...

I have no trouble with the "Imperator-class" designation in and of itself; my issue is that SWTC was almost certainly wrong to think that the blueprint it appeared in was canon, and while it's entirely possible that SWTC's popularization of the term may have been entirely well-intended, I can't help feel that there's a deliberate agenda at the back of it. SWTC repeatedly slants its discussion to give the impression that EU and particularly WEG material is second-rank and should to be replaced by those who care for 'accuracy'...

Sometimes, SWTC is entirely right - the material gathered on shield domes certainly requires a retconn to give them a sensor role as well; often, however, it claims to identify a contradiction when sources can simply be reconciled, and sometimes, inaccuracies or non-canon terminology mean that while a page is packed with useful reference material, the conclusion presented is no more than a misleading fan theory that is untenable in terms of official canon.

No hard feelings, though. SWTC is huge, and massive as a resource; and we wouldn't be here without it...

*is thoughtful*

Back to the Imperator: in canon terms, we may now have two classes based on the same basic 1.6km spaceframe, the early Imperator and the later Imperial...

- The Imperial Ewok

 

"No, it fits nicely with ship-classes like Acclamator, Venator, Lictor, Victor (see NEC), Executor."

Ah, so the justification for why Imperial was changed is because it sounds nicer. Really, it's changing from an adjective to a noun form of the exact same word. That's either stupid, because it just ends up necesitating a retcon, or irrelevant, since it is the same.

 

Yeah. I'm not really surprised that they're different, considering I just said that two posts up, in a manner

 

Incredible Cross Section and Inside the World doesn't count, they are curtis saxton fallacies.

 

Prove it and don't go to those curtis saxton liar books either. The ICS and ITW are debunked anyway, fan fiction.

 

Operative word is Dome not Globe. Debunked.

 

All that chatter and not one real theory.

 

Oh dear...

Sharky has a point, why can't we just let this die again?

 

Not a bad idea, I put my opinion in and get attacked by kiddies not surprising.

 

James31278: Actually the reason I question why this thread is alive again isn't so much to do with the hostility inherent to an SSD debate, (which comes with the territory naturally) but rather the fact that this is a debate that has been done literally to death. If we start it up again it'll be the same old arguments flung at each other over and over again. More evasions of points, more insults, more trying to one-up each other and save face. In short, it's been done.

 

...I'm not going to comment on the complete lack of any sort of logical arguement besides fiat statements, but I will say that it helps if before you make them, check the actual source rather than just the quote I tyed up from memory.

As for dome vs globe:

geodesic dome
n.

A domed or vaulted structure of lightweight straight elements that form interlocking polygons.

[image=http://www.starwars.jp/technology/image/shield_generator.jpg]

I've given up trying to debate people on this topic, but I do strive for some semblance of logic and order in debate, and in semantics.