Entertainment
 

Talk:Galactic-class battle carrier

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Just because I can't leave a note when I hit the rollback button...it specifically said the Strident-class, which is why I said that in the text. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's some excerpts taken by people I know:

From page 65: In design it was something like the old Imperial-class Star Destroyers, and was just as long, though where the ISDs looked more like narrow, armor-piercing arrowheads, this ship was broader, massing half again what an ISD did.

It was the Galactic Alliance Space Vessel Dodonna, the second capital ship named for the Rebel Alliance-era military leader who had plotted and executed the destruction of the first Death Star, and it was the first completed vessel of its type, the Galactic-class battle carrier- a designation chosen to avoid unpleasant reminders of the old Star Destroyers, of which this new ship was little more than an elaboration and update.

From page 94: "Working on it," his chief sensor operator said. "They have nothing in the size class o Dodonna, but they have Strident-class Star Defenders and a large number of frigates, corvettes, patrol boats, gunships, and heavy transports."

Sounds like the Strident-class was smaller in mass, if not size, but that would make it ridiculously thin, since the Galactic-class is a carrier and therefore mostly empty space. In an earlier book, it was used alongside an Executor dreadnought and a Mon Cal battlecruiser in a trio of "heavy warships" against the YV, so it has to have some size. With the Viscount being the Mon Cal version of the Strident (rolls eyes), and it being twice the size of a ship that's already bigger than an ISD (the Mediator battlecruiser), that basically means the Strident is a gigantic, flimsy design with heavy guns and basically nothing else. If, of course, this wasn't just a mistake on the author's part and the Galactic-class is much smaller than the Strident, mass-wise. VT-16 09:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, so the book says the Galactic-class is smaller... I thought it said they were around the same size at one point. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • No, the Strident was not used with the Guardian VT, I'm pretty sure the Viscount, the Guardian and the Harbinger were used in that role in TUF.
      • The problem is, the Viscount and Strident are apparently the same, but one is built by CEC and the other by the Mon Cal. Ridiculous, but that's been the official line. VT-16 18:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For comparison's sake

Was the Strident or the Viscount considered twice as big as the Mediator? VT-16 09:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negative connotation of Star Destroyer

The Empire only ran things for about 23 years. Prior to that, the Republic operated Star Destroyers for the 3 years of the Clone Wars, and after Endor the Star Destroyer more or less becomes a good guy ship again, exemplified by the Yuuzhan Vong war. So how come the GA all the sudden feels it needs to change its ship designation? Lalala la 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carries battle?

The comment concerning "battle carrier" meaning a vessel that carries battle seems to be utter nonsense. A battlecruiser does not "cruise battle". A battleship, yes, does "battle (other) ships", but it does not "ship battle". Battle carrier is merely a designation, rather like "escort carrier" in the real-world for an aircraft carrier specialized in escort duties. Or fleet carriers which are the primary aircraft carriers of the fleet, not vessels that "carry fleets"!--SOCLcomm 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Much like a battlecruiser and a battleship denotes large types of warships in the real world, and often in SW, battle carrier would similarly just be a large carrier vessel. Interpreting a term based on complete dissassociation with military history is nonsensical, and that goes double for "Star Destroyer" as "destroyer of stars". How that's even possible to reason out is beyond me. The Star Destroyers are simply destroyers with a spacy name, not ships capable of destroying stars. And since destruction is possible on a large scale with just about most warships in SW, this literature-based interpretation is even more implausible and ultimately useless. There are plenty of destroyer-classes in canon sources that discounts the Star Destroyers fanonical claim to "instilling fear" (by being actual naval destroyers, not battleships), so why this is even in a bts section is beyond me. It's just a waste of webspace. If this theory that the word "destroyer" was meant to be "special" and "cause fear", why was this never utilized in the real-world, since last I remember, destroyers were not the heaviest combatants in any navy. VT-16 07:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am in full agreement with VT-16. I say it should be deleted.--SOCLcomm 16:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Galactic-class_battle_carrier"