More on Star Wars Ships

I found this very interesting website:

http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/

If the other ship titles are for ships comparable in mass to the same class in
FT, then we can assume that Star Destroyers are on a scale that dwarfs even
SDN's, and SSD's would be well, even more silly in hugemongousness.

2B^2

> At 12:17 PM -0800 3/5/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:

I think the thing to remember with Star Destroyers is that they are not
Destroyers. The radical difference between the role of the
Frigate in the days of sail and the current use/size comparison
between them and other men of war is a very good illustrator of point.

I think the name "Star Destroyer" was to imply that they had the firepower to
destroy a star. Although not true, since there is some reference to "it would
take a thousand star destroyers to destroy a planet" or something like that,
and even the Death Star only had enough to destroy a planet, not a star.

There is something to be said about naming stuff for propoganda purposes
- i.e. Titanic (named for her large size), the Reagan "Star Wars"
projects, A-10 Thunderbolt II, "Grand Slam" 22,000 lbs bomb.  Such names
may inspire more fear than the actual product.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> I think the thing to remember with Star Destroyers is that they are

Yes, I know. I wasn't comparing Destroyers and SW Star Destroyers, i was
comparing Frigates to SW Frigates, Cruisers to SW Cruisers, Dreadnoughts to SW
Dreadnoughts, and extarpolating that since SD's and SSd's are bigger than SW
Dreadnoughts, they're probably much huger than FT Dreadnoughts as well.

2B^2