Someone on TFN has the ICS- extracts, no firepower- spoiler?

[Connor MacLeod]

Darn tootin'!

I just don't have anything to contact Dr Saxton with, but I think I'm right in that I can include myself in the 'anonymous others' section.

Well if you ever finished calcs you started maybe you would

Okay, that's fair enough, but they were for the Terminator and not Star Wars! Personally I blame Mike because;

1. It's convenient.
2. If he ever wanted to do a 'Jedi Power' page, our (yours, Damien's and mine) analysis of Anakin's fall in AotC is pretty much ready to go.

There!

YEah yeah... always ready with an excuse aren't you?

[VT-16]

Tector-class Star Destroyer? Have they finally named the "bay-less, bulb-less" destroyer from ROTJ?

EDIT: Seems other have noticed this, as well. I think if it was the name of the Allegiance-type ships, they would have mentioned it as being "the Imperator´s bigger cousin" or something. Since that was nicknamed a "Super Star Destroyer", and the Tector seems to be similar to the Imperator except no hangars ==> ROTJ destroyer.

[FTeik]

Questor, that sounds like the proper name for a tax-frigate.

[Vympel]

I'm gonna startt calling you Dorain Gray from now on

*groans, grumbles*

You wouldn't be the first and I doubt you'll be the last. Though I did enjoy League of Extraordinary Gentlemen solely because of the take on that character.

(shit movie otherwise of course)

[Firefox]

I'm annoyed there are no callouts for the "window" mounted cannons. I think I see some structures in the notch that match the basic shape of the windows, but that's probably wishful thinking.

Anyone else notice that the "Medium dual turbolaser" callout for the forward notch is pointing to some odd bit, instead of the actual turret slightly aft?

[Vympel]

We should wait till we get our own copies I think. Mine are on order.

[VT-16]

But the construction of Venator-class vessels is already showing in favor of more robust, mile-long Imperator-class and hangarless Tector-class Star Destroyers.

Sorry for harping on this point (;)), but it seems the "mile-long" quote goes for both Imps and Tecs, the main difference being the lack of hangars. Otherwise, Saxton would have specified any other differences in the ships, such as the Allegiance being more than a mile long (if it was the second class in the statement). Which once again points to the ROTJ ship, which seemed to be of a similar length to the Imperator.

Ok, I swear that´s the last time I mention that.

Acclamator, Procurator, Mandator, Venator, Imperator, Tector, Preator, Executor, Comm Ship (Orator? Latin for 'speaker'.)

Second last, then.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Don't you mean 'larger than cruiser" vessels?

Some ships like Hood were larger. Taking battlecruiser as a broad spectrum, it doesn't have to be. And based on SWTC, I think Saxton's picture of a battlecruiser is comparable to a battleship in size. Sometimes bigger, sometimes smaller.

Battlecruiser still wouldn't have worked for the Executor, given its multi-function nature (maybe a hybrid like the Lexington-class battlecruiser-carrier or something like the japanese Ise-class hybrid battleship/carrier..)

Shit man, everything from a gunship in SW up got some multi-function ability.

As for protection, how is that certain? With the existence of shields, one does not neccesarily have to trade speed for protection/durability (and the Executor's shields would seem to be considered exceptionally powerful for its size/class, given the Archie Goodwin comics.)

Were there anything in its size class? In combat, you may have to. In the old books, IIRC shields draw about 25% of the power. If a battlecruiser reduces it to say 20%, that's 5% more for acceleration.

Besides, since acceleration tends to be one of the most power-intensive feats for any Star Wars ship (second only to weapons), you could increase the acceleration of any "battleship" simply by decreasing its mass. In fact, thats one of the few ways a SW ship of a given class is generally *going* to improve its acceleration is by reducing its mass in some ways.

That would reduce its endurance.

The Japanese (and apparently the Germans, if my naval-historian acquaintance told it to me right)

In this board, appealing to an anonymous authority is generally not a good idea. Besides, I wonder how he got to the conclusion.

considered Battlecruisers to be scaled down battleships. (Kongo-class for example. ) So yes, there are cases where battlecruisers were largely 'scaled-down' battleships.

Kongo class? When built, Kongo was the heaviest thing in the IJN. The preceding Kawachis were 20000 tons standard, the Kongo 27,500t. it is lighter than the later Fuso, but was about the same size (almost 10m longer and about 40cm narrower). I don't think the Yamato or even the much later Nagato makes for a good comparison with Kongo. Taking their Tosas and Amagis, the Amagi is heavier, and has less draught and is larger. B-64/65 is meant to be some kinda "super cruiser".

The German Mackensen (their last WWI BC) was 30,750t standard, their Bayern 28,330 tons (and Mackensen is larger in every dimension 'cept draught ... by 10cm). The other BCs and BBs kind of leapfrogged around in weight, but at a fast glance, I can't see any decisive superiority either way.

In WWII, people called Scharnhorst a BC, though I don't see why. It is actually a "anti-BC" in a sense, in that the guns were weak (11 inch) but the armor is relatively adequate.

Note: The weights are from Jane's. Weights from other sources may vary.

[Companion Cube]

I like the Saruman reference with Dooku's "Wizard's Tower" on the Invisible Hand.

[Connor MacLeod]

Some ships like Hood were larger. Taking battlecruiser as a broad spectrum, it doesn't have to be. And based on SWTC, I think Saxton's picture of a battlecruiser is comparable to a battleship in size. Sometimes bigger, sometimes smaller.

Why would you take it in a "broad spectrum?" And just how broad?

Which "picture" are you referring to? If you mean his general idea, I doubt it, given his comments about mass differences between ship classes.

Shit man, everything from a gunship in SW up got some multi-function ability.

Not in any significant way (nothing like the ISD, Executor, VSD, etc. ) The Corellian gunship, the class 1000 cruiser, the Carracks, and the Bayonet-class light cruiser are more specialized examples. So's the Acclamator. The Strike Cruiser was multi-purpose in the sense it could be refitted to specific roles, but was in itself a rather specialized design. There's the Interdictor cruiser too, the lancer frigate, and the escort carrier. Assault Frigates too. And the Vindicator-class heavy cruiser. Virtually all of which are official examples.

Were there anything in its size class?

Who knows? Knowing Curtis, there probably were. (I'd guess the Mandators probably somewhere in that size class due to their firepower, although that's not neccesarily saying they ARE.) Giels ship might be (depending on scalings.)

In combat, you may have to. In the old books, IIRC shields draw about 25% of the power. If a battlecruiser reduces it to say 20%, that's 5% more for acceleration.

Not really. Maximum acceleration is based on maximum power output (and this disregards how much power, if any, shields consume. IIRC Curtis is generally of the opinion that shields consume only a fraction of the total power engines and weapons do.) I think Curtis is in fact disregarding the ISB reference for that (and he may be right in doing so.)

That would reduce its endurance.

Quite probably. Considering I haven't run off any calcs, I can't be 100% sure though. But the opposite applies too. Increasing acceleration invariably reduces endurance (both because you generally need a larger reactor AND more fuel.)

In this board, appealing to an anonymous authority is generally not a good idea. Besides, I wonder how he got to the conclusion.

I never said I wouldn't share a name. However I am not going to share it publicly because I do not yet have permission to do so (which is a rather rude thing to do to a person.) Of course, I will pm you my "source" (or to Primey for that matter) if asked, and you can judge for yourselves.

As for the conclusion, the rationale given is rahter than trade lots of armor and no firepower for speed, they traded some armor and some armament for greater speed.

Kongo class? When built, Kongo was the heaviest thing in the IJN. The preceding Kawachis were 20000 tons standard, the Kongo 27,500t. it is lighter than the later Fuso, but was about the same size (almost 10m longer and about 40cm narrower).

It also began life as a battlecruiser (designed by a Brit based on a British battlecruiser design, IIRC.) but was later modified into a "fast battleship" - which I did indicate, I believe.

I don't think the Yamato or even the much later Nagato makes for a good comparison with Kongo.Taking their Tosas and Amagis, the Amagi is heavier, and has less draught and is larger. B-64/65 is meant to be some kinda "super cruiser".

The Nagatos had heavier guns IIRC and definitely massed more. (My point of mentioning the Kongo was to note the transition from "battlecruiser" to "fast battleship". )

Weren't the Amagi's scrapped (except for the one converted to an aircraft carrier?) But from what (little) ifno I can find on it, it seems to have been rated as a "fast battleship" as well, despite the battelcruiser name. Incidentally, the information I found for the "tosas" tended to refer to that as the "Kaga" class.(possibly because they started life as battleships but were converted to carriers.)

As for the B64.. "super cruiser" IIRC was the official designation (in the same way the Alaska was a 'large cruiser'.)

The German Mackensen (their last WWI BC) was 30,750t standard, their Bayern 28,330 tons (and Mackensen is larger in every dimension 'cept draught ... by 10cm). The other BCs and BBs kind of leapfrogged around in weight, but at a fast glance, I can't see any decisive superiority either way.

As I understand it there tended not to be as many clear-cut distinctions (later on.) What with the Naval Treaties limiting tonnage and such for vessels (particularily the germans), the definitions tended to get stretched if not broken.

In WWII, people called Scharnhorst a BC, though I don't see why. It is actually a "anti-BC" in a sense, in that the guns were weak (11 inch) but the armor is relatively adequate.

Actually I believe the term I've seen used is "light" or "fast" battleships (at least according to wikipedia.) The Kongos I believe are also were later redesigned as "fast battleships" (a design which largely tended to supplant battleship roles in most respects, IIRC.)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Why would you take it in a "broad spectrum?" And just how broad?

I'm trying to take in as many ships that were rated BC. As for picture, I know he said a Dreadnaught is bigger than a Battlecruiser. He's probably not going for every last inch of dictionary definition. As many complainers have pointed out, a Dreadnought has a very specific definition, but Saxton seemed to prefer the more common "Layman" definition about a superlative battleship.

Not in any significant way (nothing like the ISD, Executor, VSD, etc. ) The Corellian gunship, the class 1000 cruiser, the Carracks, and the Bayonet-class light cruiser are more specialized examples. So's the Acclamator. The Strike Cruiser was multi-purpose in the sense it could be refitted to specific roles, but was in itself a rather specialized design. There's the Interdictor cruiser too, the lancer frigate, and the escort carrier. Assault Frigates too. And the Vindicator-class heavy cruiser. Virtually all of which are official examples.

When is something "significant" and when is something not given the size differences? A ISD holds about a division and a wing. A VSD holds about a regiment and a pair of squadrons (which in the US might be lumped into one squadron). A Carrack holds a flight and about a company. A Corellian Corvette ostensibly could carry 600 troops and 3 starfighters. A Neb has a company and two squadrons ... etc. In proportion, they are hardly insignificant, if you think a ISD's complement is significant.

For some of the others ... OK, maybe I exaggerated a bit about the multi-role stuff - there are specialist small ships.

Who knows? Knowing Curtis, there probably were. (I'd guess the Mandators probably somewhere in that size class due to their firepower, although that's not neccesarily saying they ARE.) Giels ship might be (depending on scalings.)

Aren't both one step smaller?

Not really. Maximum acceleration is based on maximum power output (and this disregards how much power, if any, shields consume. IIRC Curtis is generally of the opinion that shields consume only a fraction of the total power engines and weapons do.) I think Curtis is in fact disregarding the ISB reference for that (and he may be right in doing so.)

I see. Well, that makes for some wierd dynamics. But then, a battleship and a battlecruiser may be of the same cruising acceleration without being the same in combat acceleration (after subtractions for weapons and maybe shields).

And wasn't the 25% stuff from the SWSB?

As for the conclusion, the rationale given is rahter than trade lots of armor and no firepower for speed, they traded some armor and some armament for greater speed.

That's totally different from what you said before!!! That's more defensible, but even the Brits, who basically founded the BC concept, did reduce some firepower. Bellerophon (1909 BB) had 10 12-inchers to the Invincible's (1908 BC) 8. The Orions (1912BB)had 10 13.5 inchers to the Lion's (1912-13 BC) 8. Fast forwarding, the QE had 8 15-inch, the Renowns only 6, and while the Hoods had 8, they were also enormous so the effective "gun density" was much lower.

Actually I believe the term I've seen used is "light" or "fast" battleships (at least according to wikipedia.) The Kongos I believe are also were later redesigned as "fast battleships" (a design which largely tended to supplant battleship roles in most respects, IIRC.)

Battlecruiser was Jane's choice, at least.

Anyway. As a Kongo, yes they reclassified it as a "fast battleship", but I've never heard of a fast battleship less worthy of the name. They padded up the deck a bit, but the belt is still but 8 inch, and it was AFAIK penetrated at Guadalcanal.

And BTW, Scharnhorst is not light, at least in tonnage. It is about 35,000t, which is the Treaty tonnage limit and no lighter than say the Richelieu.

[CJvR]

BCs tended to be larger than their contemporary BBs although there were exceptions. BCs generally sacrificed 20-25% firepower and 20-50% armor to get a speed gain of 20-30% over the battlefleet. Even before the Dreadnought era the big cruisers could outgrow the Battleships. The old German Battleships at Jutland were smaller than the Armored cruisers deployed by the British. The BC became obsolete with the introduction of carriers and submarines. Even before that both the British and Germans were moving away from the BC/BB combination toward the fast BB concept. The US laid down some trully awful designs that fortunately got converted to carriers instead.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm trying to take in as many ships that were rated BC. As for picture, I know he said a Dreadnaught is bigger than a Battlecruiser. He's probably not going for every last inch of dictionary definition.

I suspect he's clinging to the dictionary definitions more, because he's trying to provide a more orderly and "unified" classification system in the entire SW Universe (well there are other reasons probably, as below.) In short he's avoiding the confusion of say, a "dreadnaught heavy cruiser" and an "invincible-class heavy cruiser" confusion/inconsistency (WEG stuff, you know.) The dictionary definitions tend to be more "clear cut" at the very least.

As many complainers have pointed out, a Dreadnought has a very specific definition, but Saxton seemed to prefer the more common "Layman" definition about a superlative battleship.

Is it the layman's term? I'm not sure it is. In any case, its a perfectly valid distinction (although I have to concede it is somewhat inaccurate IMHO.) As extension of above, I suspect it was born out of Curtis' desire to make clear distinctions between ship types and classes, as well as to provide better justification for the mile-long ISDs being "common" (and thus more numerous than WEG minimalist figures) destroyers. Same with the use of battlecruiser as a smaller vessel.. its a distinct "class" falling between a heavy cruiser and battleship (I do suspect "Dreadnought" would be treated as a separate class, incidentally.) in firepower, size, and whatnot.

Is it arbitrary? Probably (he has to disregard technology as a factor affecting classification and ship design, such as with the Dreadnought.) Size/mass does seem to be something of a factor, as well as armament (although he seems to think more in terms of "Age of Sail" in this regard - ie the Executor carrying 900-some "probable" heavy ISD TL turrets.) Of course he's an approved and accredited SW author, so he can be arbitrary if he feels its neccessary. Its not as if other authors haven't been just as arbitrary (with far less justification.)

When is something "significant" and when is something not given the size differences? A ISD holds about a division and a wing. A VSD holds about a regiment and a pair of squadrons (which in the US might be lumped into one squadron).

I wasn't disagreeing with the idea these were multi-role (they serve as carrier/assault ships/combat warships.) But they're far more 'jack of all trades' types than the examples I listed (yes, all ships generally carry certain numbers of troops or even certain numbers of fighters, but this doesn't neccesarily give them carrier or assault troop roles. Carracks or Neb-B's don't for example, have the troop deployment capabilities or ground vehicles that an ISD or even a VSD carries, do they?

A Corellian Corvette ostensibly could carry 600 troops and 3 starfighters.

Same case with a Strike Cruiser. It can be MODIFIED to carry such, ,but that doesn't mean it does as standard.

Aren't both one step smaller?

Giels is shorter. Whether or not it masses more probably depends on scalings (toward the lower end it probably does.) Higher end? Depends on its height/width. It does tend to look a bit bulkier on ventral and dorsal sides than the Executor.

The Mandator? According to Curtis (on SWTC) he figures the Mandator is only "slightly" smaller than an Executor.

I see. Well, that makes for some wierd dynamics. But then, a battleship and a battlecruiser may be of the same cruising acceleration without being the same in combat acceleration (after subtractions for weapons and maybe shields).

AFAIK the logic is that (aside from the WEG/X-wing novels being nonsensical and full of shit, something I'm sure *you* could agree with ) the various systems of a shield generally do not require large amounts of power because they are basically designed as an absorption and reradiation system (Curtis uses the analogy of a fridge's heat pump on his "Power Technologies" page.) If we infer from the various ICSs and whatnot, shields do not in fact draw substantial power (compare the estimated max output of the reactor to its firepower relative to the support destroyer.. Its even *more* true for ion engines and acceleration - what ship would accelerate at max power with shields down?)

And wasn't the 25% stuff from the SWSB?

Nope. ISB. Want the quote?

That's totally different from what you said before!!! That's more defensible, but even the Brits, who basically founded the BC concept, did reduce some firepower. Bellerophon (1909 BB) had 10 12-inchers to the Invincible's (1908 BC) 8. The Orions (1912BB)had 10 13.5 inchers to the Lion's (1912-13 BC) 8. Fast forwarding, the QE had 8 15-inch, the Renowns only 6, and while the Hoods had 8, they were also enormous so the effective "gun density" was much lower.

Which of my previous posts are you referring to, the 'scaled down battleships?' If so, how is that different?

Battlecruiser was Jane's choice, at least.

I'm not saying its invalid, I'm just saying I have evidence to the contrary. (espeically since I pm'ed you the source - I am guessing you accept that as valid at least, if not sound? Or would you prefer I PM you an excerpt of his response to me?)

Anyway. As a Kongo, yes they reclassified it as a "fast battleship", but I've never heard of a fast battleship less worthy of the name. They padded up the deck a bit, but the belt is still but 8 inch, and it was AFAIK penetrated at Guadalcanal.

I never said it was a *good* design. (any more than the "hybrid" vessels I mentioned were good designs. IIRC the Japanese hybrid battleship/carriers were in fact sacrificed as decoys later on in WW2.)

And BTW, Scharnhorst is not light, at least in tonnage. It is about 35,000t, which is the Treaty tonnage limit and no lighter than say the Richelieu.

Its technically a battlecruiser (but apparently it was well armored for its size, as good as a battleship. I've heard it took 9 torpedoes and numerous shell hits from BBs and DD's before going down.) and the armament itself was scaled down (11 inch guns rather than 15 inch from the Bismarck.)

As for tonnage, I'm sure your right, but I'm not really talking tonnage. (you could easily talk about speed or something either. The Richelieu had like a 30-knot speed and the Scharnhorst like 32 or something IIRC.)

[Illuminatus Primus]

The size is actually incidental, though I figured it should follow accordingly that a vessel depending on reaction based propulsion and requiring greater hyperdrive speed and range would be proportionally larger. Drives are rather large in reaction based propulsion vessels, and especially in SW. I favored that definition OVER that of a dreadnought for several reasons.

1. It had canonical precedence - it was remarked in Marvel that the Executor-in-construction looked "like a battlecruiser - the largest's I've ever seen!"

2. HIMSS Executor operated independently with small destroyer or destroyer-size vessels which are quite nimble both in hyperspace and in sublight. A dreadnought would be expected to lack interoperability with destroyers and to fight as part of a battle line (or more correctly a 3-dimensional equivalent, in this case). Battlecruisers were precisely not supposed to be contained in battle formations, as this removed their strengths (speed) and stressed their relative weaknesses (firepower and protection).

3. The Executor-class faired quite poorly in open fleet combat in the EU on several occassions. While this requires rationalization regardless, it is somewhat easier to swollow if the vessel is a battlecruiser not designed or intended for direct fleet comba with poor protection and firepower for its sizet.

4. The armor plating on HIMSS Executor is rather skimpy. There is a large exposed dorsal cortex, a large unarmored ventral bay, and the engines are so large as to require jutting through notches cut in the armor plating.

5. Relatively speaking, HIMSS Executor's engines are enormous for her size and profile. They obviously are a major design priority, as notches are cut in the armor to permit them to achieve a larger, otherwise infeasible diameter and volume.

[Connor MacLeod]

BCs tended to be larger than their contemporary BBs although there were exceptions. BCs generally sacrificed 20-25% firepower and 20-50% armor to get a speed gain of 20-30% over the battlefleet. Even before the Dreadnought era the big cruisers could outgrow the Battleships. The old German Battleships at Jutland were smaller than the Armored cruisers deployed by the British. The BC became obsolete with the introduction of carriers and submarines. Even before that both the British and Germans were moving away from the BC/BB combination toward the fast BB concept. The US laid down some trully awful designs that fortunately got converted to carriers instead.

Okay, so its "larger" in a sense that it probably has greater volume.. but I'm still not sure it necceesarily means it was more massive. (if it was, then we're l iekly dealign with a "later model" type, that probably incorporates improved technology, rather than design tradeoffs.)

[Mange]

1. It had canonical precedence - it was remarked in Marvel that the Executor-in-construction looked "like a battlecruiser - the largest's I've ever seen!"

To add to this, it's also referred to as a dreadnought in Marvel.

[Connor MacLeod]

The size is actually incidental, though I figured it should follow accordingly that a vessel depending on reaction based propulsion and requiring greater hyperdrive speed and range would be proportionally larger. Drives are rather large in reaction based propulsion vessels, and especially in SW. I favored that definition OVER that of a dreadnought for several reasons.

It might be more appropriate to say that propulsion is really only relevant in relation to power generation and reactor size. (as noted, the whole reason star wars ships need these massive power generation capabilities and fuel supplies is because of their prodigious accelerations at the given masses.) Firepower is the same.. it all comes down to the power generational capabilities of the vessel in question. (and more to the point, if vessel A - a destroyer -cannot generate enough power for its guns, its not going to defeat vessel B - say a cruiser.)

1. It had canonical precedence - it was remarked in Marvel that the Executor-in-construction looked "like a battlecruiser - the largest's I've ever seen!"

Was that at Fondor?

2. HIMSS Executor operated independently with small destroyer or destroyer-size vessels which are quite nimble both in hyperspace and in sublight. A dreadnought would be expected to lack interoperability with destroyers and to fight as part of a battle line (or more correctly a 3-dimensional equivalent, in this case). Battlecruisers were precisely not supposed to be contained in battle formations, as this removed their strengths (speed) and stressed their relative weaknesses (firepower and protection).

We've never seen a "battle line". In fact I'm pretty sure Curtis intended that "battleships" in SW combat tended to operate in groups (dozens, IIRC.) As for the BC's lack of protection, not really a factor when you include shields (and the Executor's shields were considered exceptional for its class, according to the ARchie Goodwin comics. Ref 3 ISDs crashing into them.) And if you're assuming ISD = destroyers, thats yet another whole set of problems.

3. The Executor-class faired quite poorly in open fleet combat in the EU on several occassions. While this requires rationalization regardless, it is somewhat easier to swollow if the vessel is a battlecruiser not designed or intended for direct fleet comba with poor protection and firepower for its sizet.

No it isn't. An Executor-class pumps out some 27 joules of firepower each SECOND. Enough to easily destroy a single ISD within a matter of seconds. The shields simply complicate the matter (the Executor is expected to withstand its own firepower to within an order of magnitude in terms of instantaneous dissipation capacity, and heat sink capacity is easily 2-3 orders of magnitude greater. ) dozens (or possibly even 100) ISDs would technically not have a chance against a single Executor.

The probable argument in such a case would probably be canon > official. .

4. The armor plating on HIMSS Executor is rather skimpy. There is a large exposed dorsal cortex, a large unarmored ventral bay, and the engines are so large as to require jutting through notches cut in the armor plating.

Which presumably is a reasonable sacrifice, given its prodigious shielding. Recall that in order to damage the armor you have to get through the shields. (In any case, its that hangar that will argue against it being strictly a battlecruiser anyhow.)

5. Relatively speaking, HIMSS Executor's engines are enormous for her size and profile. They obviously are a major design priority, as notches are cut in the armor to permit them to achieve a larger, otherwise infeasible diameter and volume.

So are the Venators, Acclamator's ans ISDs, at least from that sort of subjective observation, and the acceclerations of all of them are roughly comparable (excluding maybe the Acclamator.) Besides, if you're going to suggest the thrusters are an important/larger feature, performance would matter (does an Executor have a greater amount of thrust per volume/mass than an ISD or other comparable size-vessels? Good question.)

[Imperial Overlord]

Connor said:

An Executor-class pumps out some 27 joules of firepower each SECOND.

I know that this somehow got screwed up as you wrote it. What figure did you really mean to use?

[Gorefiend]

I find it far more amusing in fact that shipbuilders in a galaxy far far away, a long long time ago should use the same ship classification system as earth nations do, or once did, when comparing their ships to one another. The Marauder for example has been called anything, from corvette up to cruiser. The Corellian build diplomatic vessel in ep 1 is called space cruiser, though it clearly is not a war ship, the new naboo vessel in ep 2 is called naboo cruiser though it does not carry weapons. Imperial (Class) Star Destroyers get called Imperial cruisers just as often, Rebel Nebulon frigates get called cruisers as well here and their, Carracks get called cruisers and gunships. The Executor gets called star destroyer, super star destroyer, battle cruiser, (just simply) cruiser and so on. There really is does not seem to be any continues system, as much as Saxton is trying to get one going

Edit: Consular class changed from star to space cruiser

[Crossroads Inc.]

I have to fully agree with Gorefiend above me, this all comes down to the wide variety of ship builders.

Since were working with a Galaxy sized construction setting, the very idea that anyone, anywhere, has a unified set of ship designations is Ludicrous! If a small, backwater ship manufacture produces warships that say, oh, only get up to about 200 meters, then for them, they may call their 200 meter ship a ‘Battleship’ even though a Marauder ‘Corvette’ is nearly the same size.

And since we have countless ship manufactures, the ship Designations are going to be totally screwed over! The ONLY real way to compare ship names are ones built within a single manufacture. So say, all Mon Cal ships, or all Kuat ships.

But as soon you try comparing a Kuat Destroyer, to a Rendali Destroyer, your whole set of arguments is going to go to pot!

Oh yes, as an aside, if this argument has already been mentioned a thousand times over and is in fact totally old news? Feel free to just blame it on my n00bishness…

[VT-16]

The diplomatic vessel in TPM is a SPACE cruiser, not a star cruiser. That´s one of the differences.

[Gorefiend]

The diplomatic vessel in TPM is a SPACE cruiser, not a star cruiser. That´s one of the differences.

yes, sorry for that one just spotted it myself.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It might be more appropriate to say that propulsion is really only relevant in relation to power generation and reactor size. (as noted, the whole reason star wars ships need these massive power generation capabilities and fuel supplies is because of their prodigious accelerations at the given masses.) Firepower is the same.. it all comes down to the power generational capabilities of the vessel in question. (and more to the point, if vessel A - a destroyer -cannot generate enough power for its guns, its not going to defeat vessel B - say a cruiser.)

Well I think the energy requirements of drastically more powerful propulsion would cause an increase in size (esp. since acceleration apparently demands more energy more consistently than any weaponry I believe). And larger engine nozzles also help with acceleration, I'm quite sure.

Was that at Fondor?

Yes.

We've never seen a "battle line". In fact I'm pretty sure Curtis intended that "battleships" in SW combat tended to operate in groups (dozens, IIRC.)

I'm not quibbling over terminology. Suffice that battleships should fight in groups, a battlecruiser ought to be deployed independently or in concert with agile smaller vessels. This is more consistent with the evidence. Executors are never seen fighting in groups.

As for the BC's lack of protection, not really a factor when you include shields (and the Executor's shields were considered exceptional for its class, according to the ARchie Goodwin comics. Ref 3 ISDs crashing into them.) And if you're assuming ISD = destroyers, thats yet another whole set of problems.

It doesn't really matter aside from the fact that the ISD is clearly a nimble vessel, although Saxton has reclassed ships in that size range to generally be destroyers. What matters is an ISD is agile and a dreadnought ought to lack interoperability with it.

Anyhow, without a reference for comparison, how can we say that the observed Goodwin comic reference is exception for its class? That would imply similar vessels being shown to not be able to take such punishment.

No it isn't. An Executor-class pumps out some 27 joules of firepower each SECOND. Enough to easily destroy a single ISD within a matter of seconds. The shields simply complicate the matter (the Executor is expected to withstand its own firepower to within an order of magnitude in terms of instantaneous dissipation capacity, and heat sink capacity is easily 2-3 orders of magnitude greater. ) dozens (or possibly even 100) ISDs would technically not have a chance against a single Executor.

Yes but if the Executor stresses speed over engagement and more importantly, her crews are trained accordingly, it may be SOP to avoid entanglement in fleet engagements (particularly when real battleships might show up) if it is a battlecruiser. It makes the squeeze a bit easier.

The probable argument in such a case would probably be canon > official. .

The incidents cannot simply dissappear, though.

Which presumably is a reasonable sacrifice, given its prodigious shielding. Recall that in order to damage the armor you have to get through the shields. (In any case, its that hangar that will argue against it being strictly a battlecruiser anyhow.)

That hangar could just as easily dismiss it as a dreadnought or a battleship by that reasoning. But it is, so we accept that carrier abilities are not considered definitive in warship classification for SW vessels. Moreover, this was arguing for a dreadnought v. battlecruiser classification. Why, if I had to choose between the two, I would prefer battlecruiser.

So are the Venators, Acclamator's ans ISDs, at least from that sort of subjective observation, and the acceclerations of all of them are roughly comparable (excluding maybe the Acclamator.) Besides, if you're going to suggest the thrusters are an important/larger feature, performance would matter (does an Executor have a greater amount of thrust per volume/mass than an ISD or other comparable size-vessels? Good question.)

Whether the Executor is significantly faster than comparable-size vessels and (to a less important degree) less shielded and less heavily armed than comparable-size vessels would really determine battlecruiser v. battleship.

Personally, I consider the fact it operates independently and with smaller vessels as opposed to fighting in groups that is the worst bit for the battleship idea.

[VT-16]

yes, sorry for that one just spotted it myself.

I also believe there´s a difference between classes with and without the 'Star' -prefix. That prefix seems to imply a much larger ship, i.e 'cruiser' vs. 'star cruiser'.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor said:

An Executor-class pumps out some 27 joules of firepower each SECOND.

I know that this somehow got screwed up as you wrote it. What figure did you really mean to use?

oops! That should read e27 joules each second.