www.ditl.org

I suggest you look up light cruisers. Light cruisers can go up to 10,000 tons and can be as large as a heavy cruiser. The difference actually between a light and heavy cruiser is gun size, not the size of the ship. Go to a warship enthusiasts site and there is always a debate between the merits of 6 inch and 8 inch gun when determining the destructive power vs. the power of volume of shells fired.

Worcester class I think is the largest.

You are also focused on the physical size of the ship as opposed to the more realistic tonnage.

The light cruiser you are thinking of is dating to WW1. Those were overgrown destroyers. Yes other navies built small cruisers as well, Italians did famously as they progressed to full sized cruisers.

Yes destroyers are the same size as cruisers today. But do they fit the classification as the traditional Destroyer? Are the more like cruisers than destroyers? Aren't they technically battleships as they are the most powerful surface ships not called aircraft carriers?

I did look up light cruisers, and listed an example.

Yes light cruisers differ in the size of the guns. But larger guns generally require a larger hull, and so ships with heavier guns tend to be physically larger. Heavy cruisers are typically anything up to 30,000 tons, several times the size of light cruisers, and battleships bigger still.

I've provided figures to back up the point I made on multiple occasions. Anybody here is welcome to use their own figures to indicate that I'm wrong.

McAvoy wrote:You are also focused on the physical size of the ship as opposed to the more realistic tonnage.

Because the point I was responding to was along the lines of "the dimensions of battleships, heavy cruisers and light cruisers are all the same, only the tonnage varies because of the amount of armour." Comparing the tonnage would therefore not be realistic, but pointless.

The light cruiser you are thinking of is dating to WW1. Those were overgrown destroyers. Yes other navies built small cruisers as well, Italians did famously as they progressed to full sized cruisers.

Light cruisers essentially are overgrown destroyers. They carried guns in roughly similar size (6 inch; destroyers were usually 4.5, 5, or 6 inch), whereas heavy cruisers carried 8 inch or larger (12 inch in the case of the Alaskas).

Yes destroyers are the same size as cruisers today. But do they fit the classification as the traditional Destroyer? Are the more like cruisers than destroyers? Aren't they technically battleships as they are the most powerful surface ships not called aircraft carriers?

The definition of a destroyer has morphed over time; originally it ws a "torpedo destroyer", a ship intended to destroy fast torpedo boats. Today's destroyers are broadly more like cruisers in their intended use - long range, powerful weapons, capable of independent operation, etc. And especially the current generation of 8-10,000 ton destroyers are really more like cruisers than the destroyers of old. The distinction between cruisers and destroyers has been largely erased; today they carry much the same wapons, have similar speed, similar defences, even similar range.

Very few people build anything called cruisers today - the US, Russia, that's about it. The cruisers they build still tend to be larger than contemporary Destroyers in both tonnage and dimensions.

Graham Kennedy wrote:Because the point I was responding to was along the lines of "the dimensions of battleships, heavy cruisers and light cruisers are all the same, only the tonnage varies because of the amount of armour." Comparing the tonnage would therefore not be realistic, but pointless.

Lets have a look at some different examples of contemporaries:

Light cruiser:

Length: 786.75 ft
Beam: 81 ft
Draft: 25.83 ft

Battleship:

Length: 624 ft
Beam: 88.5 ft
Draft: 28.6 ft

The light cruiser is therefore 26% longer, 8.5% narrower, 10% shallow, therefore 5% greater volume.

A different pair, also contemporaries:

Heavy cruiser:

Length: 530.83 ft
Beam: 80.416 ft
Draft: 29 ft

Battleship:

Length: 527 ft
Beam: 82.083 ft
Draft: 29.625 ft

The cruiser is therefore about 1% longer, 2% narrower and 2% shallower, giving it less than 3.5% less volume - the same size, or close enough.

Which ships are those, please?

Heavy cruisers have never been up to 30,000 tons. Alaska is the closest you get that and they have traditionally been called battle cruisers. Battlecruisers are similar size to battleships and sometimes bigger overall.

The point is that light cruisers like the Cleveland class for example are dimensionally similar to heavy cruisers. Which is why I said if you go to pro Navy history websites there is a debate between the merits of having 12 6 inch guns or more versus nine or ten 8 inch guns. Because on 10,000 tons that is what you will get.

Light cruisers being overgrown destroyers is something that is dated to WW1 when there wasn't a ship type in between a small cruiser like a light cruiser and a battlecruisers.

Yes navies built small cruisers because building up to 10,000 tons is expensive and really the only Navy that could afford to do it was the US. Even GB didn't want to do it because they needed numbers.

The Atlanta class which you provided as an example isn't the best example because that ship wasn't really designed like the other light and heavy cruisers the US made. You compared the biggest ships of the Battleship and heavy cruiser types but didn't use the Worcester class. The Atlanta class was designed as a anti aircraft cruiser.

Graham Kennedy wrote:Which ships are those, please?

First two are the Courageous class (light cruiser) and the Revenge class (battleship), second two are SMS Blucher (heavy cruiser) and HMS Dreadnought (battleship, obviously).

Captain Seafort wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:Which ships are those, please?

First two are the Courageous class (light cruiser) and the Revenge class (battleship), second two are SMS Blucher (heavy cruiser) and HMS Dreadnought (battleship, obviously).

The Corageous class were not light cruisers, they were battlecruisers. The Blucher was similarly built to match the (perceived) power of the British Invincible-class battlecruisers, so a battlecruiser herself in all but name. Battlecruisers are indeed battleship sized, but with less armour.

Graham Kennedy wrote:The Corageous class were not light cruisers, they were battlecruisers.

On the contrary, they were light cruisers, large light cruisers, but light cruisers nonetheless - their armour scheme and wartime employment make this clear.

The Blucher was similarly built to match the (perceived) power of the British Invincible-class battlecruisers, so a battlecruiser herself in all but name. Battlecruisers are indeed battleship sized, but with less armour.

Again, on the contrary. Blucher was indeed designed to counter the Invincibles, but the Germans envisaged the Invincibles as all-big-gun armoured (i.e. heavy) cruisers, having the same relationship with the preceding Minotaur-class as Dreadnought had with the Lord Nelsons, with a uniform 9.2" main battery. Her design was therefore an enlarged Scharnhorst rather than a reduced Nassau.

Graham Kennedy wrote:*shrug*

Like I say, it's always possible that any given episode, movie, even entire series, is actually set in some other universe. If that's the approach then anybody could declare anybody or anything in or out of Trek continuity; it would explain away every last thing in the whole of Star Trek - which is really just another way of saying it explains nothing at all.

Well..that certainly would explain Voyager.......

However, assuming that the abrahmsverse is a parallel universe different from the "primeverse" certainly is not on the same level as saying each and every episode of star trek is set in its own universe, that's just hyperbole. There are indeed strong indicators that the abrahmsverse was quite different even before it was changed by the Narada/Spock arrival. All of which can be brought in line with the primeverse of course if you are creative enough.....the question is just how willing are you to accept those explanations before they become irrational?


As for the ship-discussion.......I somewhat fail to see how ww1-ww2 ships and shipclasses have any relevance here to be honest...

I would imagine that starship construction is on such a different level that nothing from ww1/ww2 - not even terminology - might make any sense here. (Which is why I never understood why folks were always adamant that there HAVE to be Star Battleships in Star Wars, simply because there are ships who are named Star Destroyers. What does that have to do with anything? They are Star ships that "Destroy" stuff....that's why they are named such. To sound dramatic (Death Star anyone?). They are used in a role you wold associate mostly with capital ships so the old nautical terminology won't probably fit here. And since Vaders ship is not called a Star Battleship but "Super Star Destroyer" just confirms imho that their naming scheme has nothing to do with our current nautical one...)

Atekimogus wrote:Which is why I never understood why folks were always adamant that there HAVE to be Star Battleships in Star Wars, simply because there are ships who are named Star Destroyers. What does that have to do with anything? They are Star ships that "Destroy" stuff....that's why they are named such. To sound dramatic (Death Star anyone?). They are used in a role you wold associate mostly with capital ships so the old nautical terminology won't probably fit here.

Actually, their employment is the primary evidence for them being destroyers - i.e. escorts. Chasing down blockade runners and smugglers, planetary blockade of a third-rate shithole, escorts for big capital ships. Those are not jobs you use capital ships for.

And since Vaders ship is not called a Star Battleship but "Super Star Destroyer" just confirms imho that their naming scheme has nothing to do with our current nautical one...)

That term is only ever used by Ackbar, in a high-stress situation, in a foreign language, and possibly by Vader, in a foul mood, and not definitively referring to the Ex rather than another ship. In calmer situations, such as Palpatine ordering Vader out to take command of the fleet, or Han to Luke approaching Endor, she's referred to as a command ship (clearly referring to ships of her class rather than in the broader sense, as Han's reference was in direct response to Luke's concern that Vader was present, and misinterpreting this as a belief on Luke's part that the Ex was the Ex herself rather than a sister ship).

Captain Seafort wrote:

Atekimogus wrote:Which is why I never understood why folks were always adamant that there HAVE to be Star Battleships in Star Wars, simply because there are ships who are named Star Destroyers. What does that have to do with anything? They are Star ships that "Destroy" stuff....that's why they are named such. To sound dramatic (Death Star anyone?). They are used in a role you wold associate mostly with capital ships so the old nautical terminology won't probably fit here.

Actually, their employment is the primary evidence for them being destroyers - i.e. escorts. Chasing down blockade runners and smugglers, planetary blockade of a third-rate shithole, escorts for big capital ships. Those are not jobs you use capital ships for.

And since Vaders ship is not called a Star Battleship but "Super Star Destroyer" just confirms imho that their naming scheme has nothing to do with our current nautical one...)

That term is only ever used by Ackbar, in a high-stress situation, in a foreign language, and possibly by Vader, in a foul mood, and not definitively referring to the Ex rather than another ship. In calmer situations, such as Palpatine ordering Vader out to take command of the fleet, or Han to Luke approaching Endor, she's referred to as a command ship (clearly referring to ships of her class rather than in the broader sense, as Han's reference was in direct response to Luke's concern that Vader was present, and misinterpreting this as a belief on Luke's part that the Ex was the Ex herself rather than a sister ship).

You are vastly underselling Imperial Star Destroyers. Being the smallest fish in a fleet just used against third rate rebels etc. is NOT the impression one gets watching Star Wars. (The chances to survive a direct attack on an Imperial Star Destroyer...etc. etc.) It's also not really how they are pictured in most additional material, be it EU or computer games. They are basically the biggest and most threatening thing around, a battleship and carrier rolled into one. (At least at a time where the EU didn't go off the deep end...talking about Thrawn triology there...you know...were there were actually only ONE command ship around...which went down at Endor leaving the Imperial Fleet with "only" Star Destroyers. I know...later on you would find a Super Star Destroyer buried somewhere behind every corner.....but that is imho because later EU had more the quality of fan-fiction, at least imho.)


The point I was trying to make is however that it is still rather foolish to make comparisions to world war 1-2 nautical terms when speaking of sci-fi ships. It might apply more to star trek since they actually seemed to have made an effort here, but in a purley fantasy universe with no connection to our earth whatsoever.......it's rather overthinking the whole thing a bit. I mean it's called death star...not mobile tactical fleet support base with planet-terminating capabilities.

It's called Star Destroyer....because it sounds cooler and more threatening than star cruiser...or star torpedo boat...or star dreadnought....or star battleship. I mean it's George Lucas we are talking about.......considering his "Red Tails" I doubt he has any military knowledge whatsoever, and he certainly didn't waste any concious thought on why the ship should be named that way beyond making it sound evil and threatening.