Full Series X-wings

Can we all agree that the empire was cheap and did not care about there people.

 

Picard maneuver ? Let's fire up the hyperdrive and before the rebels know what hit them, they are dead.

 

The ISDs protect the Executor - so in that case at least, they're fulfilling the destroyer role.

The 8 big turrets on the ISD, while not as big relative to the size of the ship as battleship guns in the real world were relative to the size of their battleships, are still pretty hefty.

The Executor model, it is true, skimped a bit on Big Gun Turrets. Which might be why it's called a Super Star Destroyer - rolewise its like a gigantic version of an ordinary Star Destroyer - being used like a small fleet of ISDs would be - instead of taking advantage of the extra size to mount much bigger guns.

At least, until a "canon Executor computer model" comes out with proper turrets, which might still happen - we'll have to wait and see.

(Also, can't remember reading anywhere that the standard Executor has a superlaser).

 

The problem with defining a ship just by the size of its armaments is that there are numerous oddities that would defy this methodology. For example, the Erebus-class Monitor carried a pair of 15-inch guns that you would normally only find mounted to battleships and dreadnaughts, but the ship itself had a displacement less than that of a Cleveland-class Light Cruiser. In a more direct comparison, the Deutschland-class Heavy Cruiser carried 280mm guns, while the Tone-class Heavy Cruiser carried only 203mm guns, though they both had a similar displacement. Note that the gun caliber of the Tone-class was only slightly larger than what was typically found on light cruisers (6-inch for U.S. veseels). Should the both Deutschland and Tone class vessels retain the Heavy Cruiser classification? Not a criticism, just food for thought.

Larger caliber guns were mounted on naval vessels because of the need to counter increasingly better armor protection, and to provide better range. For whatever reason, Star Wars naval combat doesn't seem to work by the same rules. It may be because a steady stream of moderately-powered turbolaser fire is more effective at bringing down shields and battering armor than a smaller number of higher-energy weapons. This might be due to rate of fire issues. Larger guns may require a longer time to recharge and may give enemy shields more time to replenish. This is pure speculation, however.

I can't in good conscience agree with the idea that the ISD is a light cruiser. Light cruisers are escorts and designed to protect and support the larger ships of the fleet. Aside from the SSD, what other larger ship would an ISD be protecting? Frankly, the more and more we try to define SW ships like the ISD and SSD into real world categories, the worse off we will be. They just weren't created to fit neatly into our own world's definitions.

I honestly can't think of a good reason for the Executor to exist, aside from making Vader feel special.

 

Which is probably why the EU increased the Executor-class's punch as time went by - with early sources making it as good as 5 ISD, intermediate ones, 20 ISDs, and the most recent ones, 100 ISDs.

 

Just because you call a Battleship Galactica Zenturion a toaster, doesn't make him a toaster.

The Erebus has not even a naval combat role. And was so successful, exactly 2 ships were build and never anything new.

I was expecting more somthing like "the USS Constitution is a frigate and has nothing to do with frigates". However, if you like a toaster, call it a battlecruiser if you like. (also I still think this is the most unpropriate classification, as it is a design variation of a battleship and the ISD does not have speed of armor, but the significance of speed was neglected by you, making a battlecruiser classification even more out of place.) But I'm fine with it, call it a battlecruiser if you like. I still stick with cruiser.

Yeah, it was a stupid idea to call it a light cruiser. Because light is bad in Star Wars immersion naming, battle is good, because it sounds cool. (Also light cruisers were designed for roles far away from a home port anywhere in the colonies, which makes the classification in my opinion better for the outer rim)

At least we can agreee on this one.

 

Probably the closest equivalent to monitors would be "pure orbital bombardment" ships like the Torpedo Spheres.

While the ISD was originally described as a Heavy Cruiser in tie-in work - and the largest pre-Yavin ship in the fleet, at that:

STAR WARS: OFFICIAL POSTER MONTHLY #6: Published March 1978

http://www.theforce.net/image_popup/image_popup_global.asp?Image=timetales/misc/arcana/post6-03.jpg

"Heavy cruiser of the Imperial Starfleet. Heavily fortified, bristling with armament. Backbone of the Empire's security forces, can outgun all other vessels except Death Star"

there was in later EU a move toward acceptance of the presence of more powerful ships than the ISD pre-Yavin- but, as TEGTW endnotes point out, they're rare:

http://jasonfry.tumblr.com/post/23039847571/eg-to-warfare-endnotes-pt-7

* There are around 25,000 ISDs, and they are the foundation of the Imperial starfleet. Whether or not you agree this is logical, lots of canon sources support it.
* That said, it’s far too simple to say there are 25 ISDs in each sector. Many local fleets (Planetary Security Forces etc.) are made up of smaller craft, and spacers in many parts of the Empire see ISDs rarely if at all. The bulk of security/patrol duties falls to smaller warships, not ISDs.
* There are bigger warships (battlecruisers and dreadnoughts), but relatively few of them — the Empire wound up with a lot of ISDs and a handful of “trophy” ships. Classes are relatively empty above Star Destroyer.
* “Super Star Destroyer” is indeed a slang term, but it isn’t just used by Rebels — it’s a dismissive term for those trophy ships bigger than ISDs, favored by Imperials who saw such ships as wastes of money compared with building more ISDs. That’s a mild rework of an old bit of canon, but I think it works given how many Rebels were Imperial defectors, and makes the term part of a bigger and more interesting story.
* That said, when you find a reference to an SSD in a Star Wars novel, the author meant an Executor-type ship unless there’s a very good reason to think otherwise.
* There aren’t scads of Torpedo Spheres. Claims otherwise strike me as a misreading of a sentence in which they’re noted as an example of what’s available to Grand Moffs. Plus, let’s face it: Torpedo Spheres are boring. If you’re going to have a galaxy littered with even more superweapons than we already have, they better be interesting.
* Corporate demonstration ships, mix-and-match modular construction, crazy trophy craft created by powerful Core sectors and the products of Palpatine programs hidden in black budgets account for the vast majority of the EU’s divergent artistic interpretations, oddball ships, size bloopers, weird ships that don’t seem to deserve their own class, and so forth.
So there you have it. The old WEG “cruiser-topped” system describes things in-universe approximately from Ruusan until a century or so before Yavin, when Kuat Drive Yards and other shipwrights begin building larger classes of ships for Core sectors and as demonstration fleets. This buildup then accelerates dramatically during the Clone Wars, leading to the need for the Anaxes classifications as a description of the new state of affairs. Both in and out of universe, the larger classes are essentially grafted onto the old West End Games classes.
After a period of experimentation, the Empire settles on the ISD as the backbone of its power, but most local enforcement is handled by smaller ships, many of them legacy forces from before the Clone Wars (but perfectly serviceable for all that). The Executors are built, but the Empire largely spurns battlecruisers and smaller dreadnoughts. The New Republic essentially ignores these larger classes at first, but eventually comes around to believing that such massive warships are needed.

 

Which was exactly my point regarding defining a ship simply by the armaments it carried. It has armaments normally fitted to a battleship, but it's role is intended for shore bombardment. My argument is, and has been, that defining a ship by it's intended role is a far better option, along with some other secondary factors. With the Erebus-class, my intent was to use an absurd example to highlight the problematic nature of using armaments as a critical element is classification.

Throughout this debate, while I've been aggressive in my arguments, I think I've done a pretty good job of addressing your points directly and fairly, and I have not taken them out of context. Do me the courtesy of dispensing with these infantile straw man arguments. I think I was very clear in only dismissing acceleration as a a key attribute for vessels. Further, I was very clear in highlighting the speed of the Imperial I class, with multiple examples, points and even video evidence. If you disagree with my analysis of the ISD's speed, or my dismissal of acceleration, please speak up about it. Don't tell me that I've ignored the ship's speed when I have clearly addressed it.

I never once insinuated that I preferred the the term "battlecruiser" because it "sounds cool". I have been very clear on why I prefer to classify the ISD as I have. If you need me to summarize, I would be more than happy to do so. But, if you're simply going to mock my position, at least mock me for what I've actually said. If I've said something stupid--and it does happen--I'm more than willing to take the fire for it. But I won't tolerate being knocked for statements I never actually made. Quite frankly, you're better than this whole passive-aggressive routine you've started engaging in.

This can be a valid point, but only if we're applying certain "real world" time periods. Pre-WWI to the early Inter-War years, this could be correct. But as time went on, light cruisers became unsuited to serving as station ships. During peacetime, they could fulfill this mission, but as wartime approached and naval treaties regarding the displacement and armament of vessels came to be increasingly ignored, the current classes of light cruisers simply couldn't compete on their own against larger opponents that were being launched. As WWII approached and then erupted, CLs became increasingly relegated to support and defensive roles such as anti-air and anti-submarine, particularly as part of the escort screen for larger vessels such as carriers. If we want to define Pre-WWI, the Inter-War years or WWII as our "metric" of comparison then I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm happy to discuss which era is most appropriate.

Let me be clear about one last thing, because I think it's been drowned out by the other arguments. I don't particularly like defining it as a battlecruiser. My preference is to define the Star Destroyer as a Star Destroyer. It is a unique animal that truly belongs in it's own category, due to its unique, multi-role capabilities. I simply felt compelled to try to define it according to our own world's methodology for the sake of a complete discussion.

 

at the X-Wing's description.

 

I hate the idea that Naboo starfighters have things that TIEs don't have. If the Empire didn't bother spending money on something, there's no way that one planet would be able to afford it.

 

Given that Naboo spends money on extremely shiny plating - I could see them having "money to burn" so to speak.