Why is a Star Destroyer called a "Star Destroyer"?

I know what you're thinking: I'm gonna say "OMG IT CANT DESTORY STRAS!1" Well, you're wrong.

"Star Destroyer" means "destroyer that travels among the stars," right? I assume "destroyer" is referring to the type of ship used by navies: a small, fast, maneuverable ship usually used as an escort for larger vessels, such as carriers or battleships. All types of Star Destroyers are anything but relatively small, nor are they fast, and we see the piss-poor maneuvering capabilities of the ISD in ESB; furthermore, there are hardly any ships larger than it for the SD to escort. Is this just an incorrect designation by George Lucas to be overlooked, or am I missing something?

 

I've wondered the same thing. Also it isn't just star wars that does this. In babylon 5 the largest earth warships are called destroyers as well.

 

Well, they're called "Imperial Cruisers" in ANH, and I think a cruiser fits their size and role better. As far as the movies alone go, the "Destroyer" moniker may just be a nickname. For an out-of-universe explanation, "Destroyer" sounds nice and ominous.

What gets me is, why is just about every ship of that line, no matter what size or capabilities, from the VSD to the SSD, classified as a "Destroyer"? Even if an ISD fits the category of destroyer, I can't believe all of those others do as well. Does the GFFA even have battleships?

 

Well if any thing it should be a carrier since it carries fighters.

 

Most capital ships carry fighters in Star Wars.

Does the GFFA even have battleships?

I think the large capital ships like SDs and Mon Cal cruisers could easily be the closest GFFA equivalent to battleships. Besides, in the real world, battleships were proven obsolete with the effectiveness of carrier-based planes in dealing with the massive ships over sixty years ago; who's to say the same thing didn't happen in the GFFA?

 

Yeah. Apparently 21st century naval nomenclature is not really applicable in star wars.

 

Okay, so it doen't exactly fit the definition, but the name sutis it. It destroys things. Plus the name is intimidating.

As stated, there are nay fiction instances where a destroyer is a large powerful sip, not an escort. SW, B5 (as mentioned earlier; there are even games where a Destroyer is a large, not well menuverable ship that packs a punch. Not all of the names of ships in Star Wars hold true to their names.

 

Okay, so it doen't exactly fit the definition...

"Doesn't exactly fit the definition"? A "Star Destroyer" isn't fast, maneuverable, or small; it doesn't fit the definition of "destroyer" at all.

 

A star Destroyer is beyond a heavy cruiser and there is no equivelent in our world. According to one of the Adventure Journals, Star Destroyers are part carrier and part super heavy cruiser. We can also safle assume they are part troop carrier.

A pure cruiser in Star Wars , like the Majestic class heavy cruiser would be more a single purpose vessel, that purpose being to kick the ass of other warships.

Star Destroyers are designed for multiple purposes. They are designed to ferry troops , serve as operation bases, dominate other ships, and server as a carrier and base for fighter craft.

Star Destroyer is a name that is meamt to inspire dread in opponents. When you hear it, the first impression you get is that it has the power to destroy stars.

 

In other words, they aren't destroyers.

 

Aye. A Super Star Destroyer would be part carrier, part battleship.

 

We're looking at it in Earth terms. Perhaps there never was a maritime equivalant to a destroyer, or was never called that. Destroyer would mean something that destroys things (bad definition, I know) and travels in space, thus it is a Star Destroyer, while also can be called a cruiser. An SSD, ESSD, and SSSD would be battleships of varying power.

It should also be pointed out that many of our cruisers did at some time carry aircraft. *shrug*

 

The Imperial-class Star Destroyer is a mid-class vessel in terms of the Galactic Empire's mass-range and probably quantity-range of her starfleet, and quite small for her industrial might.

Human wet navy termonology for role does not apply analogously to Star Wars vessels for a litany of reasons I will not list at length here in the name of brevity, and the inconsistency in the Expanded Universe's descriptions of naval role essentially means that the designations do not really mean anything. There is no other adequate explanation for the overlap and contradictions numerous in the descriptions of various ships' role and the meaning of role in Star Wars combat (most notably the lizard brain-originating definition of "cruiser" from the Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook). This is quite unfortunate in research and comprehension of the fictional setting of th Star Wars saga, but the Expanded Universe authors and editors have never shown the most discipline in consistency and accuracy, and even less willingness to revise previous error.

The most effective analysis possible is simply a listing of the utilization and actions taken by various vessels in combat, and a comparison against various common factors such as mass, shape, range, etc.

 

a small, fast, maneuverable ship usually used as an escort for larger vessels, such as carriers or battleships.

In today's Navy the destroyer is the one of the largest combatants in the US Fleet. Carriers are naturally the largest ships in the fleet at over a thousand feet in length (Big E is the largest US carrier at 1,101' 2" with the Nimitz-class carriers coming in second at 1,092"). Ticonderoga-class Cruisers, which the offical Navy website lists as the largest active crusier class, come in at 567". The largest active destoryer class, the Spurance-class, comes in at 563".

 

Simple answer? It sounds intimidating to the movie audience and in universe it's a clever way to create an ever greater level of intimidation on their enemies.

 

It is a destroyer.

Size-wise it occupies the gap of destroyer between the smaller and the bigger vessels of the Imperial Navy and role-wise, it acts like a destroyer when accompanying larger ships.

Not to forget (as Knight pointed out), that in modern navies on earth destroyers and even frigates belong now to the bigger vessels in a fleet.

 

Darth Guy, you voiced an unvoiced dozen-year puzzlement of mine.

 

Star Wars naval nomenclature is prone to numerous hiccups and also heavily subjective regarding whose perspective things are coming from.

Anywho, there are numerous schools of thought, such as the Saxtonian 'they're literally destroyers and rather small' line of reasoning, but the one that I feel works the best goes something like this:

In the Imperial Navy, a 'destroyer' generally seems to be a very multi-purpose ship. An Imperial-class ship carries a full wing of fighters, allowing it to do the job of a carrier, a full division of ground troops and their armor support, allowing it to do the job of an assault ship, and carries a huge amount of raw firepower, allowing it to do the job of a straightforward combatant. While vastly smaller, the Adz-class patrol destroyer is similar in principle (this little fellow shows up in the Black Fleet Crisis Trilogy). She's got some fighters, some troopers, and some guns. The conclusion I reach is that a 'destroyer' is a multipurpose ship in the Imperial Navy. The Victory-, Super/Executor, and even the hilarious Eclipse-class vessels all fall into the same niche.

At any rate, you may find yourself asking 'why the capital letters for Imperial-class Star Destroyer and not for the Adz-class patrol destroyer?' The explanation that some Fleet Junkies such as Thrawn McEwok and myself have come up with is that the prefix 'Star' seems to be given to the primary ship(s) of the line. In the Empire's case, Imperial-class destroyers. The New Republic/Galactic Alliance also had/has Star Destroyers, but they also have Star Cruisers.

A 'Star Cruiser' is, essentially, a huge cruiser, and a 'cruiser' within the framework of Star Wars (inasmuch as I can tell, anyway) is a combat vessel designed primarily for combating other vessels. They're mostly reliant on guns (generally speaking), but can--and often do--have fighters. Troops are kept to a minimum, and planetary assault capabilities are limited.

The long and the short of it (and remember, this is just my opinion, it isn't necessarily right) is that the term 'destroyer' denotes a multirole warship, and the 'Star' bit (along with the capitalization of 'Destroyer') indicates that this is a major vessel in the battle line.

In Dr. Saxton's own works, he cites Kuati-designed 'Star Battlecruisers' and 'Star Dreadnaughts' that seem to support this hypothesis.

 

they are also used for orbital bombardment.

 

You could speculate the Imperial destroyer in Battleground: Tatooine was an Adz patrol destroyer. It's size, angular lines with gilles sides, and engine quartet are different to an Impstar. But it carried a lot more than a mere 6 TIEs.

 

Club:
Oh, yes. That too. I'd lumped orbital bombardment in with 'guns' and 'troops' in that the turbolasers could be used as both support-fire weapons for a planetary invasion operation and as anti-starship weapons in a more conventional anti-shipping role.

 

The clearest sign that 'destroyer' is not intended as the Earth naval term (or anything like it) is that the Star Wars rough draft screenplay has starfighter-size 'stardestroyers'. It's an intimidating term that just means 'destructive starship'.

 

Victory-class Star Destroyers are small and highly maneuverable, used by Admiral Daala for swift strikes in the Jedi Academy Trilogy.

 

I thought she only had 4 Imperial-Class Star Destroyers.

In today's Navy the destroyer is the one of the largest combatants in the US Fleet.

Well, only because the battleship ceased to exist in contemporary naval warfare.