I [Spacedock] break down how I think nautical warship monikers should be applied to Science Fiction.
I should clarify that the visual examples here don't always line up exactly with how I think these words should be applied. For example, the Lucrehulk carries a huge number of fighters as is more versatile than the term "Battleship" implies. (Which to my mind is yet another reason why the term "Battleship" is not conducive to a sci-fi setting.)
Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
"Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?"
Stan - South Park
Stan - South Park
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
TBF, our real-life naval nomenclature is rather fluid. The so-called dreadnoughts of the early 20th century don't compare in size, armor, or armament to what were termed battleships a scant 25 years later. I have yet to hear anyone practically and un-arbitrarily describe a real difference between a heavy cruiser and a pocket battleship. Further, new innovations are always meriting new naming conventions: there was no such class of vessels as the "littoral combat ship," for example, until such a ship was developed, and was so named for its role and capabilities rather than for its size and armament.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
The former is Lutzow-class, the latter is Deutschland-class.Mikey wrote:I have yet to hear anyone practically and un-arbitrarily describe a real difference between a heavy cruiser and a pocket battleship.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1193
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Vienna
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
Honeslty...this never bothered me...I never assumed that the "destroyer" in "Star Destroyer" is in any way connected to a real live naval term, hence I never understood the appearent "need" for bigger ships and I have to say I enjoyed the Star Wars EU more when a Star Destroyer was actually a fearsome opponent and not a gunboat. (Ahh...Thrawn Triology.....downhill from here on out)
For me, it is on the same level as a "Battlestar", or "Starship Class". So...it is not a destroyer in the naval sense...but a ship in the stars that destroys stuff.....nothing more. That is why the Executer is also a Star Destroyer (and not a star dreadnaught or battleship). It is just a starship that destroys.......could be any kind of captial ship.
I think people are overthinking this......it is a naive term from someone who had no idea about real life naval ship classifications.....(or had, and conciously ignored it to do his own thing)
For me, it is on the same level as a "Battlestar", or "Starship Class". So...it is not a destroyer in the naval sense...but a ship in the stars that destroys stuff.....nothing more. That is why the Executer is also a Star Destroyer (and not a star dreadnaught or battleship). It is just a starship that destroys.......could be any kind of captial ship.
I think people are overthinking this......it is a naive term from someone who had no idea about real life naval ship classifications.....(or had, and conciously ignored it to do his own thing)
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
When I say "thanks," I could only wish that the interweb could convey how dry my tone is intended to be.Captain Seafort wrote:The former is Lutzow-class, the latter is Deutschland-class.Mikey wrote:I have yet to hear anyone practically and un-arbitrarily describe a real difference between a heavy cruiser and a pocket battleship.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
Hell, Destroyers were originally "Torpedo Destroyers" whose job was purely to protect capital ships from torpedo boats. The idea that an 8,000 ton ship that can hunt and sink submarines and other ships, shoot down aircraft, or blow up ground targets a thousand miles inland should be called a Destroyer would have seemed ridiculous to people back then. And we'll probably have fifty more generations of military tech before we get to anything like a space warship. Who knows what the hell "Destroyer" will mean by then!
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
The modern cruiser and destroyer is really muddled. Basically just same role with the exception one is bigger than the other. But not by much.Graham Kennedy wrote:Hell, Destroyers were originally "Torpedo Destroyers" whose job was purely to protect capital ships from torpedo boats. The idea that an 8,000 ton ship that can hunt and sink submarines and other ships, shoot down aircraft, or blow up ground targets a thousand miles inland should be called a Destroyer would have seemed ridiculous to people back then. And we'll probably have fifty more generations of military tech before we get to anything like a space warship. Who knows what the hell "Destroyer" will mean by then!
Cruiser hell in itself, has its own confusing sub categories. Light cruiser, heavy cruiser, armored cruiser, protected cruiser, scout cruiser, battle cruiser, missile cruiser.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 6026
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:11 am
- Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
Captain Seafort wrote:The former is Lutzow-class, the latter is Deutschland-class.Mikey wrote:I have yet to hear anyone practically and un-arbitrarily describe a real difference between a heavy cruiser and a pocket battleship.
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
Technically the Deutschland class is more of a heavy cruiser with big guns and slower speed. You could make a legit case that a Baltimore class heavy cruiser could take on the class one on one with a real chance of winning.Sonic Glitch wrote:Captain Seafort wrote:The former is Lutzow-class, the latter is Deutschland-class.Mikey wrote:I have yet to hear anyone practically and un-arbitrarily describe a real difference between a heavy cruiser and a pocket battleship.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
My point exactly.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
- Location: Georgia, United States
- Contact:
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
To me the ship size is the first criteria, establishing a basic set of gun sizes. The modifier (heavy, pocket, etc) affects how that design is modified in terms of speed, number of guns, armor, endurance, etc.
E.g.:
CA: 3 turrets, three 8-inch guns per turret
CA(H): 4 turrets, three or four 8-inch guns per turret
and
BB: 3 turrets, three 12-inch guns per turret
BB(P): 2 turrets, two 12-inch guns per turret
E.g.:
CA: 3 turrets, three 8-inch guns per turret
CA(H): 4 turrets, three or four 8-inch guns per turret
and
BB: 3 turrets, three 12-inch guns per turret
BB(P): 2 turrets, two 12-inch guns per turret
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
The only thing about the pocket battleships that is a 'battleship' is the 11 inch guns. Two triple turrets. Everything else is either below or of equal to that of other heavy cruisers. Their armor would have a had a hard time stopping 8" shells.Coalition wrote:To me the ship size is the first criteria, establishing a basic set of gun sizes. The modifier (heavy, pocket, etc) affects how that design is modified in terms of speed, number of guns, armor, endurance, etc.
E.g.:
CA: 3 turrets, three 8-inch guns per turret
CA(H): 4 turrets, three or four 8-inch guns per turret
and
BB: 3 turrets, three 12-inch guns per turret
BB(P): 2 turrets, two 12-inch guns per turret
What makes a battleship is not just the guns but the armor. Speed is secondary in most cases. Battleships are meant to slug it out with its own contemporaries in a battle line and survive long enough to sink the opposing ship.
Which is why it's hard to place for example what the Defiant is in those naval terms. Heavily armored, heavily armored, fast as hell and has moderate speed on the size smaller than most ships.
Escort seems to be not a bad classification for it though. But real world navies, their escorts are basically of any type of ship but specifically designed escorts were smaller versions of destroyers.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
- Location: Georgia, United States
- Contact:
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
The pocket battleship has the potential to use its longer range and heavier weapons to engage the heavy cruiser first, and inflict enough damage that the heavy cruiser cannot win. This obviously depends on additional factors such as weather, scouting, aso, so the battle is not guaranteed.McAvoy wrote: The only thing about the pocket battleships that is a 'battleship' is the 11 inch guns. Two triple turrets. Everything else is either below or of equal to that of other heavy cruisers. Their armor would have a had a hard time stopping 8" shells.
What makes a battleship is not just the guns but the armor. Speed is secondary in most cases. Battleships are meant to slug it out with its own contemporaries in a battle line and survive long enough to sink the opposing ship.
Which is why it's hard to place for example what the Defiant is in those naval terms. Heavily armored, heavily armored, fast as hell and has moderate speed on the size smaller than most ships.
Escort seems to be not a bad classification for it though. But real world navies, their escorts are basically of any type of ship but specifically designed escorts were smaller versions of destroyers.
Defiant has all of its weapons facing forward, so it can engage a single target quite well, but multiple targets poorly. It also has short mission endurance with a high top speed. To me, the Defiant is a Federation version of a large PT Boat. The entire purpose of the Defiant was to engage a large, relatively stationary enemy ship, and inflict as much damage as possible before being destroyed. Regular Federation ships are capable of engaging an equally sized and maneuverable opponent, so the Defiant should be looked at as an extreme outlier in terms of ship design.
We may need to upsize our thoughts about what is a fighter/small boat, etc for the Federation. Since a Federation capital ship is in the 5 megaton range, compared to a Nimitz-class supercarrier at 100ktons, a rule of thumb would be to multiply th real-world masses by ~50 to get the equivalent size range for a Federation vessel. For example, if WW2 PT boats were ~60 tons, that means a PT boat equivalent for the Federation would be ~3000 tons.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
Minor nit, but all of Defiant's weapons do not face forward.
As for size, based on volume compared to a 4.5 megaton Galaxy class, Defiant would mass close to 50,000 tons. As with most Trek ships, it's really a good deal larger than one might think.
As for size, based on volume compared to a 4.5 megaton Galaxy class, Defiant would mass close to 50,000 tons. As with most Trek ships, it's really a good deal larger than one might think.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Re: Types of Sci-Fi Warship (Frigate, Destroyer etc.)
Graham, if you look at the Defiant alot of the volume on the Defiant is taken up by the warp nacelles, some by the nose. Might be a big ship relatively speaking compared to naval ships, she doesn't really have alot of actual working space.
I thought the phaser array on the Defiant isn't a bad idea. Especially when the ship is designed for close fighting. Knife fighting in a sense. So being able to strafe a ship with the pulse phasers and the phaser array is like a right hook and jab.
I thought the phaser array on the Defiant isn't a bad idea. Especially when the ship is designed for close fighting. Knife fighting in a sense. So being able to strafe a ship with the pulse phasers and the phaser array is like a right hook and jab.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"