The Executor--History of the "5 Mile Fallacy"
Wayne Poe
Copyright: Curtis Saxton, 1998 <sax...@Physics.usyd.edu.au>
Reproduced in RASSM with permission.
Super Star Destroyers:
History of the "five mile" fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980:
The Empire Strikes Back Official Poster Monthly of 1980 makes a loose
statement regarding the size of the Executor. "... but none is as vast or
as ominous as the Dark Lord's personal space ship, the Executor. Larger
and stronger than five ordinary Star Destroyers Vader's craft is so
enormous that its topside resembles a metropolitian skyline in size and
shape. Here the Lord of the Sith broods and commands..." Strictly and
logically, this statement only states that the Executor is larger than an
ISD, and that it is more than five times as powerful. It does not specify
the length as being exactly five times the length of the ISD, only that it
is greater than the ISD. Later references based on this source seem to
have taken a wilder interpretation than what is logically justifiable.
At one stage, Kenner considered including an item based on the Executor in
their toy line. The developers considered the ship's true name too scary
for children, so they invented the "super star destroyer" label. This term
is insensitive to realistic naval terminology, unlike the more intelligent
"battlecruiser" and "battleship" designations used in Williamson's STAR
WARS newspaper comic strip.
1984:
The first edition of A Guide to the STAR WARS Universe, published in the
year following the release of Return of the Jedi says: "Lord Darth Vader's
personal flagship; classified as a Super Star Destroyer --- approximately
five times larger and more destructive than any Star Destroyer in the
Imperial Fleet. Executor represents the best and newest vessel available
in the Imperial inventory. Like most ships in its class, Executor is used
as a command ship, a spacegoing headquarters..." Also note that this is
the first time that "super star destroyer" is treated as if it were a
formal classification, rather than a colloquialism. This myth grew in
parallel with the length error.
1987:
For the tenth anniversary of A New Hope, STAR WARS: The Roleplaying Game
was released. The SWRPG laid down most of the groundwork for future
fiction, fleshing out the galaxy glimpsed on film into the framework for a
complete universe. For many years these books were the only significant
STAR WARS product on sale. The STAR WARS Sourcebook was cautious with
regard to the Executors: "Lord Vader's new flagship and pride of the
squadron is the Executor, the first Super-class Star Destroyer. Already
this class of four ships has begun to gain acceptance among the
admiralty..."
Note that the writer has jumped to the conclusion that the naval
designation of this class of vessels is "Super-class". This defies
maritime convention. The proper classname is based on the name of the
first ship built according to the design. That being the Executor in this
case, the designation should actually be Executor-class. A correction was
later made in the novel Shield of Lies, but the notion that the Executor
is a destroyer, rather than a battleship or commandship, persists
unfortunately.
1989:
Unfortunately The Imperial Sourcebook, released almost two years later,
fell to the error made by A Guide to the STAR WARS Universe (which was
probably treated as reference reference material), but it deepened the
problem by stating the incorrect length in explicit and absolute units:
"Except for the Death Star battle station, the Super-class Star Destroyer
is the largest warship ever constructed. Five times the length of an
Imperial Star Destroyer ... over 1000 turbolaser batteries, ion cannons,
and tractor beam emplacements dot the eight kilometre length ... Four of
these massive vessels are now in service." In order to support this
figure, a distorted likeness of an Executor was shown in what is claimed
to be a scale diagram with the ISD and other capital starships. In
relation to the bridge tower, the body of the ship has been shrunk. The
sections aft of the bridge tower are grossly diminished, leaving space for
no more than nine of the actual thirteen engines. (The fantail engine
banks are present, and possibly the wing bank, but the middle bank is
definitely absent.)
1993:
Almost five years later, Starlog produced a three-volume magazine titled
as the STAR WARS Technical Journal. The second volume, Imperial Forces,
has this to say: "The first of the Super Star Destroyers, the Executor,
was built for Lord Darth Vader as his personal flagship. More than four
times the length of a standard Star Destroyer, the colossal Executor was
the largest vessel in space, with the sole exception of the Death Star
itself." On the surface, this looks like an even worse figure than the
mistake which was unwittingly promulgated by West End Games, however on
inspection it reduces to the simple statement that the Executor is
something greater than four times the ISD length, which allows "eleven
times" just as well as it allows "five times". The author was probably
aware of the serious error in other recent sources but for one reason or
another felt censoriously constrained. On other matters, such as the
positioning of TIE Fighter cockpit hatches and the deck plans of the
Millenium Falcon he was unafraid to cite the films as primary evidence,
overturning errors in second-generation materials.
Meanwhile the LucasArts Entertainment Company, itself a division of
Lucasfilm, has used "super star destroyers" in some of its computer game
products. Images of these giant vessels in scenes of TIE Fighter are
correctly proportioned, unlike the WEG diagrams. Dark Forces and Rebel
Assault II are faithful to the larger length portrayed in the STAR WARS
films and directly defy the error propagated by West End Games.
1994:
Within the last year another book, extensively illustrated and based on
the actual film props of the Lucasfilm Archives has been released. From
STAR WARS to Indiana Jones [SW2IJ], benefits from access to primary
artefacts, and the text succinctly states: "... the flagship of Darth
Vader, was conceived as eleven times the size of the original Star
Destroyer of Star Wars. (For reference, the conning tower that rises from
Executor was supposed to be as big as the original destroyer's conning
tower.)"
1995:
Authors for West End Games, Bantam, and Del Rey continued to use the false
length in text. They obviously either felt a censorious influence, failed
to notice the SW2IJ correction or else decided that consistency amongst
their own products was more important to them than consistency with the
films. For example, STAR WARS Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels
states: "... at 8000 metres long, it was the largest ... at over five
times the length of a standard Star Destroyer ..." Note, however that some
illu strations printed in SWRPG products depict Executor-class ships with
accurate dimensions relative to ISDs. The image of the Guardian in Wanted
by Cracken (1993) is an excellent example of this.
At the grassroots level, discussion of the problem of the Executor length
has run spasmodically for several years on InterNet newsgroups. With the
advantage of modern videotape capabilities, many individual STAR WARS
devotees have independently discovered the "five mile" fallacy.
When the conception of Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels became
known to the world, early in 1995, I constructed the first version of this
web page for the purpose of bringing the error to wider public notice and
to improve the chance that the first edition of the then-impending book
would contain a truthful Executor length.
1996:
Since that time some progress has been made in the official literature.
Shadows of the Empire, arguably the most ambitious and significant STAR
WARS novel to date, has refrained from quoting the "five mile" figure,
which seemed almost obligatory for every earlier novel which contained an
Executor-class commandship. The STAR WARS Customizable Card Game's
newly-released card depicting the Executor renounces the old error in a
cautious way, admitting that the flagship is "over eight kilometres long".
The Topps Widevision card sets include several stills which show the true
relative sizes of the Executor and escorting ISDs as seen in the film.
Significantly, card #13 of The Emprie Strikes Back elegantly states
something which is very close to the undistorted idea originally
promulgated by Lucasfilm: "Executor, larger and more awesome than the five
Imperial Star Destroyers that surround it, sits in the vastness of space."
The essential idea is this: The Executor had five ISD escorts immediately
before the Battle of Hoth. The Executor was larger and more powerful than
all of them. The specification of a five-mile length is simply a
historical distortion.
A new novel, X-Wing: The Bacta War indicates that the standard mile-long
star destroyer is less than one tenth of the size of the Executor-class
command ship Lusankya. This is compatible with the correct relative
dimensions of the ships. Refer to p.302 of that publication. The section
is quoted in the Novel References pages.
1997:
After seventeen years, AMT/ERTL planned to release a model kit of the
Executor. The model has been assigned a catalogue number of #6351 and was
originally due out in August 1997. It seems to have been cancelled, at
least for the moment. If it is ever produced, it shall be interesting to
see whether this kit depicts the thirteen-engine, eleven-mile vessel seen
in the films, or else the contradictory, distorted, nine-engine, five-mile
figment detailed in roleplaying game sources.
An upgrade to LucasArts' X-Wing vs TIE Fighter commputer game, set before
the Battle of Endor and entitled Balance of Power, includes a "Super Star
Destroyer" as a target. [Refer to
http://www.lucasarts.com/static/xvt/bop_pressrelease.htm.] This ship is
called Vengeance (making it the third vessel with that name). It is
commanded by Admiral Senn, and it is stationed in Airam sector. It matches
neither the Executor's features, nor the mythical five-mile ship from WEG.
The shape resembles the Executor better than the RPG figment, but the
statistics displayed within the game indicate the usual erroneous 8km
length.
There is one significant detail of difference from the Executor shape:
there are only eleven thrusters; the two wing engine banks are reduced
from three to two cylinders each.
Interestingly, the art on the game's package indicates what seems to be
the proper eleven-mile size. I have not seen this product myself, but
N.Gellock informs me that it is at least as long as eight destroyers in
the box art.
1998:
Archeologist and Lucasfilm employee Dr David West Reynolds has taken
measurements of the original Executor model in the Lucasfilm Archives. He
took the measurements on my personal request, for use in this site.
Scaling according to the constant command tower, the total length is
calculated to lie between 17.4km and 17..8km. The most likely definitive
value for the Executor length is 17.6km.
A web page [ http://www.starwars.com/vehicles/executor/] within the
Official STAR WARS web site states: "The Executor is over eight times the
size of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer." This is still only a lower
limit, but it is much better than the one used by Decipher's card game.
Assuming that "size" means length, the web site is stating that the
Executor is longer than 12.9km.
Among others, special thanks for this sub-page are due to:
* Niel Gellock for reporting on ship dimensions on the Balance of Power
package.
* Martyn Griffiths for the tale of Kenner's abortive first-generation
Executor toy.
* Jeremy Helper for advice relating to the Vengeance in Balance of Power,
and for a set of valuable screenshots.
* Andrew Leonard for my first and most detailed news about Balance of
Power.
* Eric Meadows for advice regarding the engines of Vengeance in Balance of
Power; for further screenshots.
* Ethan Platten for reporting on ship dimensions on the Balance of Power
package.
* Anthony Tully for a detailed account of the earliest periods of the
growth and propagation of the five-mile fallacy.
* David West Reynolds for measuring the Executor and sending me his data.
Chris Hawkins
Wayne Poe wrote:
>logically, this statement only states that the Executor is larger than >an ISD, and that it is more than five times as powerful.
Has there always been complete agreement on the firepower of the
Executor? Also, any clues as to how the decided that it was at least 5
times more powerful....was it just an easy number to do the math with?
>The developers considered the ship's true name too scary
>for children, so they invented the "super star destroyer" label.
That's funny. I wonder what suit was in charge of that decision. I
wonder if this is the same suit that convinced GL to change the Greedo
scene?
<snip rest of post>
On a similar note, has there ever been a discussion about setting up a
petition request WEG correct their stats for various ships such as the
MF and the Executor?
MTSWBWY,
Chris Hawkins
Keeper of the Shaven Wookies
Ringmaster of The RASSM WebRing
(-o-)
Shaven Wookie, Ltd.
http://www.shavenwookie.com/
Real e-mail address: haw...@shavenwookie.com
Wayne Poe
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Chris Hawkins wrote:
> >logically, this statement only states that the Executor is larger than
> >an ISD, and that it is more than five times as powerful.
> Has there always been complete agreement on the firepower of the
> Executor? Also, any clues as to how the decided that it was at least 5
> times more powerful....was it just an easy number to do the math with?
Unsure. You may find an answer on Curtis' SSD page:
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/ssd.html
> On a similar note, has there ever been a discussion about setting up a
> petition request WEG correct their stats for various ships such as the
> MF and the Executor?
Yes there has, and not all from just fans. There's a web page about the
topic. WEG has InterNet access. Some WEG writers have read the page and
commented. It's virtually impossible that they don't know that they have a
mistake.
Chris Hawkins
Wayne Poe wrote:
> Unsure. You may find an answer on Curtis' SSD page:
Thanks. Since there has been an error involving length, I thought there
might have been some disagreement about firepower. I'll have to check
his page out.
>Yes there has, and not all from just fans. There's a web page about the
>topic. WEG has InterNet access. Some WEG writers have read the page and
>commented. It's virtually impossible that they don't know that they
>have a mistake.
Do you happen to know the URL?
Wayne Poe
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Chris Hawkins wrote:
> >Yes there has, and not all from just fans. There's a web page about the
> >topic. WEG has InterNet access. Some WEG writers have read the page and
> >commented. It's virtually impossible that they don't know that they
> >have a mistake.
> Do you happen to know the URL?
Yes, its Saxton's SSD page. Also check the ISD and Bridge Towers
commentaries.
James Watson
[Posted to RASSM and email]
Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> Copyright: Curtis Saxton, 1998 <sax...@Physics.usyd.edu.au>
> Reproduced in RASSM with permission.
>
> Super Star Destroyers:
> History of the "five mile" fallacy.
> 1980:
> so they invented the "super star destroyer" label. This term
> is insensitive to realistic naval terminology, unlike the more intelligent
> "battlecruiser" and "battleship" designations used in Williamson's STAR
> WARS newspaper comic strip.
> 1984:
>
> Also note that this is
> the first time that "super star destroyer" is treated as if it were a
> formal classification, rather than a colloquialism. This myth grew in
> parallel with the length error.
> 1987:
[snip]
> Note that the writer has jumped to the conclusion that the naval
> designation of this class of vessels is "Super-class".
I have one issue regarding these statement, perhaps
you could address it or pass it on to Mr. Saxton.
During the Rebel assault on the second Death Star
during the climax of ROTJ, Admiral Ackbar quite clearly
orders "...concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer."
So, while Kenner was potentially the first to classify this massive
ship, it seems that Lucas had seen fit to make it canonical.
So I don't think it is fair to refer to this classification
as 'mythical' or a 'colloquialism.' It appears that Lucas
has accepted this SSD classification as legitimate.
And any ways, if you wanted to get into 'proper'
military terminology, you would then have to explain Lucas'
mixing of Naval and Army ranks.
Otherwise, let me just say that this is the one of the most
well researched and presented arguments I have seen in a long time
on a Star Wars subject. Intelligent and backed by concrete
evidence. COngrats t Mr. Saxton!
--
wat...@iamerica.net (-o-)
Gerthein Boersma
"James Watson, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
> During the Rebel assault on the second Death Star
>during the climax of ROTJ, Admiral Ackbar quite clearly
>orders "...concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer."
>So, while Kenner was potentially the first to classify this massive
>ship, it seems that Lucas had seen fit to make it canonical.
>So I don't think it is fair to refer to this classification
>as 'mythical' or a 'colloquialism.' It appears that Lucas
>has accepted this SSD classification as legitimate.
I wanted to reply the exact same thing, then I re-read the message, and I
think Saxton deems Ackbar's line as a "colloquialism" as well. After all,
he doesn't use the term "super-class". It's like him saying "concentrate
all firepower on the flagship!" or even "Concentrate all firepower on the
Big One!". In other words, the term "Super Star Destroyer" *is* canon as
per the films, however the classification of the Executor and following
SSD's as "Super-class" needn't be.
> And any ways, if you wanted to get into 'proper'
>military terminology, you would then have to explain Lucas'
>mixing of Naval and Army ranks.
IMHO, the classification "super-class" is not impossible -- just because
it's not "proper" doesn't mean much, since it's not the only naval/army
classification that "works differently" in the SW universe. And although
I've tried to explain what I think Saxton intended by leaving out the
Ackbar-quote, I do think that, what with him being an Alliance Admiral in
charge of the most important offensive of all time, it *could* have very
well been the actual classification that he was using in his orders.
- Gerthein (-o-)
-----------------------------
g e r t h e i n @ w x s . n l
-----------------------------
Stephen Kane
gert...@wxs.nl (Gerthein Boersma) writes:
> I've tried to explain what I think Saxton intended by leaving out the
> Ackbar-quote, I do think that, what with him being an Alliance Admiral in
> charge of the most important offensive of all time, it *could* have very
> well been the actual classification that he was using in his orders.
I rather agree. I'm sure that the Rebellion's military knowledge of
Imperial armament is sufficient enough such that their Admirals can
refrain from giving orders such as "shoot at that big ole thing over
there". Besides ... this is the EXECUTOR we are talking about here.
Hell ... Ackbar probably knew the number of light switches in it! Or
perhaps the Rebels just looked at the Executor and mused to themselves
"Hmmmm ... didn't we see something like that when we fled Hoth?"
Stephen
CCS
Stop this right now! I'm sick of all this phallus talk! Especially ones
that are 5 miles long!
--
Chief Crazy Shoes ICQ #2152612
Official RASSM Nobody Raise my rent, punk
Hosk Sation - http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4840/
Wayne Poe
On Mon, 25 May 1998, James Watson wrote:
> I have one issue regarding these statement, perhaps you could address
> it or pass it on to Mr. Saxton.
James:
Thankyou for your kind remarks about my document.
I guess that I really should have had a "1983" section in the web page a
long time ago. I have now added notes on ROTJ, including mention of
Ackbar's "SSD" phrase.
> During the Rebel assault on the second Death Star
> during the climax of ROTJ, Admiral Ackbar quite clearly
> orders "...concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer."
> So, while Kenner was potentially the first to classify this massive
> ship, it seems that Lucas had seen fit to make it canonical.
> So I don't think it is fair to refer to this classification
> as 'mythical' or a 'colloquialism.' It appears that Lucas
> has accepted this SSD classification as legitimate.
The majority of on-screen references to the Executor call it a
"commandship". Ackbar's "SSD" line was a late addition to the movie.
Lucas probably wasn't personally involved in the decision. But this is a
chilling reminder of how loony apocrypha can contaminate the canon. Let's
hope we don't see Callista in the prequels. :(
> And any ways, if you wanted to get into 'proper'
> military terminology, you would then have to explain Lucas'
> mixing of Naval and Army ranks.
He didn't, at least in the movies. WEG and some of the novels have made a
mess of things though.
Curtis Saxton
STAR WARS Technical Commentaries
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/
Gerthein Boersma
"Wayne Poe, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>The majority of on-screen references to the Executor call it a
>"commandship". Ackbar's "SSD" line was a late addition to the movie.
>Lucas probably wasn't personally involved in the decision. But this is a
>chilling reminder of how loony apocrypha can contaminate the canon. Let's
>hope we don't see Callista in the prequels. :(
What I've been wondering for a while is this: who decided that this "Super
Star Destroyer" designation is "A Really Really Bad Thing"(tm)? I mean,
sure, it doesn't meet 'Naval' tradition (this *is* a galaxy far away, after
all) and perhaps 'Executor-class' sounds just a bit better, but calling it
'loony', 'chilling' and a 'contamination'?! I mean, really.
Bobby Cox
On Mon, 25 May 1998 19:25:16 GMT, gert...@wxs.nl (Gerthein Boersma)
jumped up and announced to the general posting public:
>"James Watson, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
>back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
>portable gallows."
>
>> During the Rebel assault on the second Death Star
>>during the climax of ROTJ, Admiral Ackbar quite clearly
>>orders "...concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer."
>>So, while Kenner was potentially the first to classify this massive
>>ship, it seems that Lucas had seen fit to make it canonical.
>>So I don't think it is fair to refer to this classification
>>as 'mythical' or a 'colloquialism.' It appears that Lucas
>>has accepted this SSD classification as legitimate.
>
>I wanted to reply the exact same thing, then I re-read the message, and I
>think Saxton deems Ackbar's line as a "colloquialism" as well. After all,
>he doesn't use the term "super-class". It's like him saying "concentrate
>all firepower on the flagship!" or even "Concentrate all firepower on the
>Big One!". In other words, the term "Super Star Destroyer" *is* canon as
>per the films, however the classification of the Executor and following
>SSD's as "Super-class" needn't be.
>
>> And any ways, if you wanted to get into 'proper'
>>military terminology, you would then have to explain Lucas'
>>mixing of Naval and Army ranks.
>
>IMHO, the classification "super-class" is not impossible -- just because
>it's not "proper" doesn't mean much, since it's not the only naval/army
>classification that "works differently" in the SW universe. And although
>I've tried to explain what I think Saxton intended by leaving out the
>Ackbar-quote, I do think that, what with him being an Alliance Admiral in
>charge of the most important offensive of all time, it *could* have very
>well been the actual classification that he was using in his orders.
Personally, I think 'Super-class' is somewhat... well... stupid. I
prefer the K-Mac version 'Executor-class'. I mean, if we're gonna
follow the naval tradition of naming the ship class after the first
ship of that class...
A frigate named 'Lancer' I can buy
A frigate named 'Nebulon-B'... hmm... yeah
A SD named 'Victory', sure!
A SD named 'Imperial'... *ponders* yep
A SSD named 'Super'???? No way! (SSD isn't too far off. After all, the
USN does use the 'Nimitz'-class *super*carrier.
And the first SSD we see is named 'Executor', so... Executor-class.
All IMHO, of course. I mean, who else would want to own up to this
opinion? :)
Bobby Cox
Representative of the Tirax System
"I hope so, Commander, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am."
"I'd just as soon kiss a Wookiee."
"I can arrange that. You could use a good kiss!"
Note: Reply-to address mangled to get rid of spamming mail-bots
I think you can figure out what to get rid of...
policraticus
> What I've been wondering for a while is this: who decided that this "Super
> Star Destroyer" designation is "A Really Really Bad Thing"(tm)? I mean,
> sure, it doesn't meet 'Naval' tradition
Oh yes it does! The really big battleships of WWI (eg HMS Iron Duke) were
called superdreadnaughts. The variant terms 'Executor-class', 'Super Star
Destroyer' and 'battleship' have an exact parallel in 'Iron Duke-class',
'superdreadnaught' and 'battleship'.
This must be the third time I've posted this nice little parallel this week.
Policrat'
policraticus
> Personally, I think 'Super-class' is somewhat... well... stupid. I
> prefer the K-Mac version 'Executor-class'. I mean, if we're gonna
> follow the naval tradition of naming the ship class after the first
> ship of that class...
> A frigate named 'Lancer' I can buy
> A frigate named 'Nebulon-B'... hmm... yeah
I always assumed there was a 'Nebulon' and then they modified the design for
'Nebulon-B' class ships.
> A SD named 'Victory', sure!
> A SD named 'Imperial'... *ponders* yep
'Imperator' 'Imperial' is supposedly a colloquialism - a bit easier to say.
> A SSD named 'Super'???? No way! (SSD isn't too far off. After all, the
> USN does use the 'Nimitz'-class *super*carrier.
Just like superdreadnaught...
> And the first SSD we see is named 'Executor', so... Executor-class.
>
> All IMHO, of course. I mean, who else would want to own up to this
> opinion? :)
An Ewok with a kilt pops his head through the undergrowth, smiling horribly.
Policrat'
Wayne Poe
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Gerthein Boersma wrote:
> What I've been wondering for a while is this: who decided that this "Super
> Star Destroyer" designation is "A Really Really Bad Thing"(tm)? I mean,
> sure, it doesn't meet 'Naval' tradition (this *is* a galaxy far away, after
> all) and perhaps 'Executor-class' sounds just a bit better, but calling it
> 'loony', 'chilling' and a 'contamination'?! I mean, really.
Ya know..I'm not sure about this but....this may, just MAY... come under
the heading of one fan's opinion....
Michael Mierzwa
policraticus wrote:
>
> > What I've been wondering for a while is this: who decided that this "Super
> > Star Destroyer" designation is "A Really Really Bad Thing"(tm)? I mean,
> > sure, it doesn't meet 'Naval' tradition
>
> called superdreadnaughts. The variant terms 'Executor-class', 'Super Star
> Destroyer' and 'battleship' have an exact parallel in 'Iron Duke-class',
> 'superdreadnaught' and 'battleship'.
>
> This must be the third time I've posted this nice little parallel this week.
Well this is the first time this appeared on my newsfeed. :(
You might check dejanews to make sure all your posts are getting to
them, because if you posted that in this thread, I don't think they all
made it to netcom.
BTW: It is an important and good point. However like Gert I don't think
the name "Super Star Destroyer" is bad at all. I personally suspect
that some people will call the label bad because they have a beef with
this variable length issue and wanted to find one concrete reason for
the "fallacy". There is nothing wrong with wanting to track down the
origins of the way things were named. In fact it is fairly interesting
.... and it is something the collectors of vintage SW toys with protypes
and other information. It is fundamentally a "treasure hunt" for
information. :)
However, in the original post there was a statement that suggested
Kenner was somehow involved. It said something along the lines that
Kenner "wanted" to make a Super Star Destroyer toy ... it would have
been more correct to say that Kenner *did* make a Super Star Destroyer
toy. It was called "Darth Vader's Star Destroyer" and came out after
ESB but before ROTJ which is before the term Super Star Destroyer was
coined. I was unclear if the statement in the original post was
refering to this playset or to some sort of prototype die-cast metal SSD
toy (which is not likely as Kenner abandoned its die-cast line before
ROTJ). :(
Back to Gert's statement about Naval tradition. Naval tradition doesn't
really mean anything in a scifi story that takes place "A long time ago,
in a galaxy far, far away ..."
Michael Mierzwa
policraticus
Michael Mierzwa wrote:[snip superdreadnaught/super star destroyer]
> > This must be the third time I've posted this nice little parallel this week.
>
> Well this is the first time this appeared on my newsfeed. :(
>
> You might check dejanews to make sure all your posts are getting to
> them, because if you posted that in this thread, I don't think they all
> made it to netcom.
The other two were on the (now rather misleadingly named) thread Re: [COMIC]
EnsView: SOTE:E #3
On the 22nd and 25th.
> BTW: It is an important and good point. However like Gert I don't think
> the name "Super Star Destroyer" is bad at all.
Neither do I!
> I personally suspect
> that some people will call the label bad because they have a beef with
> this variable length issue and wanted to find one concrete reason for
> the "fallacy".
I can't see it myself: what does the name have to do with anything? Whether 5 or
11 miles long, the SSD is clearly a lot bigger than an ISD. It's one of (very few)
examples of overkill in rationalising problems on Curtis Saxton's generally
brilliant page.
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to track down the
> origins of the way things were named. In fact it is fairly interesting
> .... and it is something the collectors of vintage SW toys with protypes
> and other information. It is fundamentally a "treasure hunt" for
> information. :)
I'm not complaining, just suggesting where the phrase might originate. The US navy
also has 'supercarriers'. I suspect the phrase SSD has a quite legitimate origin
at LFL.
[snippage: Kenner toy problem]
> Back to Gert's statement about Naval tradition. Naval tradition doesn't
> really mean anything in a scifi story that takes place "A long time ago,
> in a galaxy far, far away ..."
But tradition in itself does. The Imperials wear the uniform of the German
Imperial Army, circa 1914 (the cap, btw, is that of the jaegers - mountain
troops). The SD is inspired by a battleship - get a photo/model of the RN's King
George V class, and imagine if you cut off everything from the stacks back. When
Lucas had to show some Fox suits what Vader looked like, his people threw together
a monk's cowl, a centurion's helmet, and a plague mask from props - which pretty
much encapsulates his spirit as well as his physical look.
Just about everything in SW is designed to resonate like that. The term 'super
star destroyer' will register with anyone who's heard 'supercarrier' on the news
or read 'superdreadnaught' in a book. I suspect Lucas (or someone) may have put it
in because of the blandness of 'command ship' (okay, it's a parallel for
'flagship', but it's dull).
Sincerely,
Policraticus McEwok.
bl...@popstar.com
In article <356D98...@ix.netcom.com>,
mmie...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Back to Gert's statement about Naval tradition. Naval tradition doesn't
> really mean anything in a scifi story that takes place "A long time ago,
> in a galaxy far, far away ..."
>
Being totally serious, here, I kinda like the naval tradition thing, and think
it's relatively valid. I mean, c'mon, the SW universe has to draw inspiration
from somewhere, after all. (Otherwise we wouldn't have our heroes using fairly
colloquial english when they speak ... think about that).
HOWEVER, I disagree with the concept that the first Super Star Destroyer had
to be called "Super" for it to be the name of the class. Uh-uh ...
I figure that the Empire built the Star Destroyer, (a name which everyone
seems to be happy with) and then built a few SUPER Star Destroyers - like an
enhanced version of the Star Destroyer - and because there were (or were
supposed to be) so few of them, that it never became a class in its own right.
What do you people think about that?
It makes perfect sense to me. It's like taking a Ford Falcon, and then
building a Ford Falcon Futura (an Aussie model - dunno about the US). Like,
the first car of it's kind wasn't called a Futura - it was just a limited
extension of the original blueprint. No different to a SSD and SD.
But hey, just my 2c,
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob Irwin - Journalist
PC Week [Australia] PC Magazine [Australia]
Ph:+61 2 9936 8693 Fax:+61 2 9955 8871
www.zdnet.com.au/pcweek www.zdnet.com.au/pcm
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Ian Roney
policraticus wrote:
> I always assumed there was a 'Nebulon' and then they modified the design for
> 'Nebulon-B' class ships.
Yup.
> 'Imperator' 'Imperial' is supposedly a colloquialism - a bit easier to say.
Uh-huh.
> > All IMHO, of course. I mean, who else would want to own up to this
> > opinion? :)
>
> An Ewok with a kilt pops his head through the undergrowth, smiling horribly.
Oh my God, KILL it *quick*!
> Policrat'
Ian Roney
thra...@yahoo.com
policraticus
> I figure that the Empire built the Star Destroyer, (a name which everyone
> seems to be happy with) and then built a few SUPER Star Destroyers - like an
> enhanced version of the Star Destroyer - and because there were (or were
> supposed to be) so few of them, that it never became a class in its own right.
> What do you people think about that?
I think you're right. I don't know where this 'Super-class' nonsense came from.
There were never frigates called Escort and Assault, or a Mon Cal cruiser called
Star.
Sincerely,
Policraticus McEwok.
Taki Kogoma
policraticus <policr...@hotmail.com> is alleged to have submitted
message <356EC5D2...@hotmail.com> to rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc:
>>I figure that the Empire built the Star Destroyer, (a name which everyone
>>seems to be happy with) and then built a few SUPER Star Destroyers - like an
>>enhanced version of the Star Destroyer - and because there were (or were
>>supposed to be) so few of them, that it never became a class in its own
>>right.
>
>There were never frigates called Escort and Assault, or a Mon Cal cruiser
>called Star.
Blame WEG. They're the ones who first published the phrase "_Super_
class Star Destroyer."
Gym "At least, they're the first to my knowledge to do so." Quirk
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Wayne Poe
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> Back to Gert's statement about Naval tradition. Naval tradition doesn't
> really mean anything in a scifi story that takes place "A long time ago,
> in a galaxy far, far away ..."
It certainly does when the terms "destroyer", "Captain", "Lieutenant",
etc. are used.
Gerthein Boersma
"policraticus, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>> BTW: It is an important and good point. However like Gert I don't think
>> the name "Super Star Destroyer" is bad at all.
>Neither do I!
Figured as much. It seems as though the "chilling - loony - contamination"
opinion is held by an increasingly limited group of cynics.
>I can't see it myself: what does the name have to do with anything? Whether 5 or
>11 miles long, the SSD is clearly a lot bigger than an ISD. It's one of (very few)
>examples of overkill in rationalising problems on Curtis Saxton's generally
>brilliant page.
Tell it like it is: Man's a bloody nitpicker. <grin>
>I'm not complaining, just suggesting where the phrase might originate. The US navy
>also has 'supercarriers'. I suspect the phrase SSD has a quite legitimate origin
>at LFL.
Even if it originated with Kenner that doesn't it's automatically in
contention with Star Wars tradition. Lobot doesn't sound un-SWsy either. In
fact, a lot of what WEG and the post-ROTJ novels have created is pretty
SWsy too, if you ask me.
>Just about everything in SW is designed to resonate like that. The term 'super
>star destroyer' will register with anyone who's heard 'supercarrier' on the news
>or read 'superdreadnaught' in a book. I suspect Lucas (or someone) may have put it
>in because of the blandness of 'command ship' (okay, it's a parallel for
>'flagship', but it's dull).
Agreed. Even if it isn't designed to resonate, instead originating with
Kenner as Saxton suggests, it's still a term that works.
Speculator
>On Thu, 28 May 1998, Michael Mierzwa wrote:
>> Back to Gert's statement about Naval tradition. Naval tradition doesn't
>> really mean anything in a scifi story that takes place "A long time ago,
>> in a galaxy far, far away ..."
Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com>did you consider the great discounts at the
ORB while you wrote:
>It certainly does when the terms "destroyer", "Captain", "Lieutenant",
>etc. are used.
Bollux, Wayne.
The Star Destroyer is so named because GL thought it sounded scary,
NOT because it is a "Torpedo-Boat Destroyer"!!!
As for the "Naval" rankings, look at the mix of Naval, Army and Air
Force ranks used - "Commander", "General", "Squadron-Leader" ...
There's no Terran military tradition in SW!!!
mtfbwy,
Speculator.
e-mail: spec...@infoshop.u-net.com
business: http://subnet.virtual-pc.com/~lo386500/
Spec Fic: http://subnet.virtual-pc.com/~lo386500/specfic.htm
bookshop: http://subnet.virtual-pc.com/~lo386500/novels.htm
The Official RASSM Bookstore ...
Services we provide include:
- extensive range of Science Fiction and Fantasy novels
- Ordering from Amazon.Com
- On-line ordering
- Credit card acceptance
- 24 hour shipping with all purchases paid with money orders and credit cards
- Money back guarantee on almost all items
- Excellent service
- Ship anywhere in the world!
Michael Mierzwa
policraticus wrote:
>
> > The Star Destroyer is so named because GL thought it sounded scary,
> > NOT because it is a "Torpedo-Boat Destroyer"!!!
>
> is consistent with a developed form of naval tradition - just as TBDs have
> evolved into a kind of missile cruiser but retained the name. I give you that the
> SDs were originally 2-man fighters, but when they became battleships, GL
> established the division between frigates & destroyers.
? I'm confused? SDs were originally 2-man fighters ... like Y-wings.
But then GL changed his mind and made a division between frigats and
destroyers? Do you mean fighters and destroyers? This isn't clear to
me ... :/
I agree that Lucas lifted familar terms like Frigate and Destroyer when
it suited his needs. However I don't know in Terran navies which is a
larger vessel? We on Earth have:
Battleships,
Cruisers,
Carriers,
Frigates,
Destroyers, and
Cutters.
To name a few. The US Destroyers that I've seen have all been smaller
than Carriers and Battleships, but larget than Cutters. I can't
remember the vessel classification for the USS San Jacinto ... but I
think it was a Guided Missle Cruiser. It was small. Maybe somebody can
list US ship classes in their right order (I don't know this).
For SW, other ship classes:
Blockade Runner/Corvette,
Transport (which I guess we have too!) :)
I'm not sure which Terran Navies still use Corvettes. Anyway, Terran
Navies actually are different from each other (just like the service
branches are). So is SW modeled after a compliation of navies or is it
modeled after just one?
> > As for the "Naval" rankings, look at the mix of Naval, Army and Air
> > Force ranks used - "Commander", "General", "Squadron-Leader" ...
>
> Wing Commander, Squadron Leader, Flight Lieutenant. RAF ranks for a 'Battle of
> Britain' ambience. Other fighter units in the alliance might have had 'army'
> ranks, hence Lando's appointment as a General (note the 'army' rather than 'navy'
> uniforms of the Falcon's crew in RotJ). The problem comes in when WEG get hold of
> it and make a hash of everything.
I thought Wing Commander is not a rank, but a function. A wing
commander is like "Captain". Captain is a rank, but you can have a
lowly Ensign as a Captain on a Terran naval vessel is he/she is the CO.
Starship Troopers actually explained this in the novelization. The
Captain of one of the ships really was only a Commander by rank, but she
was addressed as Captain by all! :)
Army ... versus Navy uniforms??? The only ROTJ Alliance "Navy" uniforms
that we know of 100% is Ackbar's clothes! :)
I think there is actually a combined service/rank system used in SW, as
I've gathered from trading card names:
Moff (Imperial Only)
Admiral
General
Colonel
Captain
Commander
Lt. Commander
Lieutenant
Ensign
Chief (Enlisted Top Rank)
Corporal (Second Top Enlisted Rank)
Warrant Officer (Second Bottom Enlisted Rank)
Trooper (The Bottom)
That is if there is just one system. It is possible that like WEG
suggests, that there is an Imperial Navy and a separate Imperial Army.
I'm not to set into a set way here. :) But I do think Admirals are
higher than mere Corporals.
> And anyway, I don't think Lucas intended to be rigorous, just to create a
> 'feeling'.
>
> > There's no Terran military tradition in SW!!!
>
> Sorry, but there is.
It is unclear. The Death Star had Generals, Admirals and Moffs running
around. Which branch of service is a Moff again??? And then there are
regional governors, but in Terran tradition these guys tend to wear two
or three hates.
1) Military Hat (and rank ... maybe Colonel or General)
2) Political hat (Governor)
3) Diplomatic hat (Moff maybe???)
SW is a mix. ESB might be more traditional naval roles ... but oddly
enough I remember most everybody have rank pips that I couldn't
distinguish who the boss was and who the boss wasn't (unlike Terran
military pips were the higher ranking guys have bigger shinier pieces of
metal and decoration ... to make better targets for enemies of course).
;)
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
[Cross Posted to RASS.Collecting.Vintage]
> "policraticus, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
> back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
> portable gallows."
> >Just about everything in SW is designed to resonate like that. The term 'super
> >star destroyer' will register with anyone who's heard 'supercarrier' on the news
> >or read 'superdreadnaught' in a book. I suspect Lucas (or someone) may have put it
> >in because of the blandness of 'command ship' (okay, it's a parallel for
> >'flagship', but it's dull).
>
> Agreed. Even if it isn't designed to resonate, instead originating with
> Kenner as Saxton suggests, it's still a term that works.
Did Saxton really suggest that the term SSD originated with Kenner???
Here is what Steve Sansweet, who wrote "Tomart's Price Guide to
Worldwide Star Wars Collectibles", calls Kenners toys that might fit
what you guys are talking about:
For the SSD we are talking about:
*Vehicles* (it is more like a playset IMHO)
"Darth Vader's Star Destroyer" first released after ESB
For just a ISD:
*Die Cast Ships*
"Imperial Cruiser" first released before ESB.
These are the only two Star Destroyer Toys made by Kenner prior to 1990
to my knowledge. So maybe Curtis is right and Kenner wanted to call
"Darth Vader's Star Destroyer" something like "Super Star Destroyer".
But the first Kenner Star Destroyer was just called an "Imperial
Cruiser" and was a smaller Die Cast toy. It is possible that after ESB
and before the Die Cast line was discontinued that Kenner wanted to make
a Die Cast toy for its ESB collection (they made a snow speeder, cloud
car, TIE bomber ... super rare, and Slave 1).
So the questions I want to ask vintage gurus are as follows:
Was Kenner considering making a Die Cast SSD?
What were the names Kenner was considering, if there was such a project?
What was Kenner's traditional practice in naming things not named in the
films, aka Hammerhead, Bib Fortuna, Sal. Crumb, Lobot, Pruneface, and
Twin Pod Cloud Car?
Were there any other SSD toys prior to return of the Jedi that Kenner
was considering?
What were the other names proposed for "Darth Vader's Star Destroyer"?
Thanks,
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
Toy One wrote:
>
> In article <3570BF...@ix.netcom.com>, Michael Mierzwa
> <mmie...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> The Super Star Destroyer was called "Star Destroyer Executor" in the concept
> sketches.
>
> >What were the other names proposed for "Darth Vader's Star Destroyer"?
> In Sansweet's "Concept to Screen to Collectible" book, there is a factoid on
> that very subject. Kenner did not want to name a child's toy "Executor". It
> says their ad agency came up with 153 different considerations and lists
> Starbase Malevolent, Black Coven, Haphaestus VII and Cosmocurse as specifics.
> Kenner of course went on its own and used Darth Vader's Star Destroyer.
153! Wow! Was Super Star Destroyer among the possible names? BTW
Kenner has now released a "Super Star Destroyer" as part of its current
Collector's Fleet line (as I took not while looking through the Jawa
Trader).
> By the way, is it really supposed to be 5 miles long? (from other sources than
> West End, I mean)
> It always looked bigger than that to me.
No. I think there is a good case for the fact that it is *not* 5 miles
long, hence Wayne started the thread calling 5 miles a Fallacy. :)
Thanks,
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
Taki Kogoma wrote:
>
> policraticus <policr...@hotmail.com> is alleged to have submitted
> message <356EC5D2...@hotmail.com> to rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc:
> >>I figure that the Empire built the Star Destroyer, (a name which everyone
> >>seems to be happy with) and then built a few SUPER Star Destroyers - like an
> >>enhanced version of the Star Destroyer - and because there were (or were
> >>supposed to be) so few of them, that it never became a class in its own
> >>right.
> >
> >I think you're right. I don't know where this 'Super-class' nonsense came from.
> >There were never frigates called Escort and Assault, or a Mon Cal cruiser
> >called Star.
>
> Blame WEG. They're the ones who first published the phrase "_Super_
> class Star Destroyer."
I don't know. I do seem to remember talking to friends about ROTJ in
1983 and saying, "It was so cool watching the Super Star Destroyer crash
into the Death Star." At least this is what I remember.
I tend to think that no matter who first printed the name, that many
people were calling it *the* Super Star Destroyer (yes I know in the
film that Han suggests that there is more than one of them). So I will
take *all* the blame.
Hear that, blame me for this fallacy. When I was a young kid, I
mistaked some dialog by the greatest Admiral in the universe and thought
the ship was a "Super Star Destroyer".
It is all my fault. ;)
Michael Mierzwa
-looking for a way to be famous
policraticus
> The Star Destroyer is so named because GL thought it sounded scary,
> NOT because it is a "Torpedo-Boat Destroyer"!!!
But Lucas' use of 'destroyer' and 'frigate' (in the films, not the other sources)
is consistent with a developed form of naval tradition - just as TBDs have
evolved into a kind of missile cruiser but retained the name. I give you that the
SDs were originally 2-man fighters, but when they became battleships, GL
established the division between frigates & destroyers.
> As for the "Naval" rankings, look at the mix of Naval, Army and Air
> Force ranks used - "Commander", "General", "Squadron-Leader" ...
Wing Commander, Squadron Leader, Flight Lieutenant. RAF ranks for a 'Battle of
Britain' ambience. Other fighter units in the alliance might have had 'army'
ranks, hence Lando's appointment as a General (note the 'army' rather than 'navy'
uniforms of the Falcon's crew in RotJ). The problem comes in when WEG get hold of
it and make a hash of everything.
And anyway, I don't think Lucas intended to be rigorous, just to create a
'feeling'.
> There's no Terran military tradition in SW!!!
Sorry, but there is.
Policrat'
Toy One
>
>films, aka Hammerhead, Bib Fortuna, Sal. Crumb, Lobot, Pruneface, and
>Twin Pod Cloud Car?
I believe from the material that I've read, that most of the alien names were
given by the folks in the creature shop that made them, not by Kenner. I would
assume that most of the other things not named in the movie derived theirs
likewise from studio people or in the scripts.
The Super Star Destroyer was called "Star Destroyer Executor" in the concept
sketches.
>What were the other names proposed for "Darth Vader's Star Destroyer"?
In Sansweet's "Concept to Screen to Collectible" book, there is a factoid on
that very subject. Kenner did not want to name a child's toy "Executor". It
says their ad agency came up with 153 different considerations and lists
Starbase Malevolent, Black Coven, Haphaestus VII and Cosmocurse as specifics.
Kenner of course went on its own and used Darth Vader's Star Destroyer.
By the way, is it really supposed to be 5 miles long? (from other sources than
West End, I mean)
It always looked bigger than that to me.
Brad - BEHOLD the power of cheese!
Star Wars and other parts and weapons for sale:
http://members.aol.com/toyone/index.html
Anisa
In article <199805310348...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
toy...@aol.com (Toy One) wrote:
> Kenner did not want to name a child's toy "Executor". It
> says their ad agency came up with 153 different considerations and lists
> Starbase Malevolent, Black Coven, Haphaestus VII and Cosmocurse as specifics.
"Black Coven" is somehow more child-appropriate than "Executor?" Go figure.
--
Hace mucho tiempo en una galaxia lejana, muy lejana...
Anisa
Anonymous
>It is unclear. The Death Star had Generals, Admirals and Moffs running
>around. Which branch of service is a Moff again??? And then there are
>regional governors, but in Terran tradition these guys tend to wear two
>or three hates.
Supposedly, Moff is the title bestowed upon sector-level Imperial
governors whilst Grand Moffs apparently govern multiple sectors at the
regional level. WEG suggest that Moffs *usually* assume the position
of High Admiral and/or Surface Marshal (the two highest Navy/Army
ranks within a sector). This seems fairly reasonable.
It's been my belief for quite a while that Tarkin's rank insignia may
have been that of a High Admiral/Surface Marshal and that there's no
such thing as a Moff badge because it's a *political* station, not
military.
>1) Military Hat (and rank ... maybe Colonel or General)
>2) Political hat (Governor)
>3) Diplomatic hat (Moff maybe???)
I'd say #2 and #3 are one and the same.
>SW is a mix. ESB might be more traditional naval roles ... but oddly
>enough I remember most everybody have rank pips that I couldn't
>distinguish who the boss was and who the boss wasn't (unlike Terran
>military pips were the higher ranking guys have bigger shinier pieces of
>metal and decoration ... to make better targets for enemies of course).
>;)
The only rank insignia that confused me in TESB were those of naval
commanders and captains. Their badges are identical, but a commander
has two code cylinders while a captain has only one.
policraticus
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> policraticus wrote:
> >
> > > The Star Destroyer is so named because GL thought it sounded scary,
> > > NOT because it is a "Torpedo-Boat Destroyer"!!!
> >
> > But Lucas' use of 'destroyer' and 'frigate' (in the films, not the other sources)
> > is consistent with a developed form of naval tradition - just as TBDs have
> > evolved into a kind of missile cruiser but retained the name. I give you that the
> > SDs were originally 2-man fighters, but when they became battleships, GL
> > established the division between frigates & destroyers.
>
> ? I'm confused? SDs were originally 2-man fighters ... like Y-wings.
> But then GL changed his mind
Yep. In the first (and, I think, second) draft, the SD is a long-range Imperial
fighter, and a batallion (army formation) is considered an invasion force. Similarly,
the main Rebel fighter was based on the Y-wing, but at one stage had acrew of 4 or 5
and had turrets like a WWII bomber.
> and made a division between frigats and
> destroyers? Do you mean fighters and destroyers? This isn't clear to
> me ... :/
In the films, there is a distinction between the larger Star Destroyer, and the smaller
ships, which are referred to generally as frigates - trade frigate, medical frigate,
headquarters frigate. To this are added (and I don't know where the names originate)
escort frigate and assault frigate.
> I agree that Lucas lifted familar terms like Frigate and Destroyer when
> it suited his needs. However I don't know in Terran navies which is a
> larger vessel? We on Earth have:
>
> Battleships,
> Cruisers,
> Carriers,
> Frigates,
> Destroyers, and
> Cutters.
>
> To name a few. The US Destroyers that I've seen have all been smaller
> than Carriers and Battleships, but larget than Cutters. I can't
> remember the vessel classification for the USS San Jacinto ... but I
> think it was a Guided Missle Cruiser. It was small. Maybe somebody can
> list US ship classes in their right order (I don't know this).
I'm not saying my system's perfect. Most navies tend to be based round frigates and
destroyers these days, and there were no battleships active in the '70s - but the
Executor is a battleship compared to the SDs. There are also many references to
'cruisers' in SW, some of them, eg "the local bulk cruisers" to ships we've never seen.
I do have a theory that would reconcile the frigate/destroyer dichotomy with a more
detailed classification system, and I'll post it if you want. But I think the important
fact is that Lucas ain't an expert, and he's going for an ambience rather than a
precise formula.
> For SW, other ship classes:
>
> Blockade Runner/Corvette,
> Transport (which I guess we have too!) :)
>
> I'm not sure which Terran Navies still use Corvettes. Anyway, Terran
> Navies actually are different from each other (just like the service
> branches are). So is SW modeled after a compliation of navies or is it
> modeled after just one?
Corvettes were (in the C19th and WW2) smaller ships than frigates, with generally
similar functions (though these differed in the two periods). I think Lucas was
thinking more in terms of the age of sail in his naming, but chose 'corvette' over the
alternative 'sloop' (which describes a small yacht today) and 'destroyer' over the less
threatening 'ship-of- the-line'. Also, corvettes, frigates and destroyers are the
normal classes of ships featured in WWII films about the Battle of the Atlantic. Again,
Lucas sets up the right resonances
> > > As for the "Naval" rankings, look at the mix of Naval, Army and Air
> > > Force ranks used - "Commander", "General", "Squadron-Leader" ...
> >
> > Wing Commander, Squadron Leader, Flight Lieutenant. RAF ranks for a 'Battle of
> > Britain' ambience. Other fighter units in the alliance might have had 'army'
> > ranks, hence Lando's appointment as a General (note the 'army' rather than 'navy'
> > uniforms of the Falcon's crew in RotJ). The problem comes in when WEG get hold of
> > it and make a hash of everything.
>
> I thought Wing Commander is not a rank, but a function.
No. It may be in the USAF, but in the RAF, it is very definately a rank. The RAF's
officer ranks run something like this:
Pilot Officer
Flying Officer
Flight Lieutenant
Squadron Leader
Wing Commander
Group Captain
Air Commodore
Air Vice-Marshall
Air Marshall
Air Chief Marshall
> A wing commander is like "Captain". Captain is a rank, but you can have a
> lowly Ensign as a Captain on a Terran naval vessel is he/she is the CO.
No. A Wing Commander is a rank, pure and simple. WEG, not realising this, introduced
the mess of ranks that are used in the novels.
> Starship Troopers actually explained this in the novelization. The
> Captain of one of the ships really was only a Commander by rank, but she
> was addressed as Captain by all! :)
I agree with this. The term 'Commander' is used frequently for officers holding some
command other than a ship - eg Commander Praji, Commander Willard, Commander Tagge,
Commander Jerjerrod - who are not necessarily 'commanders' in either the naval or air
force sense, but this still doesn't negate the lieutenant-leader-commander hierarchy of
the fighter forces.
> Army ... versus Navy uniforms??? The only ROTJ Alliance "Navy" uniforms
> that we know of 100% is Ackbar's clothes! :)
>
> I think there is actually a combined service/rank system used in SW, as
> I've gathered from trading card names:
>
> Moff (Imperial Only)
> Admiral
> General
> Colonel
> Captain
> Commander
> Lt. Commander
> Lieutenant
> Ensign
> Chief (Enlisted Top Rank)
> Corporal (Second Top Enlisted Rank)
> Warrant Officer (Second Bottom Enlisted Rank)
> Trooper (The Bottom)
This is rather thrown together in an attempt to rationalise the whole system. WEG and
the LucasArts games give similar, but different rank systems, and all are contradicted
by K-mac and Zahn when they make General A'baht equal in rank to an Admiral and General
Bel Iblis outrank one. As far as I'm concerned, the Empire uses Naval ranks for ships'
officers, RAF ones for its fighter forces, and military ones for its ground troops, as
do the Alderaan-backed Rebels of ANH and ESB. On the other hand, other forces, eg the
Corellians or the Dorneans, seem to use strictly military rank systems.
> That is if there is just one system. It is possible that like WEG
> suggests, that there is an Imperial Navy and a separate Imperial Army.
I think that's inevitable.
> I'm not to set into a set way here. :) But I do think Admirals are
> higher than mere Corporals.
That is obvious: except one is in the navy, the other in the army.
> > And anyway, I don't think Lucas intended to be rigorous, just to create a
> > 'feeling'.
> >
> > > There's no Terran military tradition in SW!!!
> >
> > Sorry, but there is.
>
> It is unclear. The Death Star had Generals, Admirals and Moffs running
> around. Which branch of service is a Moff again???
Originally, a Grand Mouff (sic) was a sort of Archbishop :-)
> And then there are regional governors, but in Terran tradition these guys tend to
> wear two or three hates.
>
> 1) Military Hat (and rank ... maybe Colonel or General)
> 2) Political hat (Governor)
> 3) Diplomatic hat (Moff maybe???)
Nope, again. When we had an Empire, these would be three different guys. But in SW, I
think there are various ranks - Military Prefect, Moff, Grand Moff - of Governor, which
can be filled by military (eg Tarkin) and civilian officers. I think it's a name Lucas
found/made up and liked too much to drop. As to the Death Star, we have officers
representing almost every branch of the Imperial Armed Forces. Like any big operation,
there'll be Army, Navy, Air Force, Intelligence, Logistics and so on and so forth.
> SW is a mix. ESB might be more traditional naval roles ... but oddly
> enough I remember most everybody have rank pips that I couldn't
> distinguish who the boss was and who the boss wasn't (unlike Terran
> military pips were the higher ranking guys have bigger shinier pieces of
> metal and decoration ... to make better targets for enemies of course).
> ;)
This is true of the Rebels but not of the Imps in ANH or ESB. A prop-department mess-up
in RotJ meant that the Imps all had commanders' badges, but before then, there is
something of a system.
Sincerely,
Policrat'
Nornus
Whoops!
Michael Mierzwa
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 May 1998 19:07:52 -0700, Michael Mierzwa
> <mmie...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >regional governors, but in Terran tradition these guys tend to wear two
> >or three hates.
>
> governors whilst Grand Moffs apparently govern multiple sectors at the
> regional level. WEG suggest that Moffs *usually* assume the position
> of High Admiral and/or Surface Marshal (the two highest Navy/Army
> ranks within a sector). This seems fairly reasonable.
>
> It's been my belief for quite a while that Tarkin's rank insignia may
> have been that of a High Admiral/Surface Marshal and that there's no
> such thing as a Moff badge because it's a *political* station, not
> military.
>
> >2) Political hat (Governor)
> >3) Diplomatic hat (Moff maybe???)
>
Easy to confuse, because the only possible external power in the SW
trilogy that we see *might* have been the Mon Calamari. Everybody else
seemed pretty much to fall under the Empire's government, so in SW terms
there isn't much use for Imperial Diplomacy.
The Alliance on the other hand does have need for such to swing people
like the Bothans, Mon Calamari, and Sullustians under their sway.
Political means running the day to day lives of people. There is no
implication that it is by any means democratic. In fact, military
governors are usually pretty authoritarian. Diplomatic suggests that
this person sits among equals.
A good example is the station commander of Babylon 5. There roles, one
person. Run the military there. Run the stations and enforce its
laws. And negotiate on the behalf of Earth with the alien ambassadors.
Again SW realy never offers us the chance to see all three in action ...
until the novels that is.
> >SW is a mix. ESB might be more traditional naval roles ... but oddly
> >enough I remember most everybody have rank pips that I couldn't
> >distinguish who the boss was and who the boss wasn't (unlike Terran
> >military pips were the higher ranking guys have bigger shinier pieces of
> >metal and decoration ... to make better targets for enemies of course).
> >;)
>
> The only rank insignia that confused me in TESB were those of naval
> commanders and captains. Their badges are identical, but a commander
> has two code cylinders while a captain has only one.
Now that I didn't catch on the cards. I can easily look back. And that
is very confusing. Because I thought those code cylinders are nothing
more than our floppy disks ... certainly they are too clunky for rank
pips. :(
Thanks,
Michael Mierzwa
Gerthein Boersma
"Nornus, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>Whoops!
Sigh... This was so bound to happen that I'm surprised Kim Le didn't set up
another pool.
Taki Kogoma
mmie...@ix.netcom.com is alleged to have submitted
message <3570F2...@ix.netcom.com> to rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc:
>Taki Kogoma wrote:
>>policraticus <policr...@hotmail.com> is alleged to have submitted
>>message <356EC5D2...@hotmail.com> to rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc:
>>>from. There were never frigates called Escort and Assault, or a Mon Cal
>>>cruiser called Star.
>>
>> Blame WEG. They're the ones who first published the phrase "_Super_
>> class Star Destroyer."
>
>I don't know. I do seem to remember talking to friends about ROTJ in
>1983 and saying, "It was so cool watching the Super Star Destroyer crash
>into the Death Star." At least this is what I remember.
My precise point is that WEG appears to be the entity responsible for
providing that particular type of starship with the nonsensical appellation
of "_Super_ class." This is the criticism that I read into policraticus'
comment above.
The generic term for the Imperial Flagship Cruiser (or whatever else you
want to call them) of 'Super Star Destroyer' clearly dates back to at least
Episode VI, and, as has been discussed elsewhere, may originate up to 3 years
previous to the term appering in the scripts.
Gym "Ye gods, polysyllabic today, aren't I?" Quirk
JamesG
Wayne Poe wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 1998, Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> > Back to Gert's statement about Naval tradition. Naval tradition doesn't
> > really mean anything in a scifi story that takes place "A long time ago,
> > in a galaxy far, far away ..."
>
> etc. are used.
However Star Destroyers bear no relation to Naval destroyers, it's
simple the case of a "cool sounding name". "Star Destroyers" and "Super
Stardestroyers" are *types* rather than classes (the equivelent of
frigate or battleship etc rather than "nimitz" etc) a "Star Destroyer"
is any ship with the equivelence of, basically, a carrier group - it has
as many fighters as a dedicated Carrier, it has more firepower than a
dreadnought or battleship. Likewise a SSD is the scaled up version and
there are several classes of SSD (Executor, Soverign, Eclipse...) just
as there are several classes of SD. In the case of the Exectutor-class
SSD as it was the first class of SSD the designations Executor-class and
Super-class would have been interchange.
JamesG,
who's read 500 post today and is a little frazzeled...
************************************************************************
* Official RASSM Organiser. Will design starships for food. *
* (-o-) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2843 <*> *
* "Outside a dog, a book is man's best friend. *
* Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx *
************************************************************************
Anonymous
Agreed. I'd like for someone to rationalize an alternate method of
differentiating between two officers of differing rank with identical
rank badges.
Apparently, Grand Admirals have *no* code cylinders...
Douglas A. Hurstell
"Concentrate all fire on that super star destroyer" ~Admiral Ackbar ROTJ
--
######################################
Sector Admiral Ryskar "Scourge" Dlarit
Fleet Commander
Dark Lightning Strike Fleet
FC:SA Scourge/DLSF/ISD Centaur {Pltm}
######################################
Dr. Ryskar "Scourge" Dlarit, Ph.D., DoS
Dean
Imperial Command Staff Training Academy
DEAN/DR Scourge/ICSTA/PLT Averon [PhD][DoS]
######################################
The Honorable Dr. Ryskar "Scourge" Dlarit, Ph.D., DoS
Senator
New Imperium Senate
######################################
SN: DLSF-03019803
ICQ #538808
Office of the Fleet Commander:
http://www.mindspring.com/~dhurst11/fc/
Join the Dark Lightning Strike Fleet
http://www.dlsf.org
Michael Mierzwa wrote in message <3570BF...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
>[Cross Posted to RASS.Collecting.Vintage]
>
>> "policraticus, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
>> back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a
small
>> portable gallows."
>
>So the questions I want to ask vintage gurus are as follows:
>
>Was Kenner considering making a Die Cast SSD?
>
>What were the names Kenner was considering, if there was such a project?
>
>What was Kenner's traditional practice in naming things not named in the
>films, aka Hammerhead, Bib Fortuna, Sal. Crumb, Lobot, Pruneface, and
>Twin Pod Cloud Car?
>
>Were there any other SSD toys prior to return of the Jedi that Kenner
>was considering?
>
>What were the other names proposed for "Darth Vader's Star Destroyer"?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Michael Mierzwa
Bobby Cox
On Thu, 28 May 1998 17:01:42 +0100, policraticus
<policr...@hotmail.com> jumped up and announced to the general
posting public:
>> Personally, I think 'Super-class' is somewhat... well... stupid. I
>> prefer the K-Mac version 'Executor-class'. I mean, if we're gonna
>> follow the naval tradition of naming the ship class after the first
>> ship of that class...
>> A frigate named 'Lancer' I can buy
>> A frigate named 'Nebulon-B'... hmm... yeah
>
>I always assumed there was a 'Nebulon' and then they modified the design for
>'Nebulon-B' class ships.
That'd work, too...
>> A SD named 'Victory', sure!
>> A SD named 'Imperial'... *ponders* yep
>
>'Imperator' 'Imperial' is supposedly a colloquialism - a bit easier to say.
>
>> A SSD named 'Super'???? No way! (SSD isn't too far off. After all, the
>> USN does use the 'Nimitz'-class *super*carrier.
>
>Just like superdreadnaught...
Yep...
>> And the first SSD we see is named 'Executor', so... Executor-class.
>>
>> All IMHO, of course. I mean, who else would want to own up to this
>> opinion? :)
>
>An Ewok with a kilt pops his head through the undergrowth, smiling horribly.
*screams horribly and runs away... hopefully before the Ewok starts up
the bagpipes! :)*
Bobby Cox
Representative of the Tirax System
"I hope so, Commander, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am."
"I'd just as soon kiss a Wookiee."
"I can arrange that. You could use a good kiss!"
Note: Reply-to address mangled to get rid of spamming mail-bots
I think you can figure out what to get rid of...
Michael Mierzwa
Anonymous wrote:
> My point is that while Executor-class is infinitely preferable to
> Super-class, we apparently have no LFL-designated canon evidence that
> the Executor was the first of its class or that these ships weren't
> around even before ANH. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'll endorse this as being correct. ;)
We really just don't know where the name came from.
Michael Mierzwa
Anonymous
On Thu, 28 May 1998 14:04:49 GMT, smeg...@ix.net.au (Bobby Cox)
wrote:
>A SSD named 'Super'???? No way! (SSD isn't too far off. After all, the
>USN does use the 'Nimitz'-class *super*carrier.
I do believe "super carrier" is also a colloquialism.
>And the first SSD we see is named 'Executor', so... Executor-class.
The first ISD we see is named Devastator, but we don't call them
Devastator-class star destroyers.
Wayne Poe
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Gerthein Boersma wrote:
> >> BTW: It is an important and good point. However like Gert I don't think
> >> the name "Super Star Destroyer" is bad at all.
>
> >Neither do I!
Yeah, the "Duper-Class" and the "Big-un Class" sound great to me too.
> Figured as much. It seems as though the "chilling - loony - contamination"
> opinion is held by an increasingly limited group of cynics.
Ah, the mouthpiece of the RASSM clan!
policraticus
Wayne Poe wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 1998, Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
> > >> BTW: It is an important and good point. However like Gert I don't think
> > >> the name "Super Star Destroyer" is bad at all.
> >
> > >Neither do I!
>
> Yeah, the "Duper-Class" and the "Big-un Class" sound great to me too.
You really have missed the point, haven't you? ;-)
It's an "Executor-class Super Star Destroyer".
Like a "Nimitz-class Supercarrier".
Or an "Iron Duke-class Superdreadnaught".
Or a "Mon Remonda-class Star Cruiser".
Or a "Nebulon-B-class Escort Frigate".
Or a "Dreadnaught-class Assault Frigate".
Or a "Neutron Star-class Bulk Cruiser".
Or a "Thranta-class War Frigate"
No-one has ever said there were ships called Star, Escort, Assault, Bulk and War,
or Star-class and so on. WEG made a mess with the stupid 'Super-class'
designation, but that doesn't invalidate the designation 'Super Star Destroyer'.
Only occasionally is the name of the first ship actually become the name of the
class, and then it becomes the class name itself, not an adjective tacked on the
start. Both the real world and SW have had the "Dreadnaught-class Dreadnaught"
But SW also has the "Invincible-class Dreadnaught"
And the RN built the "Ocean-class Dreadnaught".
And don't come one with me about the "Imperial Star Destroyer"
It's the "Imperator-class Imperial Star Destroyer", along the same lines as
everything else above. The use of advectives in front of the name isn't terribly
'modern', I give you, but eighty to a hundred years ago, there were 'Torpedo-Boat
Destroyers', 'Belted Cruisers', 'Protected Cruisers', 'Armoured Cruisers' and
even 'Dreadnaught Armoured Cruisers'. This last was neither a Dreadnaught nor
named for an Armoured Cruiser called Dreadnaught - the 'big gun, speed, lots of
armour' doctrine of 1906-1918 was like the 'Tarkin doctrine' of the Empire. Hence
'Dreadnaught' and 'Imperial'.
I absolutely support your campaign against the 'five-mile fallacy' and think that
WEG's 'Super-class Star Destroyer' is part of this error. But I see no reason to
drop the perfectly valid and suitably resounding name 'Super Star Destroyer'.
Sincerely,
Policraticus McEwok
policraticus
Anonymous wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 1998 14:04:49 GMT, smeg...@ix.net.au (Bobby Cox)
> wrote:
>
> >A SSD named 'Super'???? No way! (SSD isn't too far off. After all, the
> >USN does use the 'Nimitz'-class *super*carrier.
>
> I do believe "super carrier" is also a colloquialism.
But superdreadnaught was a genuine term. And I have a vague idea that the
German Narvik-class destroyers in WWII (with big 5.5' guns) were called
superdestroyers. One also has supertankers.
> >And the first SSD we see is named 'Executor', so... Executor-class.
>
> The first ISD we see is named Devastator, but we don't call them
> Devastator-class star destroyers.
Because they are Imperator-class Imperial Star Destroyers, and have been,
officially, since the first film!
> My point is that while Executor-class is infinitely preferable to
> Super-class, we apparently have no LFL-designated canon evidence that
> the Executor was the first of its class or that these ships weren't
> around even before ANH. Correct me if I'm wrong.
While LFL have never said that Executor was the first, I think that's at
least implied in ESB, and all other SW material has supported this view.
(Lusankya was actually the first, btw :-)
Policrat'
Gerthein Boersma
"Wayne Poe, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>> Figured as much. It seems as though the "chilling - loony - contamination"
>> opinion is held by an increasingly limited group of cynics.
>Ah, the mouthpiece of the RASSM clan!
Hoo-boy... Now that's what I call a "super classy" retort...
Andrew C. Schott
Anonymous wrote:
> The first ISD we see is named Devastator, but we don't call them
> Devastator-class star destroyers.
Just because the first one *we* see is called the Devastator, that doesn't
mean that it *is* the first one.
--
Andy Schott
ICQ: 3308838
E-mail: andrew...@rose-hulman.edu
Homepage: http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~schottac
Gerthein Boersma
""Andrew C. Schott", take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet
me back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a
small portable gallows."
>> The first ISD we see is named Devastator, but we don't call them
>> Devastator-class star destroyers.
>Just because the first one *we* see is called the Devastator, that doesn't
>mean that it *is* the first one.
I think that's his point: that the Executor needn't be the first SSD
either.
Andrew C. Schott
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
> ""Andrew C. Schott", take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet
> me back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a
> small portable gallows."
>
> >> The first ISD we see is named Devastator, but we don't call them
> >> Devastator-class star destroyers.
>
> >Just because the first one *we* see is called the Devastator, that doesn't
> >mean that it *is* the first one.
>
> I think that's his point: that the Executor needn't be the first SSD
> either.
Oh. I thought that the Executor was the first SSD.
Michael Mierzwa
policraticus wrote:
[snip]
That couldn't be more clear. ;)
> I absolutely support your campaign against the 'five-mile fallacy' and think that
> WEG's 'Super-class Star Destroyer' is part of this error. But I see no reason to
> drop the perfectly valid and suitably resounding name 'Super Star Destroyer'.
I agree. If anything, it [comparing Super Star Destroyer to Big-un Star
Destroyer] weakens the arugement. Stick to the strengths of a position,
and don't contest the little things, it only makes everything sound like
'sour grapes'.
Off Topic: In the CA election today one of the canidates made several
weekend stops to predominately african-american churches. It back fired
on her, as many of the members of the church told reporters that they
are now very mad at her for interupting their Sunday service on what is
her *first* time to every take any notice of their community. Funny,
isn't it how politicians become very visible right before an election
and then disappear never to be seen again immediately after. Anyway,
several of the people said they will now encourage their friends to vote
against this canidate! ;) Smart voters they are, and I changed my vote
to follow their position! :)
The point is to illustrate how some things are better left undone or
unsaid. ;) The 5 mile issue seems strong, the name issue isn't. If
people take these complaints you've basically pork barreled your own
work. :( WEG and Lucas Film are less likely to be receptive.
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
Andrew C. Schott wrote:
>
> Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
> > ""Andrew C. Schott", take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet
> > me back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a
> > small portable gallows."
> >
> > >> The first ISD we see is named Devastator, but we don't call them
> > >> Devastator-class star destroyers.
> >
> > >Just because the first one *we* see is called the Devastator, that doesn't
> > >mean that it *is* the first one.
> >
> > I think that's his point: that the Executor needn't be the first SSD
> > either.
>
> Oh. I thought that the Executor was the first SSD.
I did too until this *week*! But everybody else has a point here, just
because we see the Executor first, doesn't mean it was the first SSD.
:)
Michael Mierzwa
James Watson
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> I did too until this *week*! But everybody else has a point here, just
> because we see the Executor first, doesn't mean it was the first SSD.
Depends on whether you want to get into a canon argument or
not. In the Al Williamson\Archie Goodwin daily strips it was
introduced as the first of it's kind.
I always thought it was the first since it was supposed to
be Vader's flagship. After all, could you see Vader tooling around
the galaxy in some rust bucket garbage scow while some weenie
Admiral cruises along in an SSD?
--
wat...@iamerica.net (-o-)
Michael Mierzwa
James Watson wrote:
>
> I always thought it was the first since it was supposed to
> be Vader's flagship. After all, could you see Vader tooling around
> the galaxy in some rust bucket garbage scow while some weenie
> Admiral cruises along in an SSD?
And that is a good arguement in favour of the Executor being the first
SSD. It is very possible that SSD's were never named for a ship.
Was there a ship once called the "Corvette" or another ship once called
the "Aircraftcarrier" or one called the "Battleship".
Michael Mierzwa
policraticus
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> policraticus wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> That couldn't be more clear. ;)
>
> > I absolutely support your campaign against the 'five-mile fallacy' and think that
> > WEG's 'Super-class Star Destroyer' is part of this error. But I see no reason to
> > drop the perfectly valid and suitably resounding name 'Super Star Destroyer'.
>
> I agree. If anything, it [comparing Super Star Destroyer to Big-un Star
> Destroyer] weakens the arugement. Stick to the strengths of a position,
> and don't contest the little things, it only makes everything sound like
> 'sour grapes'.
We agree! Shock horror :-)
> Off Topic: In the CA election today one of the canidates made several
> weekend stops to predominately african-american churches. It back fired
> on her, as many of the members of the church told reporters that they
> are now very mad at her for interupting their Sunday service on what is
> her *first* time to every take any notice of their community. Funny,
> isn't it how politicians become very visible right before an election
> and then disappear never to be seen again immediately after. Anyway,
> several of the people said they will now encourage their friends to vote
> against this canidate! ;) Smart voters they are, and I changed my vote
> to follow their position! :)
<G!> Probably serves her right :-)
> The point is to illustrate how some things are better left undone or
> unsaid. ;) The 5 mile issue seems strong, the name issue isn't. If
> people take these complaints you've basically pork barreled your own
> work.
'pork barreled'? It's not an expression I know. Sorry.
Trying to remember above example if he ever decides to run for office.
"Let's see. Don't blatantly hack groups you've never cared about before, and if you do,
make sure you're not going to just p**s them off. And make sure you've got a decent
argument when you're attacking SW continuity claims." :-)
Policrat'
Anonymous
>> I do believe "super carrier" is also a colloquialism.
>
>But superdreadnaught was a genuine term.
According to whom?
> And I have a vague idea that the
>German Narvik-class destroyers in WWII (with big 5.5' guns) were called
>superdestroyers.
Was this an official technical designation?
> One also has supertankers.
Another colloquialism?
>> The first ISD we see is named Devastator, but we don't call them
>> Devastator-class star destroyers.
>
>Because they are Imperator-class Imperial Star Destroyers, and have been,
>officially, since the first film!
Exactly. It's commonly accepted that Imperator-class star destroyers
were around for a good while before ANH took place. Why then do we
assume that Executor-class vessels are new? Because we didn't see
them in ANH? We originally didn't see Lambda-class shuttles until
ROTJ, but TESB:SE shows that they were around before then.
>> My point is that while Executor-class is infinitely preferable to
>> Super-class, we apparently have no LFL-designated canon evidence that
>> the Executor was the first of its class or that these ships weren't
>> around even before ANH. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>While LFL have never said that Executor was the first, I think that's at
>least implied in ESB, and all other SW material has supported this view.
How is it implied in TESB? From what I remember, no one ever referred
to the Executor as new or special or even that it was of an uncommon
type. In fact, "official" SW material has the peculiar tendency to
downscale the Executor (5 mile fallacy) while simultaneously
exaggerating its significance as a borderline superweapon. One
example that I'll never forget is Vice-Admiral Pellaeon's remark in
Darksaber that the Executor's construction nearly bankrupted the
Empire. This is laughable. The Executor is like a drop in the bucket
compared to two Death Stars.
>(Lusankya was actually the first, btw :-)
I absolutely loathe the convoluted explanation of the Lusankya's
origin.
Anonymous
On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 13:26:54 -0700, Michael Mierzwa
<mmie...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Oh. I thought that the Executor was the first SSD.
>
>I did too until this *week*! But everybody else has a point here, just
>because we see the Executor first, doesn't mean it was the first SSD.
>:)
While I don't think that we should conclude that the Executor was the
first ship in its class based solely on its first appearance in TESB,
I'm loathe to speculate the existence of an actual SSD named "Super"
simply to accomodate WEG's rather unimaginative "Super-class."
Wayne Poe
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> I agree. If anything, it [comparing Super Star Destroyer to Big-un Star
> Destroyer] weakens the arugement. Stick to the strengths of a position,
> and don't contest the little things, it only makes everything sound like
> 'sour grapes'.
What's with this 'sour grapes' tripe you keep injecting into responses to
my posts? Does it really mean anything, or does it just look good pasted
into a post?
> The point is to illustrate how some things are better left undone or
> unsaid. ;) The 5 mile issue seems strong, the name issue isn't. If
> people take these complaints you've basically pork barreled your own
> work.
Your opinion. ;) The name issue IS another part of this topic that IS
important, at least to me. ;) Ok? ;) Hope I'm clear. ;)
Anonymous
>> I did too until this *week*! But everybody else has a point here, just
>> because we see the Executor first, doesn't mean it was the first SSD.
>
>
> Depends on whether you want to get into a canon argument or
>not. In the Al Williamson\Archie Goodwin daily strips it was
>introduced as the first of it's kind.
(sigh) Whether you or I or anyone else likes the comic strip and
decide to label it as canon for personal reasons, Lucasfilm doesn't
consider it canon. At best, it's "official."
I can't recall any Lucasfilm-designated canon material referring the
Executor as the first of its class.
> I always thought it was the first since it was supposed to
>be Vader's flagship. After all, could you see Vader tooling around
>the galaxy in some rust bucket garbage scow while some weenie
>Admiral cruises along in an SSD?
Actually, yes. In ROTJ, Vader arrived at the Death Star in an
Imperator-class star destroyer before the Executor finally showed up.
Personally, I'd think an SSD would be the standard command ship for
all Grand Admirals and the highest ranking sector fleet commanders
(High Admirals and/or Moffs).
policraticus
> I always thought it was the first since it was supposed to
> be Vader's flagship. After all, could you see Vader tooling around
> the galaxy in some rust bucket garbage scow while some weenie
> Admiral cruises along in an SSD?
Nicely put!
Policrat'
policraticus
Anonymous wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 13:45:22 +0100, policraticus
> <policr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I do believe "super carrier" is also a colloquialism.
> >
> >But superdreadnaught was a genuine term.
>
> According to whom?
According to most WWI naval officers and designers.
> > And I have a vague idea that the
> >German Narvik-class destroyers in WWII (with big 5.5' guns) were called
> >superdestroyers.
>
> Was this an official technical designation?
>
> > One also has supertankers.
>
> Another colloquialism?
I don't know. All I know is that the terms exist. They may not be as
'official' as 'superdreadnaught', but 'supercarrier' and 'supertanker' have as
wide a currency as 'Super Star Destroyer'.
> >> The first ISD we see is named Devastator, but we don't call them
> >> Devastator-class star destroyers.
> >
> >Because they are Imperator-class Imperial Star Destroyers, and have been,
> >officially, since the first film!
>
> Exactly. It's commonly accepted that Imperator-class star destroyers
> were around for a good while before ANH took place.
'commonly accepted'? We accept the 'Imperator-class Imperial Star Destroyer'
because it has appeared in the scripts and the earliest plans under that name,
and the name originates with ILM and GL himself.
> Why then do we
> assume that Executor-class vessels are new? Because we didn't see
> them in ANH? We originally didn't see Lambda-class shuttles until
> ROTJ, but TESB:SE shows that they were around before then.
Because that's the general implication of everything about the ship.
> >> My point is that while Executor-class is infinitely preferable to
> >> Super-class, we apparently have no LFL-designated canon evidence that
> >> the Executor was the first of its class or that these ships weren't
> >> around even before ANH. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think the fact that they were 'creating' this massive new ship meant they
considered it a new class.
> >While LFL have never said that Executor was the first, I think that's at
> >least implied in ESB, and all other SW material has supported this view.
>
> How is it implied in TESB? From what I remember, no one ever referred
> to the Executor as new or special or even that it was of an uncommon
> type.
That establishing shot, and the fact that it was, in ILM terms, being designed
as new, all imply newness, as does the fact that it isn't in ANH (though I
tend to believe it may well have been fitting out at that time).
> In fact, "official" SW material has the peculiar tendency to
> downscale the Executor (5 mile fallacy) while simultaneously
> exaggerating its significance as a borderline superweapon.
I think it is always downplayed in both senses. For all that people make a
fuss, the SSDs of the novels never seem to have the power they should. The
only time a SSD has actually shown its teeth convincingly is 'off-camera' at
Orinda (aluded to in the BFC) where it shot apart the NR flagship straight off
the mark.
> One example that I'll never forget is Vice-Admiral Pellaeon's remark in
> Darksaber that the Executor's construction nearly bankrupted the
> Empire. This is laughable. The Executor is like a drop in the bucket
> compared to two Death Stars.
That's KJA.
> >(Lusankya was actually the first, btw :-)
>
> I absolutely loathe the convoluted explanation of the Lusankya's origin.
Aw, come on, it's not that bad.
Policrat'
G
> Imperator-class star destroyer before the Executor finally showed up.
perhaps Vader was needed on DS2 but the SSD was needed elsewhere
> Personally, I'd think an SSD would be the standard command ship for
> all Grand Admirals and the highest ranking sector fleet commanders
> (High Admirals and/or Moffs).
then what was that bit at the beginning of ESB where you see all of the
ordinary SD's and that you see the shadow cast onto the, as something even
bigger comes into view, and Vader's on the bridge of the SSD there
the SSD was created between ANH and ESB so until GL makes episode 4.5 it
seems that Super is the class and Executor is the first
Gerthein Boersma
"Anonymous, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>How is it implied in TESB? From what I remember, no one ever referred
>to the Executor as new or special or even that it was of an uncommon
>type.
One could argue that, quite simply, the way in which the Executor is
*brought into view* implies that it's something "ratha spesh". This is a
weak argument, of course, but I think it counts as an implication..
>In fact, "official" SW material has the peculiar tendency to
>downscale the Executor (5 mile fallacy) while simultaneously
>exaggerating its significance as a borderline superweapon. One
>example that I'll never forget is Vice-Admiral Pellaeon's remark in
>Darksaber that the Executor's construction nearly bankrupted the
>Empire. This is laughable. The Executor is like a drop in the bucket
>compared to two Death Stars.
...But let's not talk about Darksaber.
Perhaps we should mention Han's "There's lots of command-ships" line in
ROTJ. Although obviously intended to comfort Luke, it implies that at the
very least, Han isn't particularly impressed by the Executor. Even if the
Executor is the first or even only SSD (it's Vader's flagship, after all,
so the argument that he would have a unique/custom ship makes sense), there
may have been similar ships of similar size, perhaps with similar
designation. To cite an admittedly apocryphical example: in the Dark Empire
sourcebook, the Eclipse and Souvereign are considered to be in the same
class despite looking very different.
This makes sense, because the ships are large enough not to be
"mass-produced" and would most likely be customized and different looking
in every incarnation (too bad, then, that all the SSDs we see in the comics
and games look exactly like the Executor).
G
> One could argue that, quite simply, the way in which the Executor is
> *brought into view* implies that it's something "ratha spesh". This is a
> weak argument, of course, but I think it counts as an implication..
a lot less weak than many arguments I've seen around here
> designation. To cite an admittedly apocryphical example: in the Dark
Empire
> sourcebook, the Eclipse and Souvereign are considered to be in the same
> class despite looking very different.
the eclipse and eclipse II were the 10 mile long ships weren't they
weren't they classed as SSD II's or summat like that?
policraticus
There are in fact six distinctively different classes
of SSD that we've seen so far in the SW apocrypha, and possibly as many
as thirty-two ships that could be described as 'Super Star Destroyers.
In rough order of building, they are:
Greatsword - I think the name's apocryphal - in
the Shira Brie story arc in the Marvel comics (between ANH and ESB)
Executor-class - at least 12 ships, possibly more than 17. Known as 'Super-class' to the Ewoks of WEG. These include:
The 'four' (actually *five*) original SSDs
Executor (ESB, RotJ, et cetera)
Lusankya (X-Wing: Rogue Squadron.
NB - Crimson Empire and the Black Fleet Trilogy give contradictory
accounts of the fate of this ship)
Reaper (SWAJ)
Brawl (aka Iron Fist. XWRS, Wraith
Squadron, Courtship of Princess Leia)
One more, which may be among those listed
below
At least six other SSDs built by the time of Endor:
Vengance (XvT: Balance of Power)
Terror (Rebel Assault II)
Guardian (WEG: Wanted by Cracken?)
Aggressor (WEG)
One un-named SSD (Black Fleet Trilogy)
Valorous (Black Fleet Trilogy)
Two, probably three or more 'Late-Production' SSDs: Post-Endor
Intimidator - In 'Shield of Lies', someone
identifies the Intimidator at N'zoth because 'All the late-production
SSDs had that extra shield tower on the centerline', which implies that,
although Intimidator had modifications that made it distinctive
from the other Black Sword SSDs, there were at least two other Executor-class
ships of this more developed subclass, perhaps all built/completed AFTER
Endor (this seems to be the implication of the extra shield-tower: it is
to avoid what happened to the Executor). If this were so, and even counting
the Knight Hammer as a 'late production' SSD, it would imply that
there is at least one more un-named SSD.
Knight Hammer (Darksaber)
Two mentions of SSDs that may not be any of the above:
One SSD is under Isard's authority three
years after Endor: this may be theAggressor.
Another SSD fought (and perhaps beat) a New
Republic Fleet at the Battle of Orinda. Given that the Star Carrier Endurance
- a 'new classes' design - was destroyed in this battle, it must have taken
place after all the known SSDs except for Aggressor and Reaper
are known for sure to have been destroyed or captured. (Black Fleet Trilogy)
And one jotting
Overlord - in my original list of Executor-class
ships, I wrote "Overlord (WEG)". I haven't the faintest idea what my source
was or whether the information's authentic.
Vengance-class - only 1 known ship;
Jerec's flagship in Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight. This is the only ship
so far known of this class, not to be confused with the Imperator-class,
Executor-class and pehaps Allegiance-class ships of the same
name.
Eclipse-class - 2 ships of this class, known
as Eclipse and Eclipse II, serving as flagships for the clone
Emperor.
Sovereign - 4 ships of dubious authenticity. WEG gave the clone Emperor four ships of this class - Sovereign, Autarch, Heresiarch and one the name of which I can't remember, all under construction at Byss. The fact that this supposedly began before DE, and was uncompleted at the end of Empire's End, I find highly improbable, especially given that the Eclipse II, the Galaxy Gun and probably some World Devastators, were built in the meantime.
Allegiance At least 5 ships, possibly 7 or more. Well-attested in DE, etc. There are at least five of these ships - basically 3-mile-long 'classic' SD designs. Allegiance, destroyed at Mon Cal, the three ships that escorted the Eclipse I, and an un-named command-ship at Byss. Added to this are, possibly, the Vengance seen in DE2 (one of three or four SDs called Vengance, at least two of which - not counting this one - were SSDs) and Admiral Harrsk's flagship Shockwave.
Whew!
Urgh!
And I did it all from memory too!
Policrat'
Taki Kogoma
policraticus <policr...@hotmail.com> is alleged to have submitted
message <35750F49...@hotmail.com> to rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc:
>> I always thought it was the first since it was supposed to
>> be Vader's flagship. After all, could you see Vader tooling around
>> the galaxy in some rust bucket garbage scow while some weenie
>> Admiral cruises along in an SSD?
>
Perhaps Vader was 'Going Incognito' when he was visiting Jerjerrod
that time. ;-)
Gym "ImpStars are a dime a dozen, but you gotta keep track of them
Command Ships..." Quirk
>
>Policrat'
>
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Anonymous
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:45:40 GMT, gert...@wxs.nl (Gerthein Boersma)
wrote:
>>How is it implied in TESB? From what I remember, no one ever referred
>>to the Executor as new or special or even that it was of an uncommon
>>type.
>
>One could argue that, quite simply, the way in which the Executor is
>*brought into view* implies that it's something "ratha spesh". This is a
>weak argument, of course, but I think it counts as an implication..
What about the Devastator's fly-over at the beginning of ANH? That
was rather awe-inspiring too, but we know now that a single
Imperator-class star destroyer is nothing special.
>>In fact, "official" SW material has the peculiar tendency to
>>downscale the Executor (5 mile fallacy) while simultaneously
>>exaggerating its significance as a borderline superweapon. One
>>example that I'll never forget is Vice-Admiral Pellaeon's remark in
>>Darksaber that the Executor's construction nearly bankrupted the
>>Empire. This is laughable. The Executor is like a drop in the bucket
>>compared to two Death Stars.
>
>...But let's not talk about Darksaber.
Agreed.
>Perhaps we should mention Han's "There's lots of command-ships" line in
>ROTJ. Although obviously intended to comfort Luke, it implies that at the
>very least, Han isn't particularly impressed by the Executor. Even if the
>Executor is the first or even only SSD (it's Vader's flagship, after all,
>so the argument that he would have a unique/custom ship makes sense), there
>may have been similar ships of similar size, perhaps with similar
>designation.
The rebels didn't seem particularly impressed by the Executor in TESB
either. Not one reference to Vader's scary new ship. They just
treated it like another star destroyer that needed to be eluded.
> To cite an admittedly apocryphical example: in the Dark Empire
>sourcebook, the Eclipse and Souvereign are considered to be in the same
>class despite looking very different.
I seem to recall the Eclipse and Sovereign-classes being separate and
distinct.
Anonymous
>> >But superdreadnaught was a genuine term.
>>
>> According to whom?
>
>According to most WWI naval officers and designers.
Feel free to cite references and quotes at any time.
>> > One also has supertankers.
>>
>> Another colloquialism?
>
>I don't know. All I know is that the terms exist. They may not be as
>'official' as 'superdreadnaught', but 'supercarrier' and 'supertanker' have as
>wide a currency as 'Super Star Destroyer'.
The existence of the term isn't evidence of its officiality.
>> Exactly. It's commonly accepted that Imperator-class star destroyers
>> were around for a good while before ANH took place.
>
>'commonly accepted'? We accept the 'Imperator-class Imperial Star Destroyer'
>because it has appeared in the scripts and the earliest plans under that name,
>and the name originates with ILM and GL himself.
I'm not disputing the class name, I'm pointing out that we accept that
this type of star destroyer wasn't brand new in ANH.
>> Why then do we
>> assume that Executor-class vessels are new? Because we didn't see
>> them in ANH? We originally didn't see Lambda-class shuttles until
>> ROTJ, but TESB:SE shows that they were around before then.
>
>Because that's the general implication of everything about the ship.
Cite examples please.
>> >> My point is that while Executor-class is infinitely preferable to
>> >> Super-class, we apparently have no LFL-designated canon evidence that
>> >> the Executor was the first of its class or that these ships weren't
>> >> around even before ANH. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>I think the fact that they were 'creating' this massive new ship meant they
>considered it a new class.
When were they shown creating it? It was fully built when we first
saw it in TESB.
>> >While LFL have never said that Executor was the first, I think that's at
>> >least implied in ESB, and all other SW material has supported this view.
>>
>> How is it implied in TESB? From what I remember, no one ever referred
>> to the Executor as new or special or even that it was of an uncommon
>> type.
>
>That establishing shot, and the fact that it was, in ILM terms, being designed
>as new, all imply newness, as does the fact that it isn't in ANH (though I
>tend to believe it may well have been fitting out at that time).
Okay, so what about the famous "establishing shot" of the Devastator
in ANH? Does that imply newness too? If not, why?
I don't think we were necessarily supposed to say "Look, a new ship!"
as much as we were supposed to be awestruck by the Executor's
immensity.
>> In fact, "official" SW material has the peculiar tendency to
>> downscale the Executor (5 mile fallacy) while simultaneously
>> exaggerating its significance as a borderline superweapon.
>
>I think it is always downplayed in both senses. For all that people make a
>fuss, the SSDs of the novels never seem to have the power they should. The
>only time a SSD has actually shown its teeth convincingly is 'off-camera' at
>Orinda (aluded to in the BFC) where it shot apart the NR flagship straight off
>the mark.
The Lusankya's defeat really bothered me too.
>> One example that I'll never forget is Vice-Admiral Pellaeon's remark in
>> Darksaber that the Executor's construction nearly bankrupted the
>> Empire. This is laughable. The Executor is like a drop in the bucket
>> compared to two Death Stars.
>
>That's KJA.
Well, to be fair, I think he may have admitted that Pellaeon was only
exaggerating. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
>> >(Lusankya was actually the first, btw :-)
>>
>> I absolutely loathe the convoluted explanation of the Lusankya's origin.
>
>Aw, come on, it's not that bad.
Isn't that the explanation that tries to separate Kuat Drive Yards
(the corporation) from the starship yards of Fondor (a location)? I
thought Stackpole would have realized that KDY maintains many
different yards in many different systems.
Anonymous
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 10:31:55 GMT, "G"
<glyn.sim...@crispgroup.co.uks> wrote:
>> Actually, yes. In ROTJ, Vader arrived at the Death Star in an
>> Imperator-class star destroyer before the Executor finally showed up.
>
>perhaps Vader was needed on DS2 but the SSD was needed elsewhere
The same line of reasoning could be used to explain why he wasn't
commanding the Executor in ANH...
>> Personally, I'd think an SSD would be the standard command ship for
>> all Grand Admirals and the highest ranking sector fleet commanders
>> (High Admirals and/or Moffs).
>
>then what was that bit at the beginning of ESB where you see all of the
>ordinary SD's and that you see the shadow cast onto the, as something even
>bigger comes into view, and Vader's on the bridge of the SSD there
What about it?
>the SSD was created between ANH and ESB so until GL makes episode 4.5 it
>seems that Super is the class and Executor is the first
I'll never accept "Super-class."
Anonymous
>> Feel free to cite references and quotes at any time.
>
>Look, I'm doing this from memory, and I don't have the time to take a 700 mile trek
>to get the books. Just about any major work on the Dreadnaught arms race should
>make it clear. The technical difference between a 'dreadnaught' and a
>'superdreadnaught' was that the former normally had 12-inch guns, the latter,
>13.5-inch. Also, they tended to be faster, larger, better armoured, and had their
>turrets all set out on the centerline so they could all be brought to bear on
>either side of the ship.
"Supercarriers" also have such relatively minor differences from
previous classes of aircraft carriers, but that still doesn't make
"supercarrier" an official technical designation.
>I'm not an expert, okay?
That's exactly my purpose for requesting quotes.
>> The existence of the term isn't evidence of its officiality.
>
>But whether or not they are, the fact remains that the terms exist, and are used.
>'movie' isn't an 'official' term, nor is 'car'. These terms have better currency
>than those. Don't be obtuse.
Obtuse? The issue is whether or not "Super Star Destroyer" is the
official designation for the type of ship that the Executor is. The
fact that real world "super" vessels are also called such is hardly
supportive evidence of the officiality of "Super Star Destroyer" in a
technical sense, especially since "supercarrier" et al is *also* a
colloquial designation.
>> I'm not disputing the class name, I'm pointing out that we accept that
>> this type of star destroyer wasn't brand new in ANH.
>
>Because it's accepted that the ISD is the common starship of the Empire, and ILM
>built it as such.
Granted. That still doesn't explain why the Devastator's first
appearance didn't trigger this knee-jerk "it's new!" reaction that the
Executor's apparently did.
>> Cite examples please.
>
>Basically, ILM built the Executor as a 'new' ship for ESB. A normal ISD would have
>been acceptable in the role, as it is in the early scripts, but the Executor is
>bigger, better, newer.
It's bigger and better, but why is it necessarily newer? Like I said
before, ILM designed the Lambda-class shuttle for ROTJ. This
obviously doesn't mean that this type of shuttle wasn't around any
earlier. In fact, we now know for sure it was around earlier because
it was later inserted into the new scenes in TESB:SE.
Being a new ILM design doesn't necessarily mean it's new *within the
Star Wars storyline*.
>> When were they shown creating it? It was fully built when we first
>> saw it in TESB.
>
>ILM created it. Unlike most of the other SW ships, it didn't 'fill a gap' - it shot
>off the top of the scale.
So?
>> Okay, so what about the famous "establishing shot" of the Devastator
>> in ANH? Does that imply newness too? If not, why?
>
>No. It implies the relative helplessness of Leia and the Tantive IV
Then the Executor's first appearance is similarly open to
interpretation. I believe it was shown the way it was simply to
underscore its enormous size relative to its also huge, but
dwarfish-by-comparison, ISD escorts.
>> I don't think we were necessarily supposed to say "Look, a new ship!"
>> as much as we were supposed to be awestruck by the Executor's
>> immensity.
>
>The Executor is different from the Death Star. That's the key.
How is that the key? The Executor was never played up as the Death
Star's successor. In fact, the characters never make so much as one
impressed remark about it, whereas they couldn't shut up about the
Death Star in ANH..
>> The Lusankya's defeat really bothered me too.
>
>Not just the Lusankya. In that case, with the CM trap and the hard-fighting SDs,
>there's an element of possibility. It would have been better if they'd set the
>battle somewere it was more difficult for the Lusankya to fight - like the famous
>harrying-to-death of the French Battleship Droits d'Homme in 1798 by two RN
>frigates in a hurricane off Brittany in which the gun-crews aboard 'Indefatigable',
>the larger frigate, were 'up to their middles in water' according to Captain
>Pellew's official report.
I'd say the Executor is *far* larger and way more powerful than an
Imperator-class SD compared, relatively speaking, to a late 1700s-era
French battleship versus two British frigates.
>That well-referenced enough for you?
Sure. I'm just not sure I think the analogy was a good one.
>> Isn't that the explanation that tries to separate Kuat Drive Yards
>> (the corporation) from the starship yards of Fondor (a location)? I
>> thought Stackpole would have realized that KDY maintains many
>> different yards in many different systems.
>
>No. Kuat Drive Yards have many shipyards, including Gyndine and Fondor. Now
>originally, there were THREE places the Executor was built: Kuat, Gyndine and
>Fondor. Now this was rationalised by saying that Gyndine was in the Kuat system,
>but Fondor was unfortunately established as being somewhere else.
>
>It's all a mess.
Yes.
Who said the Executor was built at Gyndine?
Michael Mierzwa
policraticus wrote:
> Look, I'm doing this from memory, and I don't have the time to take a 700 mile trek
> to get the books. Just about any major work on the Dreadnaught arms race should
> make it clear. The technical difference between a 'dreadnaught' and a
> 'superdreadnaught' was that the former normally had 12-inch guns, the latter,
> 13.5-inch. Also, they tended to be faster, larger, better armoured, and had their
> turrets all set out on the centerline so they could all be brought to bear on
> either side of the ship.
>
> I'm not an expert, okay?
Well, citing gun diameters makes you still informed about the issue. ;)
For a rec.* group, that is usually good enough. Please continue, it is
interesting reading ... I just have little to offer on ship classes and
weapons.
Michael Mierzwa
-remember, I just make targets
G
> I'll never accept "Super-class."
How about "Simply Spiffing class"
you must admit it's got a ring to it
policraticus
Anonymous wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 03:07:02 +0100, policraticus
> <policr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Feel free to cite references and quotes at any time.
> >
> >Look, I'm doing this from memory, and I don't have the time to take a 700 mile trek
> >to get the books. Just about any major work on the Dreadnaught arms race should
> >make it clear. The technical difference between a 'dreadnaught' and a
> >'superdreadnaught' was that the former normally had 12-inch guns, the latter,
> >13.5-inch. Also, they tended to be faster, larger, better armoured, and had their
> >turrets all set out on the centerline so they could all be brought to bear on
> >either side of the ship.
>
> "Supercarriers" also have such relatively minor differences
Minor? Compare the Nimitz with the Ark Royal or the Foch! The difference between a 12'
and a 13.5' gun is a lot more than the relative sizes might suggest. Of course, there's
never been anything the size of the Executor in the real world, but that's because
no-one has the resources.
> from previous classes of aircraft carriers, but that still doesn't make
> "supercarrier" an official technical designation.
They are used terms.
> >I'm not an expert, okay?
>
> That's exactly my purpose for requesting quotes.
What, because you're desperately trying to hang on?To make my argument seem weaker than
it is?
To prove that 'Super Star Destroyer' - a term that appears in the films, and for which
there is no evidence that it originated outside ILM - is a 'wrong' term?
I agree that the 'five-mile fallacy' is a pile of bantha c**p, and that 'Super-class
Star Destroyer' is wrong, but I see no reason to deny the designation 'Executor-class
Super Star Destroyer'. Can you give me one reason why I should?
> >> The existence of the term isn't evidence of its officiality.
> >
> >But whether or not they are, the fact remains that the terms exist, and are used.
> >'movie' isn't an 'official' term, nor is 'car'. These terms have better currency
> >than those. Don't be obtuse.
>
> Obtuse? The issue is whether or not "Super Star Destroyer" is the
> official designation for the type of ship that the Executor is. The
> fact that real world "super" vessels are also called such is hardly
> supportive evidence of the officiality of "Super Star Destroyer" in a
> technical sense, especially since "supercarrier" et al is *also* a
> colloquial designation.
Sorry? I am supplying examples - and superdreadnaught is still an official term (try a
book called 'Dreadnaught', published about 5 years back. Just go to your local library
and look in the naval history section.) - and you have so far given no evidence as to
why the SSD *shouldn't* be called an SSD. The onus is on you, mate.
> >> I'm not disputing the class name, I'm pointing out that we accept that
> >> this type of star destroyer wasn't brand new in ANH.
> >
> >Because it's accepted that the ISD is the common starship of the Empire, and ILM
> >built it as such.
>
> Granted. That still doesn't explain why the Devastator's first
> appearance didn't trigger this knee-jerk "it's new!" reaction that the
> Executor's apparently did.
I don't think the Ex is brand new in ESB. As I have said elsewhere, I think it could
well have come into service soon after ANH. But *after* ANH
> >> Cite examples please.
> >
> >Basically, ILM built the Executor as a 'new' ship for ESB. A normal ISD would have
> >been acceptable in the role, as it is in the early scripts, but the Executor is
> >bigger, better, newer.
>
> It's bigger and better, but why is it necessarily newer? Like I said
> before, ILM designed the Lambda-class shuttle for ROTJ. This
> obviously doesn't mean that this type of shuttle wasn't around any
> earlier. In fact, we now know for sure it was around earlier because
> it was later inserted into the new scenes in TESB:SE.
See above.
> Being a new ILM design doesn't necessarily mean it's new *within the
> Star Wars storyline*.
I don't have 'Skywalking' or anything here, but I imagine there are some grounds for
everyone assuming this.
> >> When were they shown creating it? It was fully built when we first
> >> saw it in TESB.
> >
> >ILM created it. Unlike most of the other SW ships, it didn't 'fill a gap' - it shot
> >off the top of the scale.
>
> So?
Maybe I'm assuming too much. Okay? What's your evidence for your claims?
> >> Okay, so what about the famous "establishing shot" of the Devastator
> >> in ANH? Does that imply newness too? If not, why?
> >
> >No. It implies the relative helplessness of Leia and the Tantive IV
>
> Then the Executor's first appearance is similarly open to
> interpretation. I believe it was shown the way it was simply to
> underscore its enormous size relative to its also huge, but
> dwarfish-by-comparison, ISD escorts.
What? Battleships are helpless because there's a super-battleship? As I said, I never
pretended it's brand-new, just new since ANH!
> >> I don't think we were necessarily supposed to say "Look, a new ship!"
> >> as much as we were supposed to be awestruck by the Executor's
> >> immensity.
> >
> >The Executor is different from the Death Star. That's the key.
>
> How is that the key? The Executor was never played up as the Death
> Star's successor.
Precisely! With the DS, its "Oh look! A massive superweapon".
With the Executor, it's "Oh, look! A new battleship!"
> In fact, the characters never make so much as one
> impressed remark about it, whereas they couldn't shut up about the
> Death Star in ANH..
Because they'd seen it before - and they're plenty impressed in ROTJ!
> >> The Lusankya's defeat really bothered me too.
> >
> >Not just the Lusankya. In that case, with the CM trap and the hard-fighting SDs,
> >there's an element of possibility. It would have been better if they'd set the
> >battle somewere it was more difficult for the Lusankya to fight - like the famous
> >harrying-to-death of the French Battleship Droits d'Homme in 1798 by two RN
> >frigates in a hurricane off Brittany in which the gun-crews aboard 'Indefatigable',
> >the larger frigate, were 'up to their middles in water' according to Captain
> >Pellew's official report.
>
> I'd say the Executor is *far* larger and way more powerful than an
> Imperator-class SD compared, relatively speaking, to a late 1700s-era
> French battleship versus two British frigates.
It's the nearest parallel I can think of. The Droits de l'Homme probably had at least
three times the broadside of the Indefatigable and Amazon combined, and a much stronger
hull. Rough calculation - the Amazon was a 28-gun frigate, with a main armament of 9- or
at most 12-pdr guns (weight of 1 cannonball in pounds). Indefatigable was a 44, with
24-pdrs on the main deck. Droits de l'Homme was an 80, with 42-pdrs on the main deck
(and remember, 42 lbs Paris = more than 45 lbs Imperial) and either 24-pdrs or 18-pdrs
on the upper-deck. I don't have the plans with me - though I do at home - but I can tell
you for a fact that quite a lot of the Indy's guns (9-pdrs at this stage, I think) were
on the quarterdeck, as was common for frigates. If there were 18 on the upper deck, that
gives it a broadside of 393 lbs, plus Amazon's weight of metal, which couldn't have been
much more than 150. Thus the British ships had a maximum weight of metal of 550lbs.
Droits de l'Homme had a broadside of something more than a thousand lbs.
These are rough calculations, being liberal in estimating the RN ships' firepower,
conservative for the French one's.
The battleship should have blasted both frigates to scrap.
> >That well-referenced enough for you?
>
> Sure. I'm just not sure I think the analogy was a good one.
I think it's quite good. But anyway....OK. Got a better one. Try the defeat of the
pocket battleship Graf Spee by a British Cruiser squadron in 1939. Like the Lusankya,
the Germans could have fought on, but they recieved such a pounding that they didn't
dare, and scuttled the ship. The Spee had eight 5.5-inch guns, and six eleven-inch. The
RN ships - Exeter and two A-class light cruisers, Apollo and Ajax, I think - were almost
unarmoured, and, IIRC, between them, twelve 6-inch and eight eight-inch. If I had my
1941 Jane's Fighting Ships to hand, I could tell you exactly how much the difference in
weight of metal and explosives is. It's a lot (remember, the caliber measures the
diameter, so an 11-inch shell is a lot bigger - six or eight times - than even an
8-inch).
Happy?
> >> Isn't that the explanation that tries to separate Kuat Drive Yards
> >> (the corporation) from the starship yards of Fondor (a location)? I
> >> thought Stackpole would have realized that KDY maintains many
> >> different yards in many different systems.
> >
> >No. Kuat Drive Yards have many shipyards, including Gyndine and Fondor. Now
> >originally, there were THREE places the Executor was built: Kuat, Gyndine and
> >Fondor. Now this was rationalised by saying that Gyndine was in the Kuat system,
> >but Fondor was unfortunately established as being somewhere else.
> >
> >It's all a mess.
>
> Yes.
>
> Who said the Executor was built at Gyndine?
I can't remember. Essential Guide? I always thought Kuat and Gyndine were 'rationalised'
as the same place. I may be wrong. anyway, the fact remains that Kuat and Fondor are
different systems.
Policrat'
policraticus
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> policraticus wrote:
>
> > Look, I'm doing this from memory, and I don't have the time to take a 700 mile trek
> > to get the books. Just about any major work on the Dreadnaught arms race should
> > make it clear. The technical difference between a 'dreadnaught' and a
> > 'superdreadnaught' was that the former normally had 12-inch guns, the latter,
> > 13.5-inch. Also, they tended to be faster, larger, better armoured, and had their
> > turrets all set out on the centerline so they could all be brought to bear on
> > either side of the ship.
> >
> > I'm not an expert, okay?
>
> Well, citing gun diameters makes you still informed about the issue. ;)
Thanks :-)
I do my best!
> For a rec.* group, that is usually good enough. Please continue, it is
> interesting reading ... I just have little to offer on ship classes and
> weapons.
> -remember, I just make targets
LOL!
I remember :-)
Policrat'
Gerthein Boersma
"Anonymous, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>>One could argue that, quite simply, the way in which the Executor is
>>*brought into view* implies that it's something "ratha spesh". This is a
>>weak argument, of course, but I think it counts as an implication..
>What about the Devastator's fly-over at the beginning of ANH? That
>was rather awe-inspiring too, but we know now that a single
>Imperator-class star destroyer is nothing special.
The entire *galaxy* was new then! Naturally, the establishing shot of the
Devastator is meant to introduce *us* to this mammoth of a ship rather than
introduce the universe to it, but the manner in which the Executor is shown
to dwarf the 'regular' Star Destroyers could be seen as a suggestion that
there's a new big boy in town in this sequel.
>The rebels didn't seem particularly impressed by the Executor in TESB
>either. Not one reference to Vader's scary new ship. They just
>treated it like another star destroyer that needed to be eluded.
Perhaps that's because the fleeing Rebel fleet was so weak that it didn't
matter whether they were going to be bitten by a dog or a bear. While
there's no dialogue that indicates that the Executor is particularly
awe-inspiring, I have to agree to an extent with the argument that the
camera-work suggests it. More importantly, perhaps, is that believing the
Executor isn't the first one and particularly powerful somewhat cheapens
its impact.
>> To cite an admittedly apocryphical example: in the Dark Empire
>>sourcebook, the Eclipse and Souvereign are considered to be in the same
>>class despite looking very different.
>I seem to recall the Eclipse and Sovereign-classes being separate and
>distinct.
Depends somewhat on what you look at. The scale-comparison on page 91 of
the DE sourcebook call them "Eclipse-class" and "Sovereign-class"
respectively. On the other hand, both ships are designated as being of
"Super Star Destroyer"-type.
Michael Mierzwa
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Okay, so what about the famous "establishing shot" of the Devastator
> in ANH? Does that imply newness too? If not, why?
OK, people can argue semantics all day and get no where ... that is
fine.
I think many people will agree:
The Devastator as shown in ANH is a simple ship of the line and neither
too old, nor brand spanking new.
The Executor as shown in ESB is *not* your simple ship of the line and
is fairly new.
The issue isn't what:
1) Lucas told somebody,
2) a model maker said in 1980,
3) a model maker later said in 1990 that contradicts the 1980 statement,
4) what a comic book/strip says,
5) what any novel says,
6) what WEG says.
It is *entirely* the impression people got when they first watched SW
(it is SW to me ... I saw it in '77 before there was a ESB or ROTJ) and
when they first watched ESB. :)
So what do other people think?
Devastator? New or Old?
Executor? New or Old?
Michael Mierzwa
Anonymous
>> from previous classes of aircraft carriers, but that still doesn't make
>> "supercarrier" an official technical designation.
>
>They are used terms.
"Used terms" aren't necessarily official technical designations. A US
Navy admiral might proudly refer to the USS Kitty Hawk as a
"supercarrier," but that still doesn't make the term technically
accurate.
>> That's exactly my purpose for requesting quotes.
>
>What, because you're desperately trying to hang on?To make my argument seem weaker than
>it is?
Because I want clarification on the matter beyond your own empirical
research. In other words, show me don't tell me.
>To prove that 'Super Star Destroyer' - a term that appears in the films, and for which
>there is no evidence that it originated outside ILM - is a 'wrong' term?
>
>I agree that the 'five-mile fallacy' is a pile of bantha c**p, and that 'Super-class
>Star Destroyer' is wrong, but I see no reason to deny the designation 'Executor-class
>Super Star Destroyer'. Can you give me one reason why I should?
Because the Executor isn't even a "destroyer." A destroyer is a
small, fast warship that usually acts as an escort vessel for larger
warships. The ISDs fit this description well, but the Executor most
certainly does *not*. At least terms like "supercarrier" and
"supertanker" still accurately describe the function of the ships,
whether or not the "super" prefix is official.
I'd prefer to think of the Executor as a star battlecruiser or
something to that effect.
>Sorry? I am supplying examples - and superdreadnaught is still an official term (try a
>book called 'Dreadnaught', published about 5 years back. Just go to your local library
>and look in the naval history section.) - and you have so far given no evidence as to
>why the SSD *shouldn't* be called an SSD. The onus is on you, mate.
See above, dude.
>> Granted. That still doesn't explain why the Devastator's first
>> appearance didn't trigger this knee-jerk "it's new!" reaction that the
>> Executor's apparently did.
>
>I don't think the Ex is brand new in ESB. As I have said elsewhere, I think it could
>well have come into service soon after ANH. But *after* ANH
But *why* after ANH? If you can accept that the Executor was
constructed at some point before TESB, why must you arbritrarily draw
the line at some point after ANH? We didn't see it in ANH, yes, but
we also didn't see AT-ATs, AT-STs, TIE bombers, etc. before TESB
either. Do you believe these were also constructed after ANH?
>> It's bigger and better, but why is it necessarily newer? Like I said
>> before, ILM designed the Lambda-class shuttle for ROTJ. This
>> obviously doesn't mean that this type of shuttle wasn't around any
>> earlier. In fact, we now know for sure it was around earlier because
>> it was later inserted into the new scenes in TESB:SE.
>
>See above.
Ditto.
>> Being a new ILM design doesn't necessarily mean it's new *within the
>> Star Wars storyline*.
>
>I don't have 'Skywalking' or anything here, but I imagine there are some grounds for
>everyone assuming this.
I'm still waiting for some kind of supportive evidence, but I guess
now you'll just say I'm being "desperate," right?
>> >ILM created it. Unlike most of the other SW ships, it didn't 'fill a gap' - it shot
>> >off the top of the scale.
>>
>> So?
>
>Maybe I'm assuming too much. Okay? What's your evidence for your claims?
That depends on what you believe I need to prove.
>> Then the Executor's first appearance is similarly open to
>> interpretation. I believe it was shown the way it was simply to
>> underscore its enormous size relative to its also huge, but
>> dwarfish-by-comparison, ISD escorts.
>
>What? Battleships are helpless because there's a super-battleship?
Not at all.
> As I said, I never
>pretended it's brand-new, just new since ANH!
But only because we never actually saw it in ANH, right?
>> >The Executor is different from the Death Star. That's the key.
>>
>> How is that the key? The Executor was never played up as the Death
>> Star's successor.
>
>Precisely! With the DS, its "Oh look! A massive superweapon".
They were far more awestruck than that about the Death Star.
>With the Executor, it's "Oh, look! A new battleship!"
The never even said that much.
>> In fact, the characters never make so much as one
>> impressed remark about it, whereas they couldn't shut up about the
>> Death Star in ANH..
>
>Because they'd seen it before - and they're plenty impressed in ROTJ!
Oh really?
Solo's one comment about the Executor was "there are a lot of command
ships" and Luke was only intimidated by *Vader's presence* on the
Executor, not the Executor itself.
>The battleship should have blasted both frigates to scrap.
Indeed. I still think the Executor would be more akin to a
hypothetical RN battleship at least 15 times larger.
>> Sure. I'm just not sure I think the analogy was a good one.
>
>I think it's quite good. But anyway....OK. Got a better one. Try the defeat of the
>pocket battleship Graf Spee by a British Cruiser squadron in 1939. Like the Lusankya,
>the Germans could have fought on, but they recieved such a pounding that they didn't
>dare, and scuttled the ship. The Spee had eight 5.5-inch guns, and six eleven-inch. The
>RN ships - Exeter and two A-class light cruisers, Apollo and Ajax, I think - were almost
>unarmoured, and, IIRC, between them, twelve 6-inch and eight eight-inch. If I had my
>1941 Jane's Fighting Ships to hand, I could tell you exactly how much the difference in
>weight of metal and explosives is. It's a lot (remember, the caliber measures the
>diameter, so an 11-inch shell is a lot bigger - six or eight times - than even an
>8-inch).
>
>Happy?
I appreciate your analogy, I just don't there *is* a real life
parallel for an Executor vs. ISD battle.
>I can't remember. Essential Guide? I always thought Kuat and Gyndine were 'rationalised'
>as the same place. I may be wrong. anyway, the fact remains that Kuat and Fondor are
>different systems.
I can buy that. I still don't like the Lusankya mess.
policraticus
Anonymous wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:04:29 +0100, policraticus
<policr...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> from previous classes of aircraft carriers, but that still doesn't make
>> "supercarrier" an official technical designation.
>
>They are used terms."Used terms" aren't necessarily official technical designations. A US
Navy admiral might proudly refer to the USS Kitty Hawk as a
"supercarrier," but that still doesn't make the term technically
accurate.
Well, what does it make it? We're talking about a generic term here, not a specific class-name.
>> That's exactly my purpose for requesting quotes.
>
>What, because you're desperately trying to hang on?To make my argument seem weaker than
>it is?Because I want clarification on the matter beyond your own empirical
research. In other words, show me don't tell me.
Unfortunately, there never will be clarification. The only way that SW continuity can be resolved into anything like sense is through the use of value judgements, untestable hypotheses and 'empirical research'. I don't think it's really necessary to provide footnotes and a biblioghraphy on RASSM. If you're desperate for facts, with a little ingenuity, you should be able to find out the evidence for yourself with the pointers I've given you.
>To prove that 'Super Star Destroyer' - a term that appears in the films, and for which
>there is no evidence that it originated outside ILM - is a 'wrong' term?
>
>I agree that the 'five-mile fallacy' is a pile of bantha c**p, and that 'Super-class
>Star Destroyer' is wrong, but I see no reason to deny the designation 'Executor-class
>Super Star Destroyer'. Can you give me one reason why I should?Because the Executor isn't even a "destroyer." A destroyer is a
small, fast warship that usually acts as an escort vessel for larger
warships. The ISDs fit this description well, but the Executor most
certainly does *not*. At least terms like "supercarrier" and
"supertanker" still accurately describe the function of the ships,
whether or not the "super" prefix is official.
Where, out of interest, does your definition come from? I can't think of any point in history where this would be entirely accurate. In most major navies today, destroyers are the main surface warships that don't have a dedicated aircraft-carrying role (and Lucas wrote SW before, as far as I know, the USN began to build ships called cruisers again, or to recommission its battleships after decades in reserve.)
I'd prefer to think of the Executor as a star battlecruiser or
something to that effect.
Not 'battlecruiser'. That is a very specific naval term used and abused even by the very clued-in K-Mac. It should refer to a battleship-sized ship designed primarily to take on smaller ships. It refers particularly the ships originally called 'Dreadnaught Armoured Cruisers' - but immediately known in all but the most official documents, and later, officially, as 'battlecruisers' - built by the Royal Navy between 1908 and 1918. Developed parallel to the Dreadnaught battleship, they placed speed above armour and weight of metal. The last battlecruisers, those built or modified between the World Wars, notably the German Scharnhorst and Gneisnau, were basically light battleships, but still with the stress on attacking commerce and fighting cruisers.
The Executor could be called a Star Battleship, perhaps. But personally, I think Super Star Destroyer actually sounds better.
I have already posted my detailed theory on naval terminology in the SW universe at least twice. If you want to find it, go to dejanews and do a power search of posts by Policraticus on RASSM for the phrase 'trade frigate'.
Now I've given you a reference, use it :-)
>Sorry? I am supplying examples - and superdreadnaught is still an official term (try a
>book called 'Dreadnaught', published about 5 years back. Just go to your local library
>and look in the naval history section.) - and you have so far given no evidence as to
>why the SSD *shouldn't* be called an SSD. The onus is on you, mate.See above, dude.
Thanks. I think we disagree. More importantly, Ackbar calls the Executor a SSD, which, if your theory above is correct, would be like Nelson calling the 'Santissima Trinidada' a 'very big frigate'. It would be technically inaccurate and rather silly.
>> Granted. That still doesn't explain why the Devastator's first
>> appearance didn't trigger this knee-jerk "it's new!" reaction that the
>> Executor's apparently did.
>
>I don't think the Ex is brand new in ESB. As I have said elsewhere, I think it could
>well have come into service soon after ANH. But *after* ANHBut *why* after ANH? If you can accept that the Executor was
constructed at some point before TESB, why must you arbritrarily draw
the line at some point after ANH? We didn't see it in ANH, yes, but
we also didn't see AT-ATs, AT-STs, TIE bombers, etc. before TESB
either. Do you believe these were also constructed after ANH?
No, but that's because there was no NEED to see them in ANH. Since Vader is gadding about the Galaxy in battleships in ANH, one suspects that he'd have used the Executor if he'd had it.
>> It's bigger and better, but why is it necessarily newer? Like I said
>> before, ILM designed the Lambda-class shuttle for ROTJ. This
>> obviously doesn't mean that this type of shuttle wasn't around any
>> earlier. In fact, we now know for sure it was around earlier because
>> it was later inserted into the new scenes in TESB:SE.
>
>See above.Ditto.
And again.
>> Being a new ILM design doesn't necessarily mean it's new *within the
>> Star Wars storyline*.
>
>I don't have 'Skywalking' or anything here, but I imagine there are some grounds for
>everyone assuming this.I'm still waiting for some kind of supportive evidence, but I guess
now you'll just say I'm being "desperate," right?
No. I'd say that for someone whose critical standards in this post seem (if I may be frank) to be a lot lower than mine (and I'll admit that I'm raising my game because you have protested that I'm giving examples unreferenced - I normally wouldn't be any more exact than you) you are being a bit unfair. I'm sorry if that seems harsh - it's not meant to be. I like to try and keep my posts on a friendly level. I think you do the same.
Right now, I do not have any concrete evidence from the SW 'canon' or the ILM workshop, though there is the 'official', if slightly dubious evidence, of the Classic SW comic strip and WEG in my favour. There may in fact not be any canon evidence. The films say nothing concrete, though I'd be interested to know what the ESB novel and radio drama say, and I do not have any official ILM/LFL information to hand.
In that case, we are reduced to arguing in all cases on probabilities. I have yet to be convinced by yours - though I'm keeping an open mind.
>> >ILM created it. Unlike most of the other SW ships, it didn't 'fill a gap' - it shot
>> >off the top of the scale.
>>
>> So?
>
>Maybe I'm assuming too much. Okay? What's your evidence for your claims?That depends on what you believe I need to prove.
Let me see:
(i) That the term 'Super Star Destroyer' is not an acceptable classification
for the Executor, but is instead the unofficial, slangy and inaccurate
term you seem to believe.
(ii) That there is any evidence for believing that the Executor - or
any other ship in its class - was built before the timeframe of SW:ANH.
>>> It implies the relative helplessness of Leia and the Tantive IV
>> Then the Executor's first appearance is similarly open to
>> interpretation. I believe it was shown the way it was simply to
>> underscore its enormous size relative to its also huge, but
>> dwarfish-by-comparison, ISD escorts.
>
>What? Battleships are helpless because there's a super-battleship?Not at all.
> As I said, I never
>pretended it's brand-new, just new since ANH!But only because we never actually saw it in ANH, right?
Partly, but also because that's the general view, and more importantly, because such evidence as there is all points that way.
>> >The Executor is different from the Death Star. That's the key.
>>
>> How is that the key? The Executor was never played up as the Death
>> Star's successor.
>
>Precisely! With the DS, its "Oh look! A massive superweapon".They were far more awestruck than that about the Death Star.
>With the Executor, it's "Oh, look! A new battleship!"
The never even said that much.
I'm talking about audience reaction. The Death Star first appears as something simply massive - with the Devastator disappearing into a pinprick as it approaches. It is the scale of it that is impressive.
The first appearance of the Executor, on the other hand, suggests both size and newness. It is shown *arriving* at the fleet, and it appears first simply as an unseen thing big enough to overshadow an entire squadron of ISDs.
>> In fact, the characters never make so much as one
>> impressed remark about it, whereas they couldn't shut up about the
>> Death Star in ANH..
>
>Because they'd seen it before - and they're plenty impressed in ROTJ!Oh really?
Solo's one comment about the Executor was "there are a lot of command
ships" and Luke was only intimidated by *Vader's presence* on the
Executor, not the Executor itself.
Perhaps, but every time it's mentioned, the script goes into overkill with words like "looms large", "massive", "huge" and so on. The size of the thing is supposed to be terrifyingly impressive. Not so much as the DS, but then, that's not the point.
>The battleship should have blasted both frigates to scrap.Indeed. I still think the Executor would be more akin to a
hypothetical RN battleship at least 15 times larger.
I'm trying to give examples. Remember, Stack accepts the WEG claim that the Executor is supposed to be five times the size of an ISD, with five times the firepower. In those terms, two ISDs, an old War Frigate, two fighter squadrons, a concussion-missile array and a lot of freighters aren't that bad odds.
>> Sure. I'm just not sure I think the analogy was a good one.
>
>I think it's quite good. But anyway....OK. Got a better one. Try the defeat of the
>pocket battleship Graf Spee by a British Cruiser squadron in 1939. Like the Lusankya,
>the Germans could have fought on, but they recieved such a pounding that they didn't
>dare, and scuttled the ship. The Spee had eight 5.5-inch guns, and six eleven-inch. The
>RN ships - Exeter and two A-class light cruisers, Apollo and Ajax, I think - were almost
>unarmoured, and, IIRC, between them, twelve 6-inch and eight eight-inch. If I had my
>1941 Jane's Fighting Ships to hand, I could tell you exactly how much the difference in
>weight of metal and explosives is. It's a lot (remember, the caliber measures the
>diameter, so an 11-inch shell is a lot bigger - six or eight times - than even an
>8-inch).
>
>Happy?I appreciate your analogy, I just don't there *is* a real life
parallel for an Executor vs. ISD battle.
Using the WEG stats, there are. Using the 'genuine' ones, there aren't - unless we go over to land and air battles - in which case some of the small battles after Waterloo, in which French regiments routed an Allied Division, with odds of at least five or six to one against, or the defence of Malta in WWII - three outmoded biplanes against the entire Italian Air Force - or the Relief of Clermont-Ferrard in the 470s, when 12 Roman irregular cavalry drove off a Visigothic army of several thousand, all serve as good examples.
>I can't remember. Essential Guide? I always thought Kuat and Gyndine were 'rationalised'
>as the same place. I may be wrong. anyway, the fact remains that Kuat and Fondor are
>different systems.I can buy that. I still don't like the Lusankya mess.
I'll live with it.
Policrat'
policraticus
> Devastator? New or Old?
Old!
> Executor? New or Old?
New!
Well, I would say that... :-)
Policrat'
Anonymous
On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 17:09:44 GMT, gert...@wxs.nl (Gerthein Boersma)
wrote:
>>What about the Devastator's fly-over at the beginning of ANH? That
>>was rather awe-inspiring too, but we know now that a single
>>Imperator-class star destroyer is nothing special.
>
>The entire *galaxy* was new then! Naturally, the establishing shot of the
>Devastator is meant to introduce *us* to this mammoth of a ship rather than
>introduce the universe to it, but the manner in which the Executor is shown
>to dwarf the 'regular' Star Destroyers could be seen as a suggestion that
>there's a new big boy in town in this sequel.
Then what about AT-ATs? Does their similiarly awe-inspiring
"establishing shot" imply this same vague sense of newness simply
because they're big and we never saw them in ANH?
>>The rebels didn't seem particularly impressed by the Executor in TESB
>>either. Not one reference to Vader's scary new ship. They just
>>treated it like another star destroyer that needed to be eluded.
>
>Perhaps that's because the fleeing Rebel fleet was so weak that it didn't
>matter whether they were going to be bitten by a dog or a bear. While
>there's no dialogue that indicates that the Executor is particularly
>awe-inspiring, I have to agree to an extent with the argument that the
>camera-work suggests it.
I think the camera-work most definitely suggests power, enormity,
etc., but I think the "It's new" reaction is simply borne out of the
fact that we, the audience, never saw it prior to TESB, just like we
never saw AT-ATs, AT-STs, TIE bombers, "snowtroopers," etc. There's
absolutely no canon evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that
the Executor wasn't around during or even before ANH.
>More importantly, perhaps, is that believing the
>Executor isn't the first one and particularly powerful somewhat cheapens
>its impact.
Even if the Executor *is* the first of its class, that doesn't mean it
was only recently built sometime after ANH. I also don't think its
age has any impact on its status as a powerful ship.
>>I seem to recall the Eclipse and Sovereign-classes being separate and
>>distinct.
>
>Depends somewhat on what you look at. The scale-comparison on page 91 of
>the DE sourcebook call them "Eclipse-class" and "Sovereign-class"
>respectively. On the other hand, both ships are designated as being of
>"Super Star Destroyer"-type.
Yes, they're apparently of two different classes, yet the same general
"type" of ship.
Gebhard Blucher
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
[snip]
> So what do other people think?
>
> Devastator? New or Old?
Neither old nor new. Just a standard imperial ship o' the line.
> Executor? New or Old?
I am under the impression (from watching the movies) that it was just
one of several "command ships" in service (albeit of special importance
because it was Vader's "ride"); but I never thought of it as Vader's
personal ship.
GB
policraticus
Gebhard Blucher wrote:
> > Executor? New or Old?
>
> I am under the impression (from watching the movies) that it was just
> one of several "command ships" in service (albeit of special importance
> because it was Vader's "ride"); but I never thought of it as Vader's
> personal ship.
That's the implication of the scripts, actually. It is "DV's SD". And who
else would have a hyperbaric meditation chamber. At the Battle of Endor,
it's even called 'the Emperor's Super Star Destroyer", implying that it's
the overall flaship of the Imperial Fleet.
Policrat'
Anonymous
>> "Used terms" aren't necessarily official technical designations. A US
>> Navy admiral might proudly refer to the USS Kitty Hawk as a
>> "supercarrier," but that still doesn't make the term technically
>> accurate.
>
>Well, what does it make it? We're talking about a generic term here, not a specific
>class-name.
it's a colloquialism. The USS Kitty Hawk is an aircraft carrier on
paper yet is referred to as a "supercarrier" in spoken conversation.
>Unfortunately, there never will be clarification. The only way that SW continuity can be
>resolved into anything like sense is through the use of value judgements, untestable
>hypotheses and 'empirical research'. I don't think it's really necessary to provide footnotes
>and a biblioghraphy on RASSM. If you're desperate for facts, with a little ingenuity, you
>should be able to find out the evidence for yourself with the pointers I've given you.
Well, I still remain unconvinced of the validity of Super Star
Destroyer based on your other "super" examples (which only seem to
support the notion that Super Star Destroyer is also a colloquialism).
>> Because the Executor isn't even a "destroyer." A destroyer is a
>> small, fast warship that usually acts as an escort vessel for larger
>> warships. The ISDs fit this description well, but the Executor most
>> certainly does *not*. At least terms like "supercarrier" and
>> "supertanker" still accurately describe the function of the ships,
>> whether or not the "super" prefix is official.
>
>Where, out of interest, does your definition come from?
My World Book Dictionary. The exact definition is:
"a small, fast warship with guns, torpedoes, and other weapons. A
destroyer is used to attack submarines, as an escort vessel with
merchant convoys or larger warships."
My World Book Encyclopedia says:
"Destroyer is a warship used for various purposes. Navies use
destroyers chiefly to defend larger warships and amphibious and
merchant ships from enemy attack. Destroyers also bombard enemy
shores, escort convoys of merchant or military ships, participate in
searches and rescues at sea, and support amphibious landings."
> I can't think of any point in history
>where this would be entirely accurate. In most major navies today, destroyers are the main
>surface warships that don't have a dedicated aircraft-carrying role (and Lucas wrote SW
>before, as far as I know, the USN began to build ships called cruisers again, or to
>recommission its battleships after decades in reserve.)
Whether or destroyers are used in their traditional role by the USN
during peacetime isn't the question. The fact of that matter is that
the Executor most certainly does not fit this role.
>> I'd prefer to think of the Executor as a star battlecruiser or
>> something to that effect.
>
>Not 'battlecruiser'. That is a very specific naval term used and abused even by the very
>clued-in K-Mac. It should refer to a battleship-sized ship designed primarily to take on
>smaller ships. It refers particularly the ships originally called 'Dreadnaught Armoured
>Cruisers' - but immediately known in all but the most official documents, and later,
>officially, as 'battlecruisers' - built by the Royal Navy between 1908 and 1918. Developed
>parallel to the Dreadnaught battleship, they placed speed above armour and weight of metal.
>The last battlecruisers, those built or modified between the World Wars, notably the German
>Scharnhorst and Gneisnau, were basically light battleships, but still with the stress on
>attacking commerce and fighting cruisers.
>
>The Executor could be called a Star Battleship, perhaps.
Yes, I stand corrected. Star Battleship is preferable.
> But personally, I think Super Star Destroyer actually sounds better.
Oh, I agree! I'll be the first to admit that "Super Star Destroyer"
rolls off the tongue much easier than "Star Battleship." That still
doesn't mean it's technically correct.
>I have already posted my detailed theory on naval terminology in the SW universe at least
>twice. If you want to find it, go to dejanews and do a power search of posts by Policraticus
>on RASSM for the phrase 'trade frigate'.
>
>Now I've given you a reference, use it :-)
I'll look for it.
>> See above, dude.
>
>Thanks. I think we disagree. More importantly, Ackbar calls the Executor a SSD, which, if
>your theory above is correct, would be like Nelson calling the 'Santissima Trinidada' a 'very
>big frigate'. It would be technically inaccurate and rather silly.
The technical accuracy of "SSD" is the issue. Ackbar's use of the
term is indeed strange given the Executor's obvious role, by
traditional naval standards, as something quite different from a
destroyer.
>No, but that's because there was no NEED to see them in ANH. Since Vader is gadding about the
>Galaxy in battleships in ANH, one suspects that he'd have used the Executor if he'd had it.
He didn't use it at the beginning of ROTJ either...
>No. I'd say that for someone whose critical standards in this post seem (if I may be frank)
>to be a lot lower than mine (and I'll admit that I'm raising my game because you have
>protested that I'm giving examples unreferenced - I normally wouldn't be any more exact than
>you) you are being a bit unfair. I'm sorry if that seems harsh - it's not meant to be. I like
>to try and keep my posts on a friendly level. I think you do the same.
>Right now, I do not have any concrete evidence from the SW 'canon' or the ILM workshop,
>though there is the 'official', if slightly dubious evidence, of the Classic SW comic strip
>and WEG in my favour.
Granted.
>There may in fact not be any canon evidence. The films say nothing
>concrete, though I'd be interested to know what the ESB novel and radio drama say, and I do
>not have any official ILM/LFL information to hand.
The TESB radio drama describes the Executor as a "mega-dreadnaught
Star Destroyer," while the characters only refer to it as a "Star
Destroyer," not "Super Star Destroyer." I found not one reference to
its age though.
The novelization refers to it as a "Star Destroyer," although usually
preceded by an adjective like "mammoth" or "central." Again, no
reference to its age...
>In that case, we are reduced to arguing in all cases on probabilities. I have yet to be
>convinced by yours - though I'm keeping an open mind.
I'm not here to prove anything, just to cast doubt on the commonly
accepted notion that the Executor was created after ANH, the first of
its class, and that it's a destroyer in the technical sense.
>Let me see:
>
>(i) That the term 'Super Star Destroyer' is not an acceptable classification for the
>Executor, but is instead the unofficial, slangy and inaccurate term you seem to believe.
The "Super" part doesn't even bother me as much as "Destroyer" does.
The references that I quote above lead me to believe that SSD is
indeed inaccurate.
>(ii) That there is any evidence for believing that the Executor - or any other ship in its
>class - was built before the timeframe of SW:ANH.
I have no evidence for this. My objective is to show that there's no
evidence that it was built *after* ANH.
>> Not at all.
>
>I was being too rhetorical. I honestly think that the suspense in the arrival of the
>Executor, which appears as a massive shadow over the fleet is deliberate, because this is a
>new, unknown quantity in the balance of power, not simply a very very big ship.
A conclusion that neither the film, radio drama, or novelization
directly supports.
>> But only because we never actually saw it in ANH, right?
>
>Partly, but also because that's the general view,
The general view is also that the Executor is 8km long...
>and more importantly, because such evidence
>as there is all points that way.
Well, there's no canon evidence in favor of it. That's my point.
>I'm talking about audience reaction. The Death Star first appears as something simply massive
>- with the Devastator disappearing into a pinprick as it approaches. It is the scale of it
>that is impressive.
Audience reaction... Audience reaction to a previously
never-before-seen ship and the ship's age *within the storyline* are
two entirely separate matters.
>The first appearance of the Executor, on the other hand, suggests both size and newness. It
>is shown *arriving* at the fleet, and it appears first simply as an unseen thing big enough
>to overshadow an entire squadron of ISDs.
It's shown arriving? According to what source? The novel and radio
drama didn't say this.
>Perhaps, but every time it's mentioned, the script goes into overkill with words like "looms
>large", "massive", "huge" and so on. The size of the thing is supposed to be terrifyingly
>impressive. Not so much as the DS, but then, that's not the point.
Yes, it's big.
>I'm trying to give examples. Remember, Stack accepts the WEG claim that the Executor is
>supposed to be five times the size of an ISD, with five times the firepower. In those terms,
>two ISDs, an old War Frigate, two fighter squadrons, a concussion-missile array and a lot of
>freighters aren't that bad odds.
Okay.
>Using the WEG stats, there are. Using the 'genuine' ones, there aren't - unless we go over to
>land and air battles - in which case some of the small battles after Waterloo, in which
>French regiments routed an Allied Division, with odds of at least five or six to one against,
>or the defence of Malta in WWII - three outmoded biplanes against the entire Italian Air
>Force - or the Relief of Clermont-Ferrard in the 470s, when 12 Roman irregular cavalry drove
>off a Visigothic army of several thousand, all serve as good examples.
I'm not sure land battles between soldiers would apply, but I see your
point.
JamesG
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:04:29 +0100, policraticus
> <policr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >To prove that 'Super Star Destroyer' - a term that appears in the films, and for which
> >there is no evidence that it originated outside ILM - is a 'wrong' term?
> >
> >I agree that the 'five-mile fallacy' is a pile of bantha c**p, and that 'Super-class
> >Star Destroyer' is wrong, but I see no reason to deny the designation 'Executor-class
> >Super Star Destroyer'. Can you give me one reason why I should?
>
> Because the Executor isn't even a "destroyer." A destroyer is a
> small, fast warship that usually acts as an escort vessel for larger
> warships. The ISDs fit this description well, but the Executor most
> certainly does *not*. At least terms like "supercarrier" and
> "supertanker" still accurately describe the function of the ships,
> whether or not the "super" prefix is official.
No, it's *not* a Destroyer, it's a *Stardestroyer*, the two are totally
different things. The closest real world naval equivelent to a
Stardestroyer is a *carrier group* - a massive collection of antiship,
anti-fighter, and fighter support/carrier assets.
ISDs are not as you put it "small, fast warships that usually act as
escort vessels", they are the largest warships in the fleet prior to the
introduction of the Executor-class SSD, other smaller ships escort
*them*, not that they tend to need it.
JamesG,
stardestroyers are big, really big...
************************************************************************
* Official RASSM Organiser. Will design starships for food. *
* (-o-) http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2843 <*> *
* "Outside a dog, a book is man's best friend. *
* Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx *
************************************************************************
Michael Mierzwa
Anonymous wrote:
> The technical accuracy of "SSD" is the issue. Ackbar's use of the
> term is indeed strange given the Executor's obvious role, by
> traditional naval standards, as something quite different from a
> destroyer.
Easily explained.
Star Destroyers are not "destroyers" as you might think. Destroyers do
not carry figthers, Star Destroyers apparently do as seen in ESB.
In SW you have Moff's. I have yet to meet a Moff on Earth. In SW the
ranks really don't follow in one Earth military rank system, it is
merily a mix of "cool" sounding ranks to form a good idea of who
commands and who follows.
The same is true with ship classes. Star Destroyers have nothing to do
with "destroyers". I think the name is used to suggest more firepower
than whatever the main ship of the line was prior to the Empire (Bulk
Cruisers maybe?).
I find nothing wrong with Ackbar's line.
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
policraticus wrote:
> In terms of the SW universe, the development
> frigate => destroyer => superdestroyer
You might say:
Frigate => Cruiser => Star Destroyer => Super Star Destroyer
> is almost exactly analogous to the historical development in the early years of this century
> battleship => dreadnaught => superdreadnaught
Actually there are apparently old dreadnaughts in SW books/games as
well. ;)
Michael Mierzwa
policraticus
Anonymous wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 03:30:54 +0100, policraticus
> <policr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Used terms" aren't necessarily official technical designations. A US
> >> Navy admiral might proudly refer to the USS Kitty Hawk as a
> >> "supercarrier," but that still doesn't make the term technically
> >> accurate.
> >
> >Well, what does it make it? We're talking about a generic term here, not a specific
> >class-name.
>
> it's a colloquialism. The USS Kitty Hawk is an aircraft carrier on
> paper yet is referred to as a "supercarrier" in spoken conversation.
Perhaps. I am (for once) not able to comment on this, but Supercarrier was only ever one of
several terms I offered.
> >Unfortunately, there never will be clarification. The only way that SW continuity can be
> >resolved into anything like sense is through the use of value judgements, untestable
> >hypotheses and 'empirical research'. I don't think it's really necessary to provide footnotes
> >and a biblioghraphy on RASSM. If you're desperate for facts, with a little ingenuity, you
> >should be able to find out the evidence for yourself with the pointers I've given you.
>
> Well, I still remain unconvinced of the validity of Super Star
> Destroyer based on your other "super" examples (which only seem to
> support the notion that Super Star Destroyer is also a colloquialism).
Not even after 'superdreadnaught' - which is an official term.
> >> Because the Executor isn't even a "destroyer." A destroyer is a
> >> small, fast warship that usually acts as an escort vessel for larger
> >> warships. The ISDs fit this description well, but the Executor most
> >> certainly does *not*. At least terms like "supercarrier" and
> >> "supertanker" still accurately describe the function of the ships,
> >> whether or not the "super" prefix is official.
> >
> >Where, out of interest, does your definition come from?
>
> My World Book Dictionary. The exact definition is:
>
> "a small, fast warship with guns, torpedoes, and other weapons. A
> destroyer is used to attack submarines, as an escort vessel with
> merchant convoys or larger warships."
>
> My World Book Encyclopedia says:
>
> "Destroyer is a warship used for various purposes. Navies use
> destroyers chiefly to defend larger warships and amphibious and
> merchant ships from enemy attack. Destroyers also bombard enemy
> shores, escort convoys of merchant or military ships, participate in
> searches and rescues at sea, and support amphibious landings."
Both of these would have been true fifty years ago. Not today. Naval terminology evolves.
'destroyer' meant different things in 1899, 1914, 1941 and 1977, and it means something different
today. Over that time, the general trend has been for destroyers to grow in size and importance. I
see no reason why 'destroyer' could not mean 'battleship' in the SW universe. Indeed, I have
suggested that, like 'frigate' and 'corvette' in WWII, the discrepancy between the old (ie real
life, naval) and the new (ie Star Wars, spacefleet) meanings of the 'destroyer' can be at least
partially explained by it being an old name dusted off to describe ships bigger than frigates. In
the real world for the past fifty years, a frigate has been any large warship smaller than a
destroyers, and in SW is used canonically to describe everything up to and including Mon Cal Star
Cruisers and Dreadnaughts, ie all warships smaller than an SD, including even the largest warships
of the pre-Destroyer age (a suitable term, parallel to the historical pre-Dreadnaught age).
> > I can't think of any point in history
> >where this would be entirely accurate. In most major navies today, destroyers are the main
> >surface warships that don't have a dedicated aircraft-carrying role (and Lucas wrote SW
> >before, as far as I know, the USN began to build ships called cruisers again, or to
> >recommission its battleships after decades in reserve.)
>
> Whether or destroyers are used in their traditional role by the USN
> during peacetime isn't the question. The fact of that matter is that
> the Executor most certainly does not fit this role.
A destroyer is a large surface warship. As I have already said, it need not mean exactly in the SW
universe what it does in the real world - just as its meaning has evolved as naval terminology has
evolved.
In terms of the SW universe, the development
frigate => destroyer => superdestroyer
is almost exactly analogous to the historical development in the early years of this century
battleship => dreadnaught => superdreadnaught
> >> I'd prefer to think of the Executor as a star battlecruiser or
> >> something to that effect.
> >
> >Not 'battlecruiser'. That is a very specific naval term used and abused even by the very
> >clued-in K-Mac. It should refer to a battleship-sized ship designed primarily to take on
> >smaller ships. It refers particularly the ships originally called 'Dreadnaught Armoured
> >Cruisers' - but immediately known in all but the most official documents, and later,
> >officially, as 'battlecruisers' - built by the Royal Navy between 1908 and 1918. Developed
> >parallel to the Dreadnaught battleship, they placed speed above armour and weight of metal.
> >The last battlecruisers, those built or modified between the World Wars, notably the German
> >Scharnhorst and Gneisnau, were basically light battleships, but still with the stress on
> >attacking commerce and fighting cruisers.
> >
> >The Executor could be called a Star Battleship, perhaps.
>
> Yes, I stand corrected. Star Battleship is preferable.
To 'Star Battlecruiser', but not to 'Super Star Destroyer'
> > But personally, I think Super Star Destroyer actually sounds better.
>
> Oh, I agree! I'll be the first to admit that "Super Star Destroyer"
> rolls off the tongue much easier than "Star Battleship." That still
> doesn't mean it's technically correct.
But it doesn't mean it isn't. So far you have yet to produce a shred of positive evidence to
justify your claims.
> >I have already posted my detailed theory on naval terminology in the SW universe at least
> >twice. If you want to find it, go to dejanews and do a power search of posts by Policraticus
> >on RASSM for the phrase 'trade frigate'.
> >
> >Now I've given you a reference, use it :-)
>
> I'll look for it.
>
> >> See above, dude.
> >
> >Thanks. I think we disagree. More importantly, Ackbar calls the Executor a SSD, which, if
> >your theory above is correct, would be like Nelson calling the 'Santissima Trinidada' a 'very
> >big frigate'. It would be technically inaccurate and rather silly.
>
> The technical accuracy of "SSD" is the issue. Ackbar's use of the
> term is indeed strange given the Executor's obvious role, by
> traditional naval standards, as something quite different from a
> destroyer.
See above. If you insist on clinging to a definition fifty years out of date (which hardly applies
to an ISD anyway) you must be able to accept the possibility of that definition changing.
> >No, but that's because there was no NEED to see them in ANH. Since Vader is gadding about the
> >Galaxy in battleships in ANH, one suspects that he'd have used the Executor if he'd had it.
>
> He didn't use it at the beginning of ROTJ either...
Because it's an unexpected visit. Vader has arrived at DS II in order to stay there and get it
back on schedule. There's no point in drawing away the fleet flagship to do that.
> >No. I'd say that for someone whose critical standards in this post seem (if I may be frank)
> >to be a lot lower than mine (and I'll admit that I'm raising my game because you have
> >protested that I'm giving examples unreferenced - I normally wouldn't be any more exact than
> >you) you are being a bit unfair. I'm sorry if that seems harsh - it's not meant to be. I like
> >to try and keep my posts on a friendly level. I think you do the same.
>
> >Right now, I do not have any concrete evidence from the SW 'canon' or the ILM workshop,
> >though there is the 'official', if slightly dubious evidence, of the Classic SW comic strip
> >and WEG in my favour.
>
> Granted.
>
> >There may in fact not be any canon evidence. The films say nothing
> >concrete, though I'd be interested to know what the ESB novel and radio drama say, and I do
> >not have any official ILM/LFL information to hand.
>
> The TESB radio drama describes the Executor as a "mega-dreadnaught
> Star Destroyer," while the characters only refer to it as a "Star
> Destroyer," not "Super Star Destroyer." I found not one reference to
> its age though.
This is probably because the Executor was a last-minute addition to the film. Originally, it was
an outsized ISD, and I think the principal photography may have been filmed with that idea in
mind. Then ILM decided to build a bigger ship.
> The novelization refers to it as a "Star Destroyer," although usually
> preceded by an adjective like "mammoth" or "central." Again, no
> reference to its age...
Okay. This doesn't mean anything either way, though, does it?In fact, the very uncertainty of the
characters and the writers might indicate that it's a new ship that they're fairly uncertain of
the classification of.
> >In that case, we are reduced to arguing in all cases on probabilities. I have yet to be
> >convinced by yours - though I'm keeping an open mind.
>
> I'm not here to prove anything, just to cast doubt on the commonly
> accepted notion that the Executor was created after ANH, the first of
> its class, and that it's a destroyer in the technical sense.
Cast doubt...
You have no evidence at all.
I admit that the ammount of evidence surrounding the name and date of the SSD is not exactly
trustworthy, but it does all point in one direction. As it stands, there's nothing to contradict
that evidence.
> >Let me see:
> >
> >(i) That the term 'Super Star Destroyer' is not an acceptable classification for the
> >Executor, but is instead the unofficial, slangy and inaccurate term you seem to believe.
>
> The "Super" part doesn't even bother me as much as "Destroyer" does.
> The references that I quote above lead me to believe that SSD is
> indeed inaccurate.
You quote some general reference works. You do not seem to have consulted any specialist works.
You have dismissed every explanation or point I have made with reference back to the same works,
and bypassed the most important points, namely the historical term 'superdreadnaught' and the
evolution of the term 'destroyer' over the past hundred years with no effective rebuff.
Unfortunately for you, I don't think there is one.
The most powerful argument against you can be summarised thus: Ackbar describes the Executor
on-screen in RotJ as a 'Super Star Destroyer'. If you are right, this would be the equivalent of
someone on the Manhattan Project calling the A-bomb a 'very big grenade'.
I know that's silly, but that's the result of accepting SSD as an inaccurate term.
> >(ii) That there is any evidence for believing that the Executor - or any other ship in its
> >class - was built before the timeframe of SW:ANH.
>
> I have no evidence for this. My objective is to show that there's no
> evidence that it was built *after* ANH.
What little evidence and inference there is all points to a later date. You can't argue from
nothing.
> >> Not at all.
> >
> >I was being too rhetorical. I honestly think that the suspense in the arrival of the
> >Executor, which appears as a massive shadow over the fleet is deliberate, because this is a
> >new, unknown quantity in the balance of power, not simply a very very big ship.
>
> A conclusion that neither the film, radio drama, or novelization
> directly supports.
Okay. They hint at it, and in no way contradict it.
> >> But only because we never actually saw it in ANH, right?
> >
> >Partly, but also because that's the general view,
>
> The general view is also that the Executor is 8km long...
Perhaps I should have said 'the view among informed SW fans'. If you know anyone at ILM who worked
on the building of it, get them in touch!
> >and more importantly, because such evidence
> >as there is all points that way.
>
> Well, there's no canon evidence in favor of it. That's my point.
What hints there are, and what WEG, novel and comic references exist, all suggest that the
Executor only entered active service after ANH.
Another piece of evidence that's just occurred to me is the fact that the control tower and bridge
of the Executor resemble those of the ISD-II Avenger, but not the ISD-I Devastator. Now I don't
know whether ILM intended the ISD-II to be new since ANH when they built the model for ESB, but I
think I'm right in saying that they did intend there to be two ISD subclasses. The fact that
Executor resembles the ISD-II rather than the ISD-I suggests that it is at least a relatively new
ship.
> >I'm talking about audience reaction. The Death Star first appears as something simply massive
> >- with the Devastator disappearing into a pinprick as it approaches. It is the scale of it
> >that is impressive.
>
> Audience reaction... Audience reaction to a previously
> never-before-seen ship and the ship's age *within the storyline* are
> two entirely separate matters.
Okay, but it still corroberates my argument rather than yours. Perhaps 'the way it is portrayed
visually in the film' is a better phrase than 'audience reaction'.
> >The first appearance of the Executor, on the other hand, suggests both size and newness. It
> >is shown *arriving* at the fleet, and it appears first simply as an unseen thing big enough
> >to overshadow an entire squadron of ISDs.
>
> It's shown arriving? According to what source? The novel and radio
> drama didn't say this.
Well, let's see. Given that it wasn't with the fleet when they launched the probes in the opening
scene, it's a fair bet.
> >Perhaps, but every time it's mentioned, the script goes into overkill with words like "looms
> >large", "massive", "huge" and so on. The size of the thing is supposed to be terrifyingly
> >impressive. Not so much as the DS, but then, that's not the point.
>
> Yes, it's big.
Impressively big. I was replying to a line which you've snipped when you were trying to play this
down.
> >I'm trying to give examples. Remember, Stack accepts the WEG claim that the Executor is
> >supposed to be five times the size of an ISD, with five times the firepower. In those terms,
> >two ISDs, an old War Frigate, two fighter squadrons, a concussion-missile array and a lot of
> >freighters aren't that bad odds.
>
> Okay.
You mean you accept one of my points?
> >Using the WEG stats, there are. Using the 'genuine' ones, there aren't - unless we go over to
> >land and air battles - in which case some of the small battles after Waterloo, in which
> >French regiments routed an Allied Division, with odds of at least five or six to one against,
> >or the defence of Malta in WWII - three outmoded biplanes against the entire Italian Air
> >Force - or the Relief of Clermont-Ferrard in the 470s, when 12 Roman irregular cavalry drove
> >off a Visigothic army of several thousand, all serve as good examples.
>
> I'm not sure land battles between soldiers would apply, but I see your
> point.
Twice in one post? And I was beginning to think you were a troll who was just taking exception to
everything I was saying :-)
Polcirat'
Anonymous
>> it's a colloquialism. The USS Kitty Hawk is an aircraft carrier on
>> paper yet is referred to as a "supercarrier" in spoken conversation.
>
>Perhaps. I am (for once) not able to comment on this, but Supercarrier was only ever one of
>several terms I offered.
As was "supertanker" and I have yet to see verification of
"superdreadnaught" as an official technical designation. The burden
of proving this is on your shoulders, not mine.
>> Well, I still remain unconvinced of the validity of Super Star
>> Destroyer based on your other "super" examples (which only seem to
>> support the notion that Super Star Destroyer is also a colloquialism).
>
>Not even after 'superdreadnaught' - which is an official term.
I'm still waiting for evidence of this.
>Both of these would have been true fifty years ago. Not today. Naval terminology evolves.
>'destroyer' meant different things in 1899, 1914, 1941 and 1977, and it means something different
>today.
The first reference was dated 1967. The second, 1984. I find it
highly distressing that you're casually dismissing the quotes I
provide when you still have yet to provide any of your own...
I'm really in a no-win situation here. You ask for evidence and then
when I present it, you rationalize it away as if it's meaningless and
irrelevant.
Then when I ask you for evidence to support your claims, you basically
tell me to find it myself while pigeon-holing my request as a
desperate attempt to deflect your argument.
>Over that time, the general trend has been for destroyers to grow in size and importance. I
>see no reason why 'destroyer' could not mean 'battleship' in the SW universe.
(sigh) Then let's just throw all the terminology out the window while
we're at it. These terms are *meaningless* unless we can relate them
to the real world. That's why there are generals and admirals in Star
Wars, rather than zlurblas and gonbrus.
>Indeed, I have
>suggested that, like 'frigate' and 'corvette' in WWII, the discrepancy between the old (ie real
>life, naval) and the new (ie Star Wars, spacefleet) meanings of the 'destroyer' can be at least
>partially explained by it being an old name dusted off to describe ships bigger than frigates.
That's a pretty threadbare rationalization. The quotes I provided
describe the function of star destroyers to be quite similar to that
of their real-world oceanic counterparts, yet that still doesn't
satisfy you.
>In
>the real world for the past fifty years, a frigate has been any large warship smaller than a
>destroyers, and in SW is used canonically to describe everything up to and including Mon Cal Star
>Cruisers
Not all Mon Cal vessels are smaller than ISDs. Home One was actually
twice as large, if not larger than an Imperator.
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/mcc.html#conclusions
>and Dreadnaughts,
An apocryphal invention...
> ie all warships smaller than an SD, including even the largest warships
>of the pre-Destroyer age (a suitable term, parallel to the historical pre-Dreadnaught age).
That proves nothing except that the Empire developed ships that, while
they dwarf the largest ships of a previous era, perform the role of a
destroyer in their modern fleet.
>A destroyer is a large surface warship.
The first quote I provided described it as a *small* ship.
> As I have already said, it need not mean exactly in the SW
>universe what it does in the real world - just as its meaning has evolved as naval terminology has
>evolved.
So my correlating real-world evidence ultimately means nothing. I
guess I just wasted my time since it's obvious that anything I present
will only be rationalized away...
>In terms of the SW universe, the development
> frigate => destroyer => superdestroyer
>is almost exactly analogous to the historical development in the early years of this century
> battleship => dreadnaught => superdreadnaught
So even though Star Destroyers are calles destroyers and perform a
function similar to that of real-world destroyers, they're not
*really* destroyers, they're actually battleships and we just call
them destroyers?
>> >The Executor could be called a Star Battleship, perhaps.
>>
>> Yes, I stand corrected. Star Battleship is preferable.
>
>To 'Star Battlecruiser', but not to 'Super Star Destroyer'
Why? You prefer "Super Star Destroyer" because it sounds better and
obviously because that's how it's commonly accepted, but do you truly
believe it to be *accurate*?
>> Oh, I agree! I'll be the first to admit that "Super Star Destroyer"
>> rolls off the tongue much easier than "Star Battleship." That still
>> doesn't mean it's technically correct.
>
>But it doesn't mean it isn't. So far you have yet to produce a shred of positive evidence to
>justify your claims.
I haven't made any claims that require evidence. My argument consists
mainly of questions, not assertions. I'm not the one saying the
Executor *must* have been constructed after ANH.
>See above. If you insist on clinging to a definition fifty years out of date (which hardly applies
>to an ISD anyway) you must be able to accept the possibility of that definition changing.
Fifty years out of date? Do you actually think I quoted WWII-era
references or something?
What would you say if I were to present a quote from the most recent
edition of Jane's Fighting Ships corroborating the previous quotes I
provided? Would this mean Jane's is wrong too? Would you try to
rationalize the situation even further?
>Because it's an unexpected visit. Vader has arrived at DS II in order to stay there and get it
>back on schedule. There's no point in drawing away the fleet flagship to do that.
My point is that he didn't use the Executor at all times. ROTJ proves
this.
>This is probably because the Executor was a last-minute addition to the film. Originally, it was
>an outsized ISD, and I think the principal photography may have been filmed with that idea in
>mind. Then ILM decided to build a bigger ship.
Not to mention that fact that it wasn't even referred to as a Super
Star Destroyer during TESB's production. The script, novel, and radio
drama all refer to it as a Star Destroyer.
Whether it was originally an outsized ISD or a "Super Star Destroyer"
should have no bearing on the age issue. In both cases it was bigger
and different.
>> The novelization refers to it as a "Star Destroyer," although usually
>> preceded by an adjective like "mammoth" or "central." Again, no
>> reference to its age...
>
>Okay. This doesn't mean anything either way, though, does it?In fact, the very uncertainty of the
>characters and the writers might indicate that it's a new ship that they're fairly uncertain of
>the classification of.
The characters never expressed uncertainty about it. The Executor
might as well just have been a normal ISD considering the absolute
lack of surprise its appearance caused.
>Cast doubt...
Exactly.
>You have no evidence at all.
Who needs evidence to cast doubt? What am I supposed to prove? I
can't prove that the Executor *wasn't* built after ANH as you claim it
was. The burden of proof is on *you* for making this assertion.
>I admit that the ammount of evidence surrounding the name and date of the SSD is not exactly
>trustworthy, but it does all point in one direction. As it stands, there's nothing to contradict
>that evidence.
I know. That's why I said there's no canon evidence for it, because
apocrypha makes the Executor's time and place of construction quite
clear. But it's still only apocrypha...
>You quote some general reference works.
So?
>You do not seem to have consulted any specialist works.
Must I?
Fine, check out this page:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-dd.html
For those who don't feel like visiting it, it's the US Navy's official
web site, updated on June 2, 1998. It says of destroyers:
"These fast warships help safeguard larger ships in a fleet or battle
group."
>You have dismissed every explanation or point I have made with reference back to the same works,
If you have these references, please quote them yourself or quit
bringing them up. Support your own argument, don't expect me to do it
for you.
>and bypassed the most important points, namely the historical term 'superdreadnaught' and the
I've conceded that the term exists (based on zero proof, but I'm
willing to take your word for it). What I want is you to do is quote
the reference that leads you believe "superdreadnaught" is an official
technical designation.
>evolution of the term 'destroyer' over the past hundred years with no effective rebuff.
Prove that such an "evolution" has taken place. The references I
quoted are fairly current.
When you provide a quote featuring the alleged "updated" definition of
destroyer, I might then be inclined to take your "evolution" argument
a bit more seriously.
>Unfortunately for you, I don't think there is one.
Because you'd either ignore or rationalize it.
>The most powerful argument against you can be summarised thus: Ackbar describes the Executor
>on-screen in RotJ as a 'Super Star Destroyer'. If you are right, this would be the equivalent of
>someone on the Manhattan Project calling the A-bomb a 'very big grenade'.
>
>I know that's silly, but that's the result of accepting SSD as an inaccurate term.
Not if it's an accepted colloquial designation, which I already
conceded.
>> I have no evidence for this. My objective is to show that there's no
>> evidence that it was built *after* ANH.
>
>What little evidence and inference there is all points to a later date. You can't argue from
>nothing.
All I'm saying is that canon material says nothing about the date of
its construction.
>> A conclusion that neither the film, radio drama, or novelization
>> directly supports.
>
>Okay. They hint at it, and in no way contradict it.
What hints? Camera angles and audience reactions?
>> The general view is also that the Executor is 8km long...
>
>Perhaps I should have said 'the view among informed SW fans'. If you know anyone at ILM who worked
>on the building of it, get them in touch!
I get right on it...
>> Well, there's no canon evidence in favor of it. That's my point.
>
>What hints there are, and what WEG, novel and comic references exist, all suggest that the
>Executor only entered active service after ANH.
And they're not canon, as LFL defines it.
>Another piece of evidence that's just occurred to me is the fact that the control tower and bridge
>of the Executor resemble those of the ISD-II Avenger, but not the ISD-I Devastator. Now I don't
>know whether ILM intended the ISD-II to be new since ANH when they built the model for ESB, but I
>think I'm right in saying that they did intend there to be two ISD subclasses. The fact that
>Executor resembles the ISD-II rather than the ISD-I suggests that it is at least a relatively new
>ship.
How does the Executor resemble an ISD-II?
>> Audience reaction... Audience reaction to a previously
>> never-before-seen ship and the ship's age *within the storyline* are
>> two entirely separate matters.
>
>Okay, but it still corroberates my argument rather than yours. Perhaps 'the way it is portrayed
>visually in the film' is a better phrase than 'audience reaction'.
How is it portrayed in the film? When we first see it, the Executor
is looming over the other ships. I still don't see how this simple
intro scene establishes the Executor as a new class of ship. Vague
interpretations don't qualify as evidence.
>> It's shown arriving? According to what source? The novel and radio
>> drama didn't say this.
>
>Well, let's see. Given that it wasn't with the fleet when they launched the probes in the opening
>scene, it's a fair bet.
So? I didn't see any other ISDs there either. Besides, are we to
assume that the Executor and her five escorts were the only Imperial
ships in the galaxy sending out probe droids?
>> >Perhaps, but every time it's mentioned, the script goes into overkill with words like "looms
>> >large", "massive", "huge" and so on. The size of the thing is supposed to be terrifyingly
>> >impressive. Not so much as the DS, but then, that's not the point.
>>
>> Yes, it's big.
>
>Impressively big. I was replying to a line which you've snipped when you were trying to play this
>down.
I'm trying to play it down, I'm simply acknowledging that your
examples only prove that the Executor is big, not that it's new.
>> >I'm trying to give examples. Remember, Stack accepts the WEG claim that the Executor is
>> >supposed to be five times the size of an ISD, with five times the firepower. In those terms,
>> >two ISDs, an old War Frigate, two fighter squadrons, a concussion-missile array and a lot of
>> >freighters aren't that bad odds.
>>
>> Okay.
>
>You mean you accept one of my points?
Yes.
>> I'm not sure land battles between soldiers would apply, but I see your
>> point.
>
>Twice in one post? And I was beginning to think you were a troll who was just taking exception to
>everything I was saying :-)
Of course you did. I'm an outsider/infidel who has an annoying
tendency to wander into RASSM discussions and defile the regulars'
tribal pissing grounds with my heretical views. Labeling such people
as "trolls" is a common practice around here.
Mike
Anonymous <unk...@unknown.net> wrote in article
<357758e8...@news.earthlink.net>...
<snip>
> "establishing shot" imply this same vague sense of newness simply
> because they're big and we never saw them in ANH?
>
> etc., but I think the "It's new" reaction is simply borne out of the
> fact that we, the audience, never saw it prior to TESB, just like we
> never saw AT-ATs, AT-STs, TIE bombers, "snowtroopers," etc. There's
> absolutely no canon evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that
> the Executor wasn't around during or even before ANH.
>
A point proved in ESB. We see the AT-AT's and think 'wow ', but the soldier
who spotted them casually reports 'we've spotted Imperial Walkers'
The casual use of term unofficial term 'walkers' implies that they've been
around for some time. After all the Rebs don't crap their shorts when they
see em and run around screaming 'what the hell are these new things'
The soldier doesn't report back by saying, 'we've spotted huge armoured
transport things on legs'
The same can be applied to the Executor discussion. There is no cinematic
proof that the Ex is new, mind you there isn't any evidence that is existed
in ANH either.
However, at the begining of the Hoth assault, we see a operator say
'General, there's a fleet of StarDestroyers coming out of hyperspace in
sector four.'
He does not say, General, there's a fleet of StarDestoyers ..... and omigod
a frigging big ship coming out of hyperspace!'
This (by implication, granted) and the fact that there is no other reaction
throughout ESB to Executor logically points to the Rebs being aware of the
SSDs existence prior to the Battle of Hoth.
Thread-like cinematic logic, but hey - there it is.
Mike
JEDl74
>>I am under the impression (from watching the movies) that it was just one of
several "command ships" in service (albeit of special importance because it was
Vader's "ride"); but I never thought of it as Vader's personal ship.<<
I think whatever ship Vader is on becomes his ride. :)
policraticus
Anonymous wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 00:19:42 +0100, policraticus
> <policr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> it's a colloquialism. The USS Kitty Hawk is an aircraft carrier on
> >> paper yet is referred to as a "supercarrier" in spoken conversation.
> >
> >Perhaps. I am (for once) not able to comment on this, but Supercarrier was only ever one of
> >several terms I offered.
>
> As was "supertanker" and I have yet to see verification of
> "superdreadnaught" as an official technical designation. The burden
> of proving this is on your shoulders, not mine.
I admit that I can't find anything on the Internet, but the number of resources for the naval history
of the early part of this century are small. I have several books on the subject at home, but I can't
give any exact titles, except of course, "Dreadnaught" - a serious work of history.
> >> Well, I still remain unconvinced of the validity of Super Star
> >> Destroyer based on your other "super" examples (which only seem to
> >> support the notion that Super Star Destroyer is also a colloquialism).
> >
> >Not even after 'superdreadnaught' - which is an official term.
>
> I'm still waiting for evidence of this.
I'm looking!
> >Both of these would have been true fifty years ago. Not today. Naval terminology evolves.
> >'destroyer' meant different things in 1899, 1914, 1941 and 1977, and it means something different
> >today.
>
> The first reference was dated 1967. The second, 1984. I find it
> highly distressing that you're casually dismissing the quotes I
> provide when you still have yet to provide any of your own...
I am doing my best.
> I'm really in a no-win situation here. You ask for evidence and then
> when I present it, you rationalize it away as if it's meaningless and
> irrelevant.
Since you've snipped your quotes, I can't go through a detailed discussion of them.
> Then when I ask you for evidence to support your claims, you basically
> tell me to find it myself while pigeon-holing my request as a
> desperate attempt to deflect your argument.
I don't have the time to go down to the library, trawl through the stack, and pull out the books. This
thread really isn't worth that much to me. If you're that desperate, you can do it yourself.
> >Over that time, the general trend has been for destroyers to grow in size and importance. I
> >see no reason why 'destroyer' could not mean 'battleship' in the SW universe.
> (sigh) Then let's just throw all the terminology out the window while
> we're at it. These terms are *meaningless* unless we can relate them
> to the real world. That's why there are generals and admirals in Star
> Wars, rather than zlurblas and gonbrus.
A SW destroyer is clearly something quite different from a naval destroyer. It carries fighter forces
and ground forces. However, given that it has a naval name, it is reasonable to assume that there is
some relationship between the ships known historically and currently as destroyers and the ships called
destroyers in SW.
> >Indeed, I have
> >suggested that, like 'frigate' and 'corvette' in WWII, the discrepancy between the old (ie real
> >life, naval) and the new (ie Star Wars, spacefleet) meanings of the 'destroyer' can be at least
> >partially explained by it being an old name dusted off to describe ships bigger than frigates.
>
> That's a pretty threadbare rationalization. The quotes I provided
> describe the function of star destroyers to be quite similar to that
> of their real-world oceanic counterparts, yet that still doesn't
> satisfy you.
No it didn't. SDs are clearly major warships, capable of operating independantly as cruisers, and
carrying significant military and aerospace forces. The former seems to contradict what you're saying -
though it is part of my argument - while the latter is something true of no real- world destroyer.
> >In
> >the real world for the past fifty years, a frigate has been any large warship smaller than a
> >destroyers, and in SW is used canonically to describe everything up to and including Mon Cal Star
> >Cruisers
>
> Not all Mon Cal vessels are smaller than ISDs. Home One was actually
> twice as large, if not larger than an Imperator.
>
> http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/mcc.html#conclusions
Thanks for the ref. But it's still a Star Cruiser and a frigate.
Just like the Executor is a Star Destroyer.
> >and Dreadnaughts,
>
> An apocryphal invention...
Almost every ship between the corvette and a SD in the films is called a frigate. This includes:
Headquarters Frigate, Escort Frigate, Hospital Frigate and Trade Frigate, and the term is used
generically in the RotJ script to describe the Rebel Fleet.
> > ie all warships smaller than an SD, including even the largest warships
> >of the pre-Destroyer age (a suitable term, parallel to the historical pre-Dreadnaught age).
>
> That proves nothing except that the Empire developed ships that, while
> they dwarf the largest ships of a previous era, perform the role of a
> destroyer in their modern fleet.
Yes. They are new ships, requiring a new (or as I argue, revived) term - but their role is widely
different from that of even a modern destroyer.
> >A destroyer is a large surface warship.
>
> The first quote I provided described it as a *small* ship.
American destroyers and cruisers are of a similar size. As far as front-line warships go, they are as
big as they come, and, apart from the rather defunct Russian fleet, only the US navy maintains any
ships called 'cruisers' alongside its destroyers.
> > As I have already said, it need not mean exactly in the SW
> >universe what it does in the real world - just as its meaning has evolved as naval terminology has
> >evolved.
>
> So my correlating real-world evidence ultimately means nothing. I
> guess I just wasted my time since it's obvious that anything I present
> will only be rationalized away...
No. The real-world history provides the essential 'used universe' background of SW. You were the one
who tried to rationalize away the recieved opinion. So far, your only positive evidence is a definition
of 'destroyer' that, leaving aside its real-world accuracy, bears little resemblance to the destroyers
of SW.
> >In terms of the SW universe, the development
> > frigate => destroyer => superdestroyer
> >is almost exactly analogous to the historical development in the early years of this century
> > battleship => dreadnaught => superdreadnaught
>
> So even though Star Destroyers are calles destroyers and perform a
> function similar to that of real-world destroyers, they're not
> *really* destroyers, they're actually battleships and we just call
> them destroyers?
No. They are 'destroyers' just as the TBDs of the 1790s, Kipling's 'stripped hulls, slinking through
the gloom' in 1907, HMS Campbeltown in 1941 and USS Spruance today are destroyers, or the USS
Constitutuion in the 1790s, HMS Warrior in the 1860s, the ships Winston Churchill decided to call
frigates in WWII, the USS Oliver Hazard Perry today and the Home One in SW are all frigates. Every ship
in this list performed a different role. They were all officially described as 'frigates' or
'destroyers'
> >> >The Executor could be called a Star Battleship, perhaps.
> >>
> >> Yes, I stand corrected. Star Battleship is preferable.
> >
> >To 'Star Battlecruiser', but not to 'Super Star Destroyer'
>
> Why? You prefer "Super Star Destroyer" because it sounds better and
> obviously because that's how it's commonly accepted, but do you truly
> believe it to be *accurate*?
YES.
> >> Oh, I agree! I'll be the first to admit that "Super Star Destroyer"
> >> rolls off the tongue much easier than "Star Battleship." That still
> >> doesn't mean it's technically correct.
> >
> >But it doesn't mean it isn't. So far you have yet to produce a shred of positive evidence to
> >justify your claims.
>
> I haven't made any claims that require evidence.
Any claim requires evidence, no matter whether that evidence is referenced or not. Otherwise it becomes
an unsupported assertion.
> My argument consists mainly of questions, not assertions.
Questions do not create an argument. They can attack one, not make one.
> I'm not the one saying the
> Executor *must* have been constructed after ANH.
I'm not saying it *must*. I'm just saying that all the evidence there is, scanty and of small and often
dubious value though it is, points that way. Does that make sense to you?
> >See above. If you insist on clinging to a definition fifty years out of date (which hardly applies
> >to an ISD anyway) you must be able to accept the possibility of that definition changing.
>
> Fifty years out of date? Do you actually think I quoted WWII-era
> references or something?
No, I just know that references can still be out of date, even in the most august and respected works.
Witness the Oxford Classical Dictionary's reference to classical warships, where the 2nd edition (1970)
and the 3rd edition (1997) both perpetuate a passage describing the method of rowing that was written
in the 1940s. Discoveries made around the time of the 1st edition (late 1940s) completely exploded the
theory set out here, but it still hasn't been corrected in what is the standard reference work on the
ancient world.
> What would you say if I were to present a quote from the most recent
> edition of Jane's Fighting Ships corroborating the previous quotes I
> provided? Would this mean Jane's is wrong too? Would you try to
> rationalize the situation even further?
Of course not.
I would, however, say again what I have already said and you have ignored, namely that ships evolve,
and that the SW destroyer is different in many ways from a modern one. This thread is degenerating into
my objecting to your statements, your insisting that my objections are 'rationalizations', and your
reposting of the same data.
> >Because it's an unexpected visit. Vader has arrived at DS II in order to stay there and get it
> >back on schedule. There's no point in drawing away the fleet flagship to do that.
>
> My point is that he didn't use the Executor at all times. ROTJ proves
> this.
Fair enough. Which proves what? The Executor would make a lot more sense in ANH than the Devastator. In
RotJ there is a good reason why he wouldn't take the big ship.
> >This is probably because the Executor was a last-minute addition to the film. Originally, it was
> >an outsized ISD, and I think the principal photography may have been filmed with that idea in
> >mind. Then ILM decided to build a bigger ship.
>
> Not to mention that fact that it wasn't even referred to as a Super
> Star Destroyer during TESB's production. The script, novel, and radio
> drama all refer to it as a Star Destroyer.
Because the SSD was just a twinkle in ILM's eye.
> Whether it was originally an outsized ISD or a "Super Star Destroyer"
> should have no bearing on the age issue. In both cases it was bigger
> and different.
Well, yes. There is a difference between an enlargement of the same design and a totally new class.
> >> The novelization refers to it as a "Star Destroyer," although usually
> >> preceded by an adjective like "mammoth" or "central." Again, no
> >> reference to its age...
> >
> >Okay. This doesn't mean anything either way, though, does it?In fact, the very uncertainty of the
> >characters and the writers might indicate that it's a new ship that they're fairly uncertain of
> >the classification of.
>
> The characters never expressed uncertainty about it. The Executor
> might as well just have been a normal ISD considering the absolute
> lack of surprise its appearance caused.
I'm not saying it was brand new. And remember, we never saw the reaction when the fleet popped out of
hyperspace.
> >Cast doubt...
>
> Exactly.
>
> >You have no evidence at all.
>
> Who needs evidence to cast doubt?
The evidence that exists remains the only evidence there is. 100% of the evidence remains on my side,
whether it is in the form of a rock-solid signed statement from George Lucas or a passing allusion on
the back of a box of Weetabix.
> What am I supposed to prove?
That there are any *positive* grounds for believing the Executor to be
(i) Known technically as anything other than a Super Star Destroyer.
(ii) Launched, ready and fitted out before ANH.
> I can't prove that the Executor *wasn't* built after ANH as you claim it
> was. The burden of proof is on *you* for making this assertion.
And all the evidence is in my favour. There is no absolute proof. There never will be. There is just an
overwhelming disparity in the evidence (100% plays zip-diddily-squat) in my favour.
> >I admit that the ammount of evidence surrounding the name and date of the SSD is not exactly
> >trustworthy, but it does all point in one direction. As it stands, there's nothing to contradict
> >that evidence.
>
> I know. That's why I said there's no canon evidence for it, because
> apocrypha makes the Executor's time and place of construction quite
> clear. But it's still only apocrypha...
Canon hints, and apocryphal evidence, some of which may well be based on the ILM people's own opinions.
And nothing to contradict any of it (unlike, say, the timeframe of SOTE).
> >You quote some general reference works.
>
> So?
As I said, these can be dubious. Rule of thumb: never take anything written by anyone with anything
less than a degree or a lifetime's study in a subject without caution. That includes me :-)
> >You do not seem to have consulted any specialist works.
> Must I?
It might help.
> Fine, check out this page:
>
> http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-dd.html
>
> For those who don't feel like visiting it, it's the US Navy's official
> web site, updated on June 2, 1998. It says of destroyers:
>
> "These fast warships help safeguard larger ships in a fleet or battle
> group."
Okay. What exactly does this prove?
A few lines further down, we read that the USS Arleigh Burke is
"the most powerful surface combatant ever put to sea."
You want to stop shooting yourself in the foot?
> >You have dismissed every explanation or point I have made with reference back to the same works,
>
> If you have these references, please quote them yourself or quit
> bringing them up. Support your own argument, don't expect me to do it
> for you.
I meant that, at the time, you had only referenced one general reference work, and I was understandably
suspicious. I've given fairly detailed examples, which you can check against if you really want to, but
I've not got the time to go out and footnote this post.
Anonymous
>Star Destroyers are not "destroyers" as you might think. Destroyers do
>not carry figthers, Star Destroyers apparently do as seen in ESB.
So? Modern-day oceanic destroyers can't do so for obvious reasons,
but that doesn't mean a spaceship that performs the traditional
functions of a destroyer *ceases* to be a destroyer just because it
carries fighters.
>In SW you have Moff's. I have yet to meet a Moff on Earth.
Moffs are governors. We have governors on Earth.
>In SW the
>ranks really don't follow in one Earth military rank system, it is
>merily a mix of "cool" sounding ranks to form a good idea of who
>commands and who follows.
Prove this. The ranks seem perfectly fine in *canon* Star Wars.
>The same is true with ship classes. Star Destroyers have nothing to do
>with "destroyers". I think the name is used to suggest more firepower
>than whatever the main ship of the line was prior to the Empire (Bulk
>Cruisers maybe?).
An assertion yet to be proven...
>I find nothing wrong with Ackbar's line.
Of course you don't. You're the "tech doesn't matter" guy.
Anonymous
>> As was "supertanker" and I have yet to see verification of
>> "superdreadnaught" as an official technical designation. The burden
>> of proving this is on your shoulders, not mine.
>
>I admit that I can't find anything on the Internet, but the number of resources for the naval history
>of the early part of this century are small. I have several books on the subject at home, but I can't
>give any exact titles, except of course, "Dreadnaught" - a serious work of history.
Well, until you do, there's not much that can be said for or against
the "superdreadnaught" matter.
>> I'm really in a no-win situation here. You ask for evidence and then
>> when I present it, you rationalize it away as if it's meaningless and
>> irrelevant.
>
>Since you've snipped your quotes, I can't go through a detailed discussion of them.
Then I shall repeat them...
The World Book Dictionary lists the exact definition as:
"a small, fast warship with guns, torpedoes, and other weapons. A
destroyer is used to attack submarines, as an escort vessel with
merchant convoys or larger warships."
My World Book Encyclopedia says:
"Destroyer is a warship used for various purposes. Navies use
destroyers chiefly to defend larger warships and amphibious and
merchant ships from enemy attack. Destroyers also bombard enemy
shores, escort convoys of merchant or military ships, participate in
searches and rescues at sea, and support amphibious landings."
>> Then when I ask you for evidence to support your claims, you basically
>> tell me to find it myself while pigeon-holing my request as a
>> desperate attempt to deflect your argument.
>
>I don't have the time to go down to the library, trawl through the stack, and pull out the books. This
>thread really isn't worth that much to me. If you're that desperate, you can do it yourself.
I'm not desperate. In fact, I find it amusing that you keep calling
me desperate for requesting evidence.
>> (sigh) Then let's just throw all the terminology out the window while
>> we're at it. These terms are *meaningless* unless we can relate them
>> to the real world. That's why there are generals and admirals in Star
>> Wars, rather than zlurblas and gonbrus.
>
>A SW destroyer is clearly something quite different from a naval destroyer. It carries fighter forces
>and ground forces.
As Curtis Saxton says on his Warships of the Empire web page:
"Attainment of enormous size has a liberating effect on some aspects
of the warship roles. With effectively unconstrained internal space,
even the most minor frigate has the capacity to act as a carrier to
some extent. The use of tractor beams obviates the need of fighter
runways, which are the sole reason why oceanic carriers are among the
largest vessels in the navies of nuclear-age primitives. Similarly,
the luxury of habitable space evident in the abundance of star
destroyer viewports suggests that significant numbers of ground troops
and surface assault craft can be borne aboard ships which are not
dedicated troop transports."
>However, given that it has a naval name, it is reasonable to assume that there is
>some relationship between the ships known historically and currently as destroyers and the ships called
>destroyers in SW.
At least you admit that much.
>> That's a pretty threadbare rationalization. The quotes I provided
>> describe the function of star destroyers to be quite similar to that
>> of their real-world oceanic counterparts, yet that still doesn't
>> satisfy you.
>
>No it didn't. SDs are clearly major warships,
Clearly? They're warships, but are they major warships compared to
Executor-class vessels?
>capable of operating independantly as cruisers, and
>carrying significant military and aerospace forces. The former seems to contradict what you're saying -
>though it is part of my argument - while the latter is something true of no real- world destroyer.
See Saxton's quote above...
>> Not all Mon Cal vessels are smaller than ISDs. Home One was actually
>> twice as large, if not larger than an Imperator.
>>
>> http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/mcc.html#conclusions
>
>Thanks for the ref. But it's still a Star Cruiser and a frigate.
How can it be both a cruiser and a frigate?
>Just like the Executor is a Star Destroyer.
And a battleship?
>Almost every ship between the corvette and a SD in the films is called a frigate. This includes:
>Headquarters Frigate, Escort Frigate, Hospital Frigate and Trade Frigate, and the term is used
>generically in the RotJ script to describe the Rebel Fleet.
Yet Ackbar refers to them as cruisers during the briefing...
>> That proves nothing except that the Empire developed ships that, while
>> they dwarf the largest ships of a previous era, perform the role of a
>> destroyer in their modern fleet.
>
>Yes. They are new ships, requiring a new (or as I argue, revived) term - but their role is widely
>different from that of even a modern destroyer.
Widely different? That's kind of an overstatement don't you think?
Especially given their obvious role as escorts for the Executor in
TESB?
>> The first quote I provided described it as a *small* ship.
>
>American destroyers and cruisers are of a similar size. As far as front-line warships go, they are as
>big as they come, and, apart from the rather defunct Russian fleet, only the US navy maintains any
>ships called 'cruisers' alongside its destroyers.
Okay, how about midsize? They're definitely not as large as the
largest naval ships (battleships, aircraft carriers).
>> So my correlating real-world evidence ultimately means nothing. I
>> guess I just wasted my time since it's obvious that anything I present
>> will only be rationalized away...
>
>No. The real-world history provides the essential 'used universe' background of SW. You were the one
>who tried to rationalize away the recieved opinion.
I didn't know it was a matter of popular vote.
>So far, your only positive evidence is a definition
>of 'destroyer' that, leaving aside its real-world accuracy, bears little resemblance to the destroyers
>of SW.
I disagree. I see them as acting in very similar roles.
>> So even though Star Destroyers are calles destroyers and perform a
>> function similar to that of real-world destroyers, they're not
>> *really* destroyers, they're actually battleships and we just call
>> them destroyers?
>
>No. They are 'destroyers' just as the TBDs of the 1790s, Kipling's 'stripped hulls, slinking through
>the gloom' in 1907, HMS Campbeltown in 1941 and USS Spruance today are destroyers, or the USS
>Constitutuion in the 1790s, HMS Warrior in the 1860s, the ships Winston Churchill decided to call
>frigates in WWII, the USS Oliver Hazard Perry today and the Home One in SW are all frigates. Every ship
>in this list performed a different role. They were all officially described as 'frigates' or
>'destroyers'
As I quoted above, "Destroyer is a warship used for various purposes."
Star Destroyers are obviously capable of doing more than a real-world
destroyer, but that doesn't change that fact that the name itself and
the things we actually see them doing in the films support the notion
that they're not called destroyers for no reason.
The Executor, on the other hand, is way too big and powerful to be
anything close to a destroyer.
>> >But it doesn't mean it isn't. So far you have yet to produce a shred of positive evidence to
>> >justify your claims.
>>
>> I haven't made any claims that require evidence.
>
>Any claim requires evidence, no matter whether that evidence is referenced or not. Otherwise it becomes
>an unsupported assertion.
I don't think I ever made any claims.
>> My argument consists mainly of questions, not assertions.
>
>Questions do not create an argument. They can attack one, not make one.
Let me get this straight: my questions are an attack?
>> I'm not the one saying the
>> Executor *must* have been constructed after ANH.
>
>I'm not saying it *must*. I'm just saying that all the evidence there is, scanty and of small and often
>dubious value though it is, points that way. Does that make sense to you?
It would make more sense to me if you'd list the *canon* evidence.
And by "evidence" I don't mean audience reactions, gut feelings,
perceived implications, etc., etc.
>> Fifty years out of date? Do you actually think I quoted WWII-era
>> references or something?
>
>No, I just know that references can still be out of date, even in the most august and respected works.
>Witness the Oxford Classical Dictionary's reference to classical warships, where the 2nd edition (1970)
>and the 3rd edition (1997) both perpetuate a passage describing the method of rowing that was written
>in the 1940s. Discoveries made around the time of the 1st edition (late 1940s) completely exploded the
>theory set out here, but it still hasn't been corrected in what is the standard reference work on the
>ancient world.
Sounds like WEG.
>> What would you say if I were to present a quote from the most recent
>> edition of Jane's Fighting Ships corroborating the previous quotes I
>> provided? Would this mean Jane's is wrong too? Would you try to
>> rationalize the situation even further?
>
>Of course not.
>
>I would, however, say again what I have already said and you have ignored, namely that ships evolve,
>and that the SW destroyer is different in many ways from a modern one. This thread is degenerating into
>my objecting to your statements, your insisting that my objections are 'rationalizations', and your
>reposting of the same data.
So it doesn't matter what evidence I provide because "ships evolve?"
>> My point is that he didn't use the Executor at all times. ROTJ proves
>> this.
>
>Fair enough. Which proves what? The Executor would make a lot more sense in ANH than the Devastator.
Why?
> In RotJ there is a good reason why he wouldn't take the big ship.
Yeah, for the same reason he didn't use it in ANH.
>> Not to mention that fact that it wasn't even referred to as a Super
>> Star Destroyer during TESB's production. The script, novel, and radio
>> drama all refer to it as a Star Destroyer.
>
>Because the SSD was just a twinkle in ILM's eye.
So? Regardless of how the end-product turned out, it was always
intended to stand out from the rest.
>> Whether it was originally an outsized ISD or a "Super Star Destroyer"
>> should have no bearing on the age issue. In both cases it was bigger
>> and different.
>
>Well, yes. There is a difference between an enlargement of the same design and a totally new class.
The early conceptual designs show that the Executor was more than just
an enlarged Imperator from the get-go.
>> >Okay. This doesn't mean anything either way, though, does it?In fact, the very uncertainty of the
>> >characters and the writers might indicate that it's a new ship that they're fairly uncertain of
>> >the classification of.
>>
>> The characters never expressed uncertainty about it. The Executor
>> might as well just have been a normal ISD considering the absolute
>> lack of surprise its appearance caused.
>
>I'm not saying it was brand new. And remember, we never saw the reaction when the fleet popped out of
>hyperspace.
"General, there's a fleet of Star Destroyers coming out of hyperspace
in sector four."
Notice, there was no scene showing a frantic rebel yelling, "We're all
going to die! Look at the size of that big new one! They're going to
kill us all!"
>> >You have no evidence at all.
>>
>> Who needs evidence to cast doubt?
>
>The evidence that exists remains the only evidence there is. 100% of the evidence remains on my side,
>whether it is in the form of a rock-solid signed statement from George Lucas or a passing allusion on
>the back of a box of Weetabix.
True, but it's all apocryphal. Nothing canon conclusively supports
your side.
>> What am I supposed to prove?
>
>That there are any *positive* grounds for believing the Executor to be
>
>(i) Known technically as anything other than a Super Star Destroyer.
Well, it's also referred to as a "command ship."
>(ii) Launched, ready and fitted out before ANH.
Can't prove that. Never said I could. Then again, without apocryphal
sources, you can't prove it was launched, ready, and fitted out
*after* ANH either.
>> I can't prove that the Executor *wasn't* built after ANH as you claim it
>> was. The burden of proof is on *you* for making this assertion.
>
>And all the evidence is in my favour. There is no absolute proof. There never will be. There is just an
>overwhelming disparity in the evidence (100% plays zip-diddily-squat) in my favour.
That's all I wanted: acknowledgement that there's no proof.
>> I know. That's why I said there's no canon evidence for it, because
>> apocrypha makes the Executor's time and place of construction quite
>> clear. But it's still only apocrypha...
>
>Canon hints, and apocryphal evidence, some of which may well be based on the ILM people's own opinions.
>And nothing to contradict any of it (unlike, say, the timeframe of SOTE).
These vague canon hints are the only things that interest me. If you
can find something in the novel or radio drama that suggests the
Executor's young age, by all means, do so. This whole "the way the
camera angles show it looming over the other ships proves it's new"
stuff is...well, it's nothing.
>> >You quote some general reference works.
>>
>> So?
>
>As I said, these can be dubious. Rule of thumb: never take anything written by anyone with anything
>less than a degree or a lifetime's study in a subject without caution. That includes me :-)
I'll keep that in mind...
>> "These fast warships help safeguard larger ships in a fleet or battle
>> group."
>
>Okay. What exactly does this prove?
That this definition is current and official.
>A few lines further down, we read that the USS Arleigh Burke is
>
> "the most powerful surface combatant ever put to sea."
Considering the constant upgrading of active-duty destroyers with
state-of-the-art weapons systems, I'm not surprised at all that it's
the most powerful. That still doesn't mean it's not a destroyer or
that it's role has changed.
>You want to stop shooting yourself in the foot?
If I were Michael Mierzwa, I'd chide you for making a personal attack
just now.
>> >evolution of the term 'destroyer' over the past hundred years with no effective rebuff.
>>
>> Prove that such an "evolution" has taken place. The references I
>> quoted are fairly current.
>
>Fairly. One I am not inclined to trust.
That figures.
>The other was a great help for my argument.
How so?
>> When you provide a quote featuring the alleged "updated" definition of
>> destroyer, I might then be inclined to take your "evolution" argument
>> a bit more seriously.
>
>Try the fact that 100 years ago, a destroyer was a very small ship, the smallest sea-going warship, in
>fact. Today, "the most powerful surface combatant ever put to sea." is a destroyer.
Powerful, not big and not slow, they're still escorts--hence they're
still destroyers according to the current definition of the term.
>> Not if it's an accepted colloquial designation, which I already
>> conceded.
>
>What I'm saying is that, by your argument, it would be like accepting 'a very big grenade' as an
>acceptd colloquialism for the A-bomb, or 'an exceedingly large frigate' for the 'Santissima Trinidada',
>the largest ship of the line of its day.
And that's why "command ship" (also used in the films) is preferable.
>> All I'm saying is that canon material says nothing about the date of
>> its construction.
>
>Phrased like that, I'd just about buy it as a general, if rather pointless, statement.
But you keep mentioning these "canon hints" as supporting your claims
while canon sources say nothing about how old the Executor is.
>> >Okay. They hint at it, and in no way contradict it.
>>
>> What hints? Camera angles and audience reactions?
>
>Well, there's not exacly a registration plate on the thing.
I repeat: what hints?
>> >What hints there are, and what WEG, novel and comic references exist, all suggest that the
>> >Executor only entered active service after ANH.
>>
>> And they're not canon, as LFL defines it.
>
>The movie hints seem to suggest what WEG and co. corroberate.
HOW???
>If you want to demolish everything,
>you're welcome. Just don't expect much help when you have nothing left.
No problem, I already disregard apocrypha. That should be obvious.
>> How does the Executor resemble an ISD-II?
>
>"the control tower and bridge... resemble those of the ISD-II Avenger, but not the ISD-I Devastator."
>(reference: a few lines up the page. You already have Curtis Saxon's URL.)
Ever heard of a refit?
>> How is it portrayed in the film? When we first see it, the Executor
>> is looming over the other ships. I still don't see how this simple
>> intro scene establishes the Executor as a new class of ship. Vague
>> interpretations don't qualify as evidence.
>
>Hmm. I keep thinking that that book with the black-and-gold checkered cover and a head-shot of Vader on
>it says something about this.
Just like the book that conclusively proves "superdreadnaught" is an
official technical designation...
>> So? I didn't see any other ISDs there either. Besides, are we to
>> assume that the Executor and her five escorts were the only Imperial
>> ships in the galaxy sending out probe droids?
>
>I think they're the ones who're looking. I can't remember if the scripts make this clear or not.
Even if they are, the fact that we only see one ISD at the beginning
and none of the others means that they all could have been looming in
the distance off-camera--including the Executor.
>> >Impressively big. I was replying to a line which you've snipped when you were trying to play this
>> >down.
>>
>> I'm trying to play it down, I'm simply acknowledging that your
>> examples only prove that the Executor is big, not that it's new.
>
>You were saying that Luke's reaction, etc. has nothing to do with the Executor, the implication being
>that it's not all that impressive.
And I stand by that.
"Vader's on that ship."
He was concerned about *Vader's presence* not the Executor.
>> Of course you did. I'm an outsider/infidel who has an annoying
>> tendency to wander into RASSM discussions and defile the regulars'
>> tribal pissing grounds with my heretical views. Labeling such people
>> as "trolls" is a common practice around here.
>
>Did you see the wee smiley face?
>
>Has it perhaps occurred to you that you're taking this thread more seriously than I am?
I'm still a little shell-shocked by the warm welcome I received from
JamesG and Michael Mierzwa the last time I entered a thread in this
newsgroup.
Wayne Poe
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Anonymous wrote:
>> Twice in one post? And I was beginning to think you were a troll who
>> was just taking exception to everything I was saying :-)
> Of course you did. I'm an outsider/infidel who has an annoying
> tendency to wander into RASSM discussions and defile the regulars'
> tribal pissing grounds with my heretical views. Labeling such people
> as "trolls" is a common practice around here.
LOL!!! Beautifully put. Well done, Anon!
policraticus
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > The technical accuracy of "SSD" is the issue. Ackbar's use of the
> > term is indeed strange given the Executor's obvious role, by
> > traditional naval standards, as something quite different from a
> > destroyer.
>
> Easily explained.
>
> Star Destroyers are not "destroyers" as you might think. Destroyers do
> not carry figthers, Star Destroyers apparently do as seen in ESB.
While I agree that there is a difference between SW 'destroyers' and
real-world destroyers - they seem to carry major military units as well as
fighter forces - I think it's acceptable - especially given the division
between 'frigates' and 'destroyers' in the films - that the terms are based
on the historical naval context. The role of a modern naval destroyer is no
more different from an Imperial Star Destroyer than it is from a
Torpedo-Boat Destroyer of the 1890s.
> In SW you have Moff's. I have yet to meet a Moff on Earth. In SW the
> ranks really don't follow in one Earth military rank system, it is
> merily a mix of "cool" sounding ranks to form a good idea of who
> commands and who follows.
I disagree. I think the WEG 'canon' rank system is a mess, and I don't see
any evidence from the films that anything other than an earth-based
terminology is being used.
'Moff' is the one exception to this. In the early drafts, 'Grande Mouff'
[sic!] meant something like 'Archbishop'. I presume it does have some
origin, whether in wordplay or in history - or perhaps in Dune (from where
Lucas nicked the desert-planet on which the Grande Mouff was a member of
the religious hierarchy, and, even in the final draft, 'spice' and the
'sandcrawler')
There are a lot of obscure historical Earth terms for regional governors.
How many RASSMers have heard of a 'mormaer', 'saio', 'catepan', or
'exarch'? I'm sure there are others that even I don't know of. Perhaps
'Moff' is among them.
> The same is true with ship classes. Star Destroyers have nothing to do
> with "destroyers". I think the name is used to suggest more firepower
> than whatever the main ship of the line was prior to the Empire (Bulk
> Cruisers maybe?).
The Dreadnaught, as you say in your other post.
> I find nothing wrong with Ackbar's line.
That makes two of us :-)
Policrat'
policraticus
Anonymous wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 1998 05:22:18 +0100, policraticus
> <policr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> As was "supertanker" and I have yet to see verification of
> >> "superdreadnaught" as an official technical designation. The burden
> >> of proving this is on your shoulders, not mine.
> >
> >I admit that I can't find anything on the Internet, but the number of resources for the naval history
> >of the early part of this century are small. I have several books on the subject at home, but I can't
> >give any exact titles, except of course, "Dreadnaught" - a serious work of history.
>
> Well, until you do, there's not much that can be said for or against
> the "superdreadnaught" matter.
I know it exists. I have better things to do.
> >> I'm really in a no-win situation here. You ask for evidence and then
> >> when I present it, you rationalize it away as if it's meaningless and
> >> irrelevant.
> >
> >Since you've snipped your quotes, I can't go through a detailed discussion of them.
>
> Then I shall repeat them...
>
> The World Book Dictionary lists the exact definition as:
>
> "a small, fast warship with guns, torpedoes, and other weapons. A
> destroyer is used to attack submarines, as an escort vessel with
> merchant convoys or larger warships."
This definition would have been true forty, maybe fifty years ago, when destroyers were still relatively
small ships. The anti-submarine and merchant escort roles have not really been seen since WWII. Note also
the 'guns and torpedoes' reference, which dates it. Most destroyers for the past twenty to thirty years have
had missile weapons of one sort or another as a major component of their primary weapons system.
> My World Book Encyclopedia says:
>
> "Destroyer is a warship used for various purposes. Navies use
> destroyers chiefly to defend larger warships and amphibious and
> merchant ships from enemy attack. Destroyers also bombard enemy
> shores, escort convoys of merchant or military ships, participate in
> searches and rescues at sea, and support amphibious landings."
This is general enough to still be true. Out of interest, what do the references for 'battleship' and
'cruiser' say?
> >> Then when I ask you for evidence to support your claims, you basically
> >> tell me to find it myself while pigeon-holing my request as a
> >> desperate attempt to deflect your argument.
> >
> >I don't have the time to go down to the library, trawl through the stack, and pull out the books. This
> >thread really isn't worth that much to me. If you're that desperate, you can do it yourself.
>
> I'm not desperate. In fact, I find it amusing that you keep calling
> me desperate for requesting evidence.
And (apart from the fact that I find it amusing that this is your only defence against any of my arguments)
I have told you what to do about it.
> >> (sigh) Then let's just throw all the terminology out the window while
> >> we're at it. These terms are *meaningless* unless we can relate them
> >> to the real world. That's why there are generals and admirals in Star
> >> Wars, rather than zlurblas and gonbrus.
> >
> >A SW destroyer is clearly something quite different from a naval destroyer. It carries fighter forces
> >and ground forces.
>
> As Curtis Saxton says on his Warships of the Empire web page:
>
> "Attainment of enormous size has a liberating effect on some aspects
> of the warship roles. With effectively unconstrained internal space,
> even the most minor frigate has the capacity to act as a carrier to
> some extent. The use of tractor beams obviates the need of fighter
> runways, which are the sole reason why oceanic carriers are among the
> largest vessels in the navies of nuclear-age primitives. Similarly,
> the luxury of habitable space evident in the abundance of star
> destroyer viewports suggests that significant numbers of ground troops
> and surface assault craft can be borne aboard ships which are not
> dedicated troop transports."
What a wonderful canon source you've discovered :-)
This just proves what I'm saying. The destroyer's role has evolved. I would have used Saxton's excellent
database earlier, but I didn't want to be accused of using non-canon evidence.
In SW, a destroyer operates as a troop deployment base, a fighter carrier, a detatched cruiser (in the older
sense of the word) and a major unit in squadron and fleet deployments. Its role includes elements of those
of the Victorian 'gunboat', and the modern landing-ship, aircraft-carrier and command ship.
> >However, given that it has a naval name, it is reasonable to assume that there is
> >some relationship between the ships known historically and currently as destroyers and the ships called
> >destroyers in SW.
>
> At least you admit that much.
I always have.
I also accept that the differences between a SW destroyer and a modern one are large enough to demonstrate
that the ship would have evolved.
> >> That's a pretty threadbare rationalization. The quotes I provided
> >> describe the function of star destroyers to be quite similar to that
> >> of their real-world oceanic counterparts, yet that still doesn't
> >> satisfy you.
> >
> >No it didn't. SDs are clearly major warships,
>
> Clearly? They're warships, but are they major warships compared to
> Executor-class vessels?
The ISD is larger than almost all other ships in SW. Whereas today the US government - or even that of the
UK - would send a Carrer Battlegroup to a crisis zone like the Gulf or the Taiwan straits, the Galactic
Empire would send a destroyer. On top of this, these ships serve as major fleet components and local command
ships.
> >capable of operating independantly as cruisers, and
> >carrying significant military and aerospace forces. The former seems to contradict what you're saying -
> >though it is part of my argument - while the latter is something true of no real- world destroyer.
>
> See Saxton's quote above...
A good quote. It demonstrates my point exactly.
> >> Not all Mon Cal vessels are smaller than ISDs. Home One was actually
> >> twice as large, if not larger than an Imperator.
> >>
> >> http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/mcc.html#conclusions
> >
> >Thanks for the ref. But it's still a Star Cruiser and a frigate.
>
> How can it be both a cruiser and a frigate?
Well, that's what the script calls it. 'Frigate' in SW seems to be a generic term, another demonstration
that the SW naval classifications, while earth-based, are not quite the same. Similarly, ISDs are referred
to as 'destroyers', 'cruisers' and 'battleships' - three terms that are incompatible in real-world
terminology.
> >Just like the Executor is a Star Destroyer.
>
> And a battleship?
In general terms, yes.
> >Almost every ship between the corvette and a SD in the films is called a frigate. This includes:
> >Headquarters Frigate, Escort Frigate, Hospital Frigate and Trade Frigate, and the term is used
> >generically in the RotJ script to describe the Rebel Fleet.
>
> Yet Ackbar refers to them as cruisers during the briefing...
And Han calls ISDs 'crusiers' at least once.
> >> That proves nothing except that the Empire developed ships that, while
> >> they dwarf the largest ships of a previous era, perform the role of a
> >> destroyer in their modern fleet.
> >
> >Yes. They are new ships, requiring a new (or as I argue, revived) term - but their role is widely
> >different from that of even a modern destroyer.
>
> Widely different? That's kind of an overstatement don't you think?
> Especially given their obvious role as escorts for the Executor in
> TESB?
'obvious role'? The destroyers aren't so much escorting the SSD as performing part of their general role as
ships of the line. In RotJ, we didn't see twenty-fouur ISDs and five SSDs, as we would have expected if the
ISDs were primarily escorts and cruisers, the SSDs genuine battleships. No, we saw twenty-four ISDs and one
SSD, demonstrating that the ISD, rather than the SSD, is the Empire's standard capital ship.
> >> The first quote I provided described it as a *small* ship.
> >
> >American destroyers and cruisers are of a similar size. As far as front-line warships go, they are as
> >big as they come, and, apart from the rather defunct Russian fleet, only the US navy maintains any
> >ships called 'cruisers' alongside its destroyers.
>
> Okay, how about midsize? They're definitely not as large as the
> largest naval ships (battleships, aircraft carriers).
In terms of front-line combat ships, they are as large as WWI dreadnaughts, and following the
decommissioning of the last battleships in the US navy, destroyers are among the largest and most powerful
traditional warships - ie ships that are themselves weapons platforms, not simply bases from which to deploy
air or land forces - in the world.
> >> So my correlating real-world evidence ultimately means nothing. I
> >> guess I just wasted my time since it's obvious that anything I present
> >> will only be rationalized away...
> >
> >No. The real-world history provides the essential 'used universe' background of SW. You were the one
> >who tried to rationalize away the recieved opinion.
>
> I didn't know it was a matter of popular vote.
Neither did I. This started off as a thread about the 'five mile fallacy', which is easily demonstrable as
false. Several people, myself included, disagreed with Wayne's argument about the term SSD. Then you chipped
in.
> >So far, your only positive evidence is a definition
> >of 'destroyer' that, leaving aside its real-world accuracy, bears little resemblance to the destroyers
> >of SW.
>
> I disagree. I see them as acting in very similar roles.
On what evidence?
I see the Executor as being new since ANH in ESB.
> >> So even though Star Destroyers are calles destroyers and perform a
> >> function similar to that of real-world destroyers, they're not
> >> *really* destroyers, they're actually battleships and we just call
> >> them destroyers?
> >
> >No. They are 'destroyers' just as the TBDs of the 1790s, Kipling's 'stripped hulls, slinking through
> >the gloom' in 1907, HMS Campbeltown in 1941 and USS Spruance today are destroyers, or the USS
> >Constitutuion in the 1790s, HMS Warrior in the 1860s, the ships Winston Churchill decided to call
> >frigates in WWII, the USS Oliver Hazard Perry today and the Home One in SW are all frigates. Every ship
> >in this list performed a different role. They were all officially described as 'frigates' or
> >'destroyers'
>
> As I quoted above, "Destroyer is a warship used for various purposes."
All the ships mentioned above were designed for a different primary purpose. The destroyer began life inthe
1880s as a ship to outrun and outgun torpedo-boats. It proved successful in this role, and evolved by the
time of WWI into a light, fast escort for battlefleet squadrons, but was limited to home waters by its short
range and flimsy construction, designed for speed, not sea-going capabilities. By WW II, there was a
division between some newer destroyers that operated in flotillas attached to battlefleets, and the majority
of destroyers, which were escorts, particularly for long-distance merchant convoys. With the decline of the
big ship after WW II, destroyers became the standard front-line warships of most world navies, and today's
destroyers (along with the USN's cruisers) have become the equivalent of battleships, though they operate in
concert with dedicated ships for deploying air and land forces. In SW, a destroyer has completed the last
step of its evolution, in a space rather than sea-going context, becoming a stand-alone ship-of-the-line
that has itself made carriers and assault-ships obsolete. Similarly, the naval battleship was ultimately
descended not from the massive ships-of-the-line of two hundred years ago, but from the smaller, faster
frigates.
> Star Destroyers are obviously capable of doing more than a real-world
> destroyer, but that doesn't change that fact that the name itself and
> the things we actually see them doing in the films support the notion
> that they're not called destroyers for no reason.
I don't say there's no reason. I say there is a reason. A reason which does not prevent the Executor from
being called a destroyer.
> The Executor, on the other hand, is way too big and powerful to be
> anything close to a destroyer.
No. Given that it fulfils the same multi-purpose role as an ISD - different in several aspects from that of
a modern wet-navy destroyer - it can easily be called a destroyer.
> >> >But it doesn't mean it isn't. So far you have yet to produce a shred of positive evidence to
> >> >justify your claims.
> >>
> >> I haven't made any claims that require evidence.
> >
> >Any claim requires evidence, no matter whether that evidence is referenced or not. Otherwise it becomes
> >an unsupported assertion.
>
> I don't think I ever made any claims.
Then you've said nothing. If you aren't making any claims, you might as well give up.
> >> My argument consists mainly of questions, not assertions.
> >
> >Questions do not create an argument. They can attack one, not make one.
>
> Let me get this straight: my questions are an attack?
Yes. They attack the opinions of other people on the background of the SW universe, but, valid as they are,
there is no positive evidence in their favour.
> >> I'm not the one saying the
> >> Executor *must* have been constructed after ANH.
> >
> >I'm not saying it *must*. I'm just saying that all the evidence there is, scanty and of small and often
> >dubious value though it is, points that way. Does that make sense to you?
>
> It would make more sense to me if you'd list the *canon* evidence.
> And by "evidence" I don't mean audience reactions, gut feelings,
> perceived implications, etc., etc.
There is no absolutely concrete canon evidence. As far as I am concerned, the absence of the Executor in
ANH, the manner of its arrival in ESB and its role in RotJ all support my case, however scantily. There is
no evidence of any sort against this, and since, when good evidence is absent, we have to make use of the
best available, that's what I'm doing.
[snip - all this is covered above.]
> >I would, however, say again what I have already said and you have ignored, namely that ships evolve,
> >and that the SW destroyer is different in many ways from a modern one. This thread is degenerating into
> >my objecting to your statements, your insisting that my objections are 'rationalizations', and your
> >reposting of the same data.
>
> So it doesn't matter what evidence I provide because "ships evolve?"
If you could show evidence that the Executor was not a destroyer, then you would have done so. However, all
you have done is held up some sources about the role of the 20th century destroyer, a ship which has seen
its role transformed in the last hundred years, and said 'look, this means the Executor can't be a
destroyer'. That is an unacceptable leap of logic.[snip some more]
> >(i) Known technically as anything other than a Super Star Destroyer.
>
> Well, it's also referred to as a "command ship."
OK. I'll just about give you this. The USN has two or three command ships. But apart from their role as
flagships, these have nothing in common with the Executor. I always took it that, since not all Imperial
commanders were Flag Officers, 'Command Ship' was a more general term.
> >(ii) Launched, ready and fitted out before ANH.
>
> Can't prove that. Never said I could. Then again, without apocryphal
> sources, you can't prove it was launched, ready, and fitted out
> *after* ANH either.
Scanty canon evidence, and all apocryphal evidence convinces me that it was. I believe that, if you asked
the ILMers who worked on it, they would say the same thing.
I am waiting to be proved wrong.[snip some more]
> >And all the evidence is in my favour. There is no absolute proof. There never will be. There is just an
> >overwhelming disparity in the evidence (100% plays zip-diddily-squat) in my favour.
>
> That's all I wanted: acknowledgement that there's no proof.
You've had that on day one.
> >> I know. That's why I said there's no canon evidence for it, because
> >> apocrypha makes the Executor's time and place of construction quite
> >> clear. But it's still only apocrypha...
> >
> >Canon hints, and apocryphal evidence, some of which may well be based on the ILM people's own opinions.
> >And nothing to contradict any of it (unlike, say, the timeframe of SOTE).
>
> These vague canon hints are the only things that interest me. If you
> can find something in the novel or radio drama that suggests the
> Executor's young age, by all means, do so. This whole "the way the
> camera angles show it looming over the other ships proves it's new"
> stuff is...well, it's nothing.
Okay. Have it your way. The only way we can prove this is to go to ILM.
> >> >You quote some general reference works.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> >As I said, these can be dubious. Rule of thumb: never take anything written by anyone with anything
> >less than a degree or a lifetime's study in a subject without caution. That includes me :-)
>
> I'll keep that in mind...
Thank you.
> >> "These fast warships help safeguard larger ships in a fleet or battle
> >> group."
> >
> >Okay. What exactly does this prove?
>
> That this definition is current and official.
And doesn't quite match up to the role of the Star Destroyer.
> >A few lines further down, we read that the USS Arleigh Burke is
> >
> > "the most powerful surface combatant ever put to sea."
>
> Considering the constant upgrading of active-duty destroyers with
> state-of-the-art weapons systems, I'm not surprised at all that it's
> the most powerful. That still doesn't mean it's not a destroyer or
> that it's role has changed.
Of course it's still a destroyer, but the role of the destroyer has changed. It is now the most powerful
weapons platform (as opposed to carrier for deploying forces) in the world.
> >You want to stop shooting yourself in the foot?
>
> If I were Michael Mierzwa, I'd chide you for making a personal attack
> just now.
Well, you gave me the sources you were complaining I didn't have. Thanks :-)
> >> >evolution of the term 'destroyer' over the past hundred years with no effective rebuff.
> >>
> >> Prove that such an "evolution" has taken place. The references I
> >> quoted are fairly current.
> >
> >Fairly. One I am not inclined to trust.
>
> That figures.
I suppose it does.
> >The other was a great help for my argument.
>
> How so?
Because it demonstrated the transformation of the destroyer from light, fast hunter-killer ship of the 1890s
to major warship of the 1990s.
> >> When you provide a quote featuring the alleged "updated" definition of
> >> destroyer, I might then be inclined to take your "evolution" argument
> >> a bit more seriously.
> >
> >Try the fact that 100 years ago, a destroyer was a very small ship, the smallest sea-going warship, in
> >fact. Today, "the most powerful surface combatant ever put to sea." is a destroyer.
>
> Powerful, not big and not slow, they're still escorts--hence they're
> still destroyers according to the current definition of the term.
Destroyers are as large as any other front-line warship. I never said anything about them being slow.
Battleships have always been fast ships. They are not only escorts. They are the fists of any modern navy,
the largest (along with cruisers almost exclusively in the USN) and most powerful ships capable of taking on
other ships themselves. And Imperial Star Destroyers are *certainly* not escorts.
> >> Not if it's an accepted colloquial designation, which I already
> >> conceded.
> >
> >What I'm saying is that, by your argument, it would be like accepting 'a very big grenade' as an
> >acceptd colloquialism for the A-bomb, or 'an exceedingly large frigate' for the 'Santissima Trinidada',
> >the largest ship of the line of its day.
>
> And that's why "command ship" (also used in the films) is preferable.
Super Star Destroyer has capital letters, command ship doesn't. George Lucas' grammar alone indicates which
is the 'technical' term and which is the 'colloquial' :-)
[snip: these elusive movie hints :-]
> >If you want to demolish everything,
> >you're welcome. Just don't expect much help when you have nothing left.
>
> No problem, I already disregard apocrypha. That should be obvious.
What's the point?
> >> How does the Executor resemble an ISD-II?
> >
> >"the control tower and bridge... resemble those of the ISD-II Avenger, but not the ISD-I Devastator."
> >(reference: a few lines up the page. You already have Curtis Saxon's URL.)
>
> Ever heard of a refit?
Ingenious. But since there remain large numbers of ISD-Is, why refit the Executor? The only reason for
rebuilding the bridge and tower would be because they were destroyed. And given what happened in RotJ, I
doubt there would have been much Executor left if that had happened.
> >> How is it portrayed in the film? When we first see it, the Executor
> >> is looming over the other ships. I still don't see how this simple
> >> intro scene establishes the Executor as a new class of ship. Vague
> >> interpretations don't qualify as evidence.
> >
> >Hmm. I keep thinking that that book with the black-and-gold checkered cover and a head-shot of Vader on
> >it says something about this.
>
> Just like the book that conclusively proves "superdreadnaught" is an
> official technical designation...
Look, give me a break. How do I know this dictionary of yours even exists.
> >> So? I didn't see any other ISDs there either. Besides, are we to
> >> assume that the Executor and her five escorts were the only Imperial
> >> ships in the galaxy sending out probe droids?
> >
> >I think they're the ones who're looking. I can't remember if the scripts make this clear or not.
>
> Even if they are, the fact that we only see one ISD at the beginning
> and none of the others means that they all could have been looming in
> the distance off-camera--including the Executor.
Ach!
> >> >Impressively big. I was replying to a line which you've snipped when you were trying to play this
> >> >down.
> >>
> >> I'm trying to play it down, I'm simply acknowledging that your
> >> examples only prove that the Executor is big, not that it's new.
> >
> >You were saying that Luke's reaction, etc. has nothing to do with the Executor, the implication being
> >that it's not all that impressive.
>
> And I stand by that. [snip - Luke's fear of Vader]
But you have chosen to use this to imply something that is clearly not there.
> >> Of course you did. I'm an outsider/infidel who has an annoying
> >> tendency to wander into RASSM discussions and defile the regulars'
> >> tribal pissing grounds with my heretical views. Labeling such people
> >> as "trolls" is a common practice around here.
> >
> >Did you see the wee smiley face?
> >
> >Has it perhaps occurred to you that you're taking this thread more seriously than I am?
>
> I'm still a little shell-shocked by the warm welcome I received from
> JamesG and Michael Mierzwa the last time I entered a thread in this
> newsgroup.
I tend to disagree with Mr Mierzwa even more than I do with you, but we seem to have avoided tearing each
other's throats out. Perhaps that's because we both contribute to our discussions, and one of us doesn't sit
back and say "I have nothing to prove, I am simply raising questions without evidence and s*****g all over
the tribal pissing-ground."
Policrat'
Michael Mierzwa
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 22:17:36 -0700, Michael Mierzwa
> <mmie...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >not carry figthers, Star Destroyers apparently do as seen in ESB.
>
> but that doesn't mean a spaceship that performs the traditional
> functions of a destroyer *ceases* to be a destroyer just because it
> carries fighters.
It does if your entire line of reasoning is as follows: Earth terms all
apply to SW universe.
I can see a day when people travel through space. It is necessary for
humans to survive. I'm not sure if there will be military vessels in
space, other than cutters (anti-pricay). But if there are large
military vessels, then the names of ship classes will all have new
meanings ... and will likely be functionally based.
A carrier will be a carrier (maybe called "escort carrier"). A cutter
or picket ship will be a cutter or picket ship. A huge ship of the line
will likely be a Battleship or cruiser. I don't see a space craft being
called "destroyer".
NOTE: In Babylon 5 they call the Earth ships: "Earth Destroyers". And
they do show them with a load of figthers. But interestingly enough
they have few other starship classes!
On Earth you can use old ships and there are physical or technological
or at the very least economic constraints to the size and number of
ships. In space you have cheap resources, practically no physical
constraints, and technology should improve rather fast. The major
constraint will likely be in the area of consumables and possibly
creating and training humans (read both are organic constraints). I
don't see there being too many ships and much less ship classes for
there to be anything like SW. When you decomission an old ship, it will
likely be scrapped so that it can be used to take out one of your
colonies. At least that is what I think I would do if given an upgraded
"whatever class".
> >In SW you have Moff's. I have yet to meet a Moff on Earth.
>
> Moffs are governors. We have governors on Earth.
OK, is destroyers are star destroyers in SW, because SW uses Earth
terms, then why doesn't SW call them system governors? If that is what
they are ... and if SW is based on Earth terms. The fact is GL wrote a
story and didn't go out and research these things. Like the "12
parsecs" he just picked "cool" words and mixed them around. Trying to
come up with excusses and fitting ship classes is *no* different than
what WEG is accused of doing here. :(
> >In SW the
> >ranks really don't follow in one Earth military rank system, it is
> >merily a mix of "cool" sounding ranks to form a good idea of who
> >commands and who follows.
>
> Prove this. The ranks seem perfectly fine in *canon* Star Wars.
Prove it doesn't make sense in *canon* SW. Nobody can prove anything.
Especially to a person who has already stated that he "will never accept
'Super Star Destroyer'". Who is to say you are "Right"? Who is to say
I am "Right" ... or "Wrong". If one way is "right" can't they all be
so?
> >The same is true with ship classes. Star Destroyers have nothing to do
> >with "destroyers". I think the name is used to suggest more firepower
> >than whatever the main ship of the line was prior to the Empire (Bulk
> >Cruisers maybe?).
>
> An assertion yet to be proven...
I don't need to prove anything ...
> >I find nothing wrong with Ackbar's line.
>
> Of course you don't. You're the "tech doesn't matter" guy.
:) Yes, Tech doesn't matter. Especially when people are basically
"Two-Faced". They try to assert that things are based specially on
Earth this or that, but then they accept totally made up and different
terms like "Moff".
Michael Mierzwa
Taki Kogoma
mmie...@ix.netcom.com is alleged to have submitted
message <3578D0...@ix.netcom.com> to rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc:
>Anonymous wrote:
>> The technical accuracy of "SSD" is the issue. Ackbar's use of the
>> term is indeed strange given the Executor's obvious role, by
>> traditional naval standards, as something quite different from a
>> destroyer.
>
>
>Star Destroyers are not "destroyers" as you might think. Destroyers do
>not carry figthers, Star Destroyers apparently do as seen in ESB.
>
>ranks really don't follow in one Earth military rank system, it is
>merily a mix of "cool" sounding ranks to form a good idea of who
>commands and who follows.
>
>with "destroyers". I think the name is used to suggest more firepower
>than whatever the main ship of the line was prior to the Empire (Bulk
>Cruisers maybe?).
Depending on how one views the canonicity of the published materials,
the Old Republic workhourse heavy combat starship was the Dreadnought
Cruiser[1]. Bulk Cruisers were considered an inexpensive, lower
capability replacement. (Sources: WEG, Zahn.)
As for the "Star Destroyer" nomencalture, how's this for a possible
origin:
After the clone wars, the Republican Senate, wishing a 'peace
dividend', was less than enthusiastic about further military
expenditures. Palpatine and his cronies in the major shipbuilding
sectors decided to push for a program of 'Star Destroyers' -- Destroyers
are cheaper than cruisers, right? -- which got the first run of
_Victory_ class SDs built. The ImpStars et al. were just riding on
those coattails.
Oh, BTW, the early-20th century 'Cruiser' *is* analogous to the
earlier 'Frigate' type; they were assigned the scouting, escort, and
commerce-raiding role.
[1] That's right, the _Dreadnought_s are classified as Cruisers so far
as the SW universe goes. Then again, HMS _Dreadnought_ was just a
battleship. ;-)
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
policraticus
Taki Kogoma wrote:
> Depending on how one views the canonicity of the published materials,
> the Old Republic workhourse heavy combat starship was the Dreadnought
> Cruiser[1]. Bulk Cruisers were considered an inexpensive, lower
> capability replacement. (Sources: WEG, Zahn.)
>
> As for the "Star Destroyer" nomencalture, how's this for a possible
> origin:
>
> After the clone wars, the Republican Senate, wishing a 'peace
> dividend', was less than enthusiastic about further military
> expenditures. Palpatine and his cronies in the major shipbuilding
> sectors decided to push for a program of 'Star Destroyers' -- Destroyers
> are cheaper than cruisers, right? -- which got the first run of
> _Victory_ class SDs built. The ImpStars et al. were just riding on
> those coattails.
Nice idea, but SDs are generally referred to as crusiers and battleships in
the films, and even a VSD is bigger than a Dreadnaught.
My own pet theory is that the term 'destroyer' was obsolete, but that it was
revived for these new ships that were larger than all pre-existing frigates
(this term seems to be used generically in SW for all ships smaller than
destroyers). In a similar way as the names 'corvette' and 'frigate' were
revived in the 1940s for new, small ocean-going escorts.
> [1] That's right, the _Dreadnought_s are classified as Cruisers so far
> as the SW universe goes. Then again, HMS _Dreadnought_ was just a
> battleship. ;-)
HMS Dreadnaught was three times as heavily armed as any previous warship,
(12 12" guns, rather than 4 of them), not to mention faster and far more
heavily-armoured. It gave rise to a new type of ship, the dreadnaught. This
term persisted until c.1920, when 'battleship' returned, though by this
time, design had evolved more. Similarly, the 'dreadnaught armoured
cruisers' which replaced the older protected and belted cruisers became
another new class, the battlecruiser.
Policrat'