Top 5 Interstellar Warships That Were Classified Completely Wrong 

Make up for it by making more videos on modern Halo Lore like the Ancient Human Empire (Anscestors) and the Forerunner Empire because there is some great Lore there.

gozanti looks more like patrol vessel/cruiser to me (hence the cruiser class most likely too....)

I think calling the Infinity a "Supercarrier" is appropriate because it is inherently unique, being based on non-reproducible Forerunner technology. There's also the fact that, unlike typical carriers, the infinity seems more than capable of engaging capital ships with it's own weaponry, even without the assistance of it's wing or a battlegroup.

look at the USS kitty hawk sold for a penny

I always wished that the earthforce group which arrived at B5 had called Delenn's bluff. I always wanted to see Omegas vs the Sharin cruiser, we never really got that.

which would be going back to the original definition of the Cruiser: a ship that cruises, ie sailing between foreign ports and showing the flag in port and diplomatic visits often for years at a time

Star Trek also has "Exploration Cruiser" Which the TMP novelization says is The Federation giving a non threatening name to their BATTLESHIPS.

Cruisers were originally designed to go on long voyages without sails in the early days of steam ships, so that fits with early cruisers

That makes sense. The US navy used some cruisers in escort duty while some sailed alone. also, the were divided according to gun caliber as light and heavy. currently we have missile cruisers that specialize in attacking an enemy fleet. while the US uses cruisers as part of the fleet

@@whee38 cruisers predate the age of steam ships. they just weren't a dedicated ship class but any ship doing the cruising mission. the first class called cruisers were the Cruizer class brig-sloops of the mid 18th century RN

Yep. By definition it's an auxiliary cruiser.

I could see this argument holding water, especially given that Queen Amidala's ship was called a cruiser despite being completely unarmed and not any bigger than the Gonzanti. Cruiser could easily be a civilian classification as well as a military one.

They were cargo ships weren't they?

I thought the gozanti was a freighter class

This might make a bit of sense, but when it comes to civilian hardware introduced into military service, no Navy is going to care too much about it was originally called and instead rename it to fit their own terminology. A good example of this would be the luxury liners turned troop transports in the World Wars. You also see it a lot in civilian aircraft that are used by various militaries as transports. The original name might stick around unofficially, but on anything related to supply chains or logistics, they will always be referred to by some new name to avoid confusion.

there are some better sounding options in my opinion if "carrier" is just too generic. "Escort Carrier" might work for smaller carriers, although the UNSC seems to prefer what we would call "Assault Ships" (a mix of a carrier and troop transport). When it comes to the biggest carriers though, I still prefer "fleet Carrier".

@The Templin Institute I would say this is a time when the terms could be generally interchangeable. Super carrier generally stays within the naming convention, referring to the size of the vessel. Fleet carrier would also work due to the Infinity working as the flag ship of a fleet of other warships. I would lean toward Super carrier due to the fact that Infinity is often shown to be working independently of any support craft that aren't being carried internally.

@@nick-314 In naval parlance, a fleet carrier doesn't need to be part of a fleet. It's stupid, mind you, because they're big, valuable vessels that are hard to replace (and if the UNSC _Infinity_ works without a fleet as a matter of course, then the UNSC is staffed by morons; if it's only escorts are parasite ships (that _could_ have been built and deployed independently) then the _Inifinty's_ designers are also dumb.) Regardless, a fleet carrier is just the largest carrier your fleet doctrine/technology allows. Mind, I don't agree that it fits this list; it's not completely wrong, it's just a disagreement in nomenclature, which is directly the opposite of what the video's preamble assured us was the case.

@@TemplinInstitute I agree but you are basically conceding there that there is no backing for your point in the video, that's just a name you thought sounded dumb. Good thing you preemptively included the honourable mention to keep the count at 5

@@boobah5643 They couldnt be build independently and keep up with it easily, because IIRC Infinity had a MUCH more advanced FTL drive, and thats why it needed to bring some escorts along.

That's not going to be a battle, it's going to be a massacre.

Helmsman: "I'm just gonna drive through them"

Officer : "Sir we are also a Gozanti sir" Captain:. I thought I was assigned to a crui..... Oh never mind , jump

Or even a heavier carrier, maybe with higher small craft capacity and/or more armor and heavier guns to protect itself.

BATTLE CARRIER! ,infinity has Mac's powerful than the orbital Mac cannons , it justified to call it a battle carrier

We have the same definition in real life. It fits the definition of an Auxiliary Cruiser, AKA an Armed Merchant Cruiser.

One source defines ‘bulk cruisers’ as warship/freighter hybrids. So cruisers that aren’t as well armed and armored as a normal cruiser, and use the space opened up by that to fit bigger cargo bays. The Trade Federation warships used to blockade Naboo might qualify for the designation, since they were originally large interstellar bulk cargo ships that were converted into heavy cruisers/carriers, and probably still have more cargo space than ships designed to be warships to begin with. A ship from another franchise that might qualify is the Ferengi _Marauder,_ a ship of comparable size and strength to the Federation’s _Galaxy_ class cruiser, but possessing considerably more storage space with which to perform acts of mercantilism. It gets away with being as powerful as a cruiser despite being a cruiser/freighter hybrid because the Federation doesn’t build proper cruisers either, they build upscale hotel and convention center/cruiser hybrids.

There's something to be said for the idea that a "cruiser" can be a non-military ship an FTL context, where one might want to use it to describe ships that can "cruise" for extended periods on their own (blurred by the fact that many universes arm even civilian ships, so you might see a civilian-owned cruiser more poorly armed than a small patrol ship). On top of that, unscrupulous ship-makers might have incentives to stretch the civilian use of "cruiser" to sell ships that can barely operate for a few months before having to dock for supplies and repairs. No doubt the target of many jokes from experienced spacefarers. "Ha, another one of those QuikTek 'cruisers' is coming in for supplies. Taking bets on whether they can even make it to Bernard's Star before turning back!"

@@Xalerdane Kind of highlights how far the Ferengi were able to push their wealth into strength (albeit at a limited scale and with no ability to project it), and how lucky the Federation's enemies were, given that the Galaxy-class rivaled or exceeded the strongest purpose-built warships of their nearest rivals despite purposefully holding itself back to support exploration and diplomacy. Until you push them too hard, and then you get an "escort" ship like the Defiant that can go toe-to-toe with ships many times it size.

@@Nerd_Detective That is how I look at it. In both cases the ship needs to be capable of extended voyages away from ports that can supply it. In civilian circles it is more of a marketing term. For the Military, they use it when referring to a general purpose warship. A vessel that is as comfortable on frontier patrols as it is in a battle line. The only problem is that begins to overlap with how the term Frigate is often used. In the real world the Venn diagram of what is a Frigate and what is a Destroyer is starting to overlap. In the Star Wars universe this may be the case with Frigate and Cruiser. The Nebulon-B and Munificent classes are both categorized as frigates, but those ships couldn't be more different.

Yep. Also "Heavy Cruiser" or "Assault Cruiser"

Drinking game?

@@smithjack1741 that sounds like death waiting lol

You do know that battlecruiser Is actually a tipe of ship, that actually existed

@@JoaoSoares-rs6ec Yes, but the term gets overused in sci-fi, particularly on ships that don't fit the definition. Things that should be called battleships or even just regular cruisers get labeled as "battlecruisers" presumably because it sounds cool. Which it does.

I second this, the Federation is already hesistant to build "escort" ships and names them something less agressive. It makes sense that they would like to differentiate their own exploration cruisers from the warships of others.

I just assumed that when they scanned the ship, the computer's IFF just noted the fact that this otherwise normal cruiser had several heavier-class weapons than perhaps the typical cruiser would have, and assigned it the 'combat' cruiser designation. Like, "Oh this one is a cruiser. It only has a couple of phasers. But this one here, of the same make? It's got heavier phasers, and a torpedo launcher, and a higher top speed. So it's used for actually FIGHTING stuff. It's a Combat cruiser."

@@Kalebfenoir "a couple of phasers" already equals a planet destroying superweapon, so...

Thats just an irl thing at this point. The largest surface combatant in basically any modern navy is going to be a destroyer. The few cruisers that are still in service are around the same size or smaller than modern destroyers.

Arguably the same issue happens here on Earth. Some new European ship classes are larger than their predecessors (that were also classified as destroyers) are classified as frigates. The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force in particular and the French Marine Nationale (until recently) classify their longer range, ocean going warships as destroyers, regardless of size, with frigate/corvettes/destroyer escorts for the littoral patrol forces. The US Navy has no frigates (for now) and the backbone of the surface fleet are the DDG 51 (Burke) Class. The 3 DDG 1000 (Zumwalt) are the size of WWII cruisers with respect to displacement and arguably should be classified as such given their new role. That being said, one of the original members of the Earth Alliance is the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States, Netherlands, and like South Africa per B5 lore. I think the Earth Alliance Navy has a logical designation system, initially with Olympus Class Corvette (jump gate dependent), Hyperion Class Cruiser (smallest jump engine equipped), and then Nova Class Dreadnought, perhaps better analogous to the days of sail with less ship classes and types. It reflects that shared nautical background scifi borrows from pretty well in this case. The destroyer designation is appropriate given the Omega Class is the backbone of the Earth Alliance fleet. It reflects the changes in technology and design philosophy from the prior generation of big Earth Alliance ships with the Nova Class Dreadnought (big with guns) and Hyperion Class cruisers (lighter armament) combination that saw service in the Dilgar (more successful) and Minbari (less successful) war. The EAS Lexington, a Hyperion Class Cruisers, was described as an old patrol ship in the Minbari War movie when General Leftert was trying to convince Sheridan to transfer as XO to the task force flagship heading out to make contact with the Minbari. In one of the "Voice of the Resistance" broadcasts, Ivonava mentions Earth Alliance destroyer and carrier groups who are tuning in against orders from the President Clarke regime. Omega Class destroyers are likely escorting the carriers assuming they are pure carriers with lots of starfuries or landing craft in the assault ship role. We have seen on screen multiple instances of "loyalist" Omega Class destroyers in a battle groups throughout the Earth Alliance civil war. Additionally the fleet mobilized to protect Earth from the Drakh at that point is pretty much all Omega Class destroyers. The Earth Alliance just never reclassified their older ships as they transitioned to using just the Omega Class as their primary warship type.

*Frigates. The Infiniti can carry anything smaller than a heavy frigate. Which lends more credence to your argument. Oh, and it can carry 6 of them.

So, the UNSC Infinity is essentially a Traveller Battlerider Carrier. 😆

I think the definition of "super" carrier comes in not just in size but capability. The Infinity was designed as essentially a deep-space forward operating base, as well as a warship, in addition to carrying it's own personal escort fleet. A regular carrier would be dependent on the ships it carries, as much as the ships it carries are dependant on it. The Infinity and the other Super Carriers are also formidable warships on their own, and are also carriers. I would also suspect that the Infinity or other Super Carriers could also act as mobile shipyards for vessels up to their maximum hanger size and house manufacturing facilities for most standard vehicles and hardware.

@@hanzzel6086 actually its 10 of them

@@ckl9390 given it was designed to be an ark for humanity in the event earth fell Im inclined to agree especially with the shipyard capability; even smaller and older vessels like the SoF had extensive manufacturing facilities so Infinity at the very least had equivalent facilities

Just one of the many egregious butchering's the film makers committed in that farce of a film. Yes, I am a fan of the book! That being said I am of the very same opinion, its pretty much certain that they changed the scale of the ships to fit in with their reimagining of Starship Trooper and did not bother to change the name to reflect the much larger ship. Probably because they are militarily clueless amongst other factors....

@@alganhar1 Considering Heinlein was a Navy veteran I'm glad you brought this up... I was curious. Didn't think he's make a mistake like that.

@@DarthBludgeon Look at modern Destroyers in the US, Congress wouldn't approve construction of more cruisers in the 80s, or there abouts, so the navy relabeled their new cruiser class as destroyers and Congress not only let them build all the "destroyers" they wanted the even let them build more of them! That's why Ticonderogas and Arleigh-Burkes are about the same size.

@@drafty9580 Well, that and technology changes to focus on missile launched weapons rather than gun emplacements meant a lot of roles could be folded into one multi-purpose ship. The term "Destroyer" originates form the early 20th century "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" (a small ship just a bit bigger than the torpedo boats, but fast and purpose built to hunt them). Torpedo boats where the bane of big cruisers and battleships, so they needed escorts... much like how the modern Aircraft carrier centerpieces of the US fleets require escorts capable of "destroying" submarines (as well as anything russian). The Russian navy is interesting since it's design philosophy was "stick as many missiles on a ship as possible, empty all the tubes at the incoming American aircraft carriers then abandon ship" cause they knew their navy was just simply for buying time, not actually beating the US navy. Their subs where the real asset. Hence American Destroyers being sub-hunters. 120 years ago the biggest naval threat was a tiny single, open decked torpedo boat zipping by your battleship and dumping a dozen torpedo's below the waterline. Nowadays, it's a nuclear armed sub sneaking into a harbor and unloading it's nuclear arsenal point blank into a dense population center where you have zero interception time. A few rungs down in nightmare scenarios, it's a sub sneaking close to the Aircraft carrier and gutting it. So "destroyer" fits the mission profile of what the Arleigh-Burkes primary roles are, destroying subs (the modern torpedo boats). The rest of the additional roles it had are b/c technology improvements got folded into the same role simply b/c they could. There isn't a reason for our doctrine to include as many specialized roles as it once did since today a single Areigh-Burke could outgun the entire navy of most nations all by itself. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the new Gerald Ford-class carriers could just ram into a Queen Elizabeth-class and just keep going as if it merely hit a speed bump. It's why everyone refers to American aircraft carriers as "super carriers". Everyone else has carriers that are just pretty pathetic by comparison.

Thank you for posting this. Despite the obvious love of the infantryman Heinlein was a navy boy. A squid wouldn't make a mistake like that.

Star Wars ship naming is pretty all over the place until you realize ships like the dreadnought are literally designs that have been around for hundreds of years in some cases

I think you can give the Dreadnought a pass though, since it's not really a ship classification, it was the name of a ship which set the standard for other ships of the same class, for example the British Navy actually recycled the name for their first nuclear power submarine in the 60's and they're recycling it again for their new Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines (which if we're applying the same logic would actually be an IRL example of the topic of the video).

@@Aries2890 Took the words right out of my mouth.

The distinction between a "Light-" and "Heavy-" cruiser is pretty flexible, and it is usually more dependent on armor and weaponry than on pure size. In WWII, for example, the difference between a light- and heavy cruiser came down to the caliber of its guns; light cruisers typically had 6-inch guns as their main weapons, whereas heavy cruiser guns were 8-inch. IIRC the Dreadnaught-class was labeled as a heavy cruiser because it had very heavy firepower for a ship of its size.

The Star Destroyers themselves are wonky, they are *named* destroyers but their size puts them in heavy cruiser territory.

Or one more heavily dedicated to ship v ship combat. Your standard cruiser may be generalized, while a "combat cruiser" may have stronger shields and more powerful weapons better suited to fight other starships.

I thought someone was trying for "Battlecruiser" and gotten their terminology wires crossed, myself.

In the broadest sense, a cruiser is a ship capable of and intended for long range independent operations. Since space is very, very big it'd make sense if most interstellar ships in a space opera setting are cruisers of some sort. But if every ship is a cruiser, it becomes a rather unhelpful designation and it's natural that subtypes would arise. Sci-fi franchises often use "light cruiser", "heavy cruiser", and "battlecruiser" because those terms were used in WW2 so more people are familiar with those terms, but I think it's fine for those properties to use different ones. Historically, protected cruisers were intended more for scouting and armored cruisers were intended more for fighting it out and it'd be perfectly reasonable to instead call them "scout cruiser" and "combat cruiser". And due to how big and empty space is, there may also be a need for "patrol cruisers" because a corvette might not be big enough for interstellar operations in some settings where a corvette sized ship may have the range to patrol a star system or star cluster but not beyond. Star Trek in particular has politically motivated "we're not a military despite constantly fighting wars" ships that the Federation calls "exploration cruisers".

I believe it's just another case of the Federation attempting to avoid agressive terminology for their own ships. Just like calling their own destroyers "escorts", they call their cruisers "exploration cruisers". It would thus make sense they'd call a hostile warship a combat cruiser rather than just a cruiser in order to differentiate the two.

Since when does star trek have fighters and submarines in space 😂 ,not that they can depth charge cloak ships like subs , and ofcourse the courier ships and run abouts are not fighter which need anti air def

Yeah and the "Gazanti" is called the "Gozanti" 😂

Please tell this friend of yours that I hate him.

Yeah the movie did everything it possibly could to bastardize Heinleins work, really should not even be considered as a legitimate sci-fi film. It's explicitly meant to *mock* one of the most iconic books in the sci-fi genre. Starship Troopers gave the genre iconic concepts like 'space marines' and 'power armor'. it's really hard to understate just what an impact that book had in forming the entire genre of science fiction. This is why Heinlein is considered one of the three Greats of Sci-fi, up there with Isaac Asimov. Hollywood didn't understand it, so they very consciously made an effort to crap all over the title. I wish Templin would stop taking that film seriously, I'd rather they used info from the book when speaking of the Starship Troopers setting.

Ah the Alaska , king of cruisers in wows 😂

Well the gat-12 skipray blast boats considered the smallest capital ship of the imperial navy despite only having twice the arnament and a light turbolaser cannon than an average star fighter

I imagine he was relying on the Force to warn him before Luke decided to turn it on.

It’s not even a Fast Attack Craft, it’s a freaking _Customs Boat._

That would still be better to assign it the "Corvette" class because Corvettes are still either screen or picket ships.

The Gozanti is the opposite of a battleship in terms of weapons and armour but more than qualified in terms 9f speed

I use ‘Supercarrrier’ to refer to Battleship-sized carriers. Cruiser-sized carriers are called ‘Fleet Carriers’, and Frigate-sized carriers are ‘Escort Carriers’. There aren’t any carrier types in the smaller ship types, they’re too small to carry enough launchable craft to be worth it. I just decided that battleship-sized ships that are partially battleship and partially carrier are called ‘Battle Carriers’. --------------- There’s five sizes of FTL-capable ships in my setting, each sub-divided into Light, Medium, Heavy, and Super-Heavy. Size 1: Clippers. Too small to be used as warships. Most are used for transporting messages between systems (there’s FTL travel, but no FTL communication.) They’re also used as couriers, VIP transports, and private yachts. Light Clippers are at least 600 meters in length, as that’s the smallest a ship can be and still be able to fit an FTL Drive. ‘Raiders’ (submarines in space) are this size. Size 2: Corvettes, Escorts and Destroyers. ‘Corvette’ is a blanket term for everything that doesn’t qualify for the other two categories. ‘Escorts’ are ships of this size that are rigged for, well, escorting things. Usually freighters. ‘Destroyers’ are kitted for attacking bigger ships. This is also the size of ‘Sprint Traders’, small fast cargo ships that specialize in high value/time sensitive cargo. Size 3: Frigates and Escort Carriers. This is the smaller of the two ‘jack of all trades’ categories. Frigates can be command ships of corvette flotillas on patrol, or serve in fleets in a supporting capacity. Escort Carriers are used to escort freighters and small convoys. ‘Merchantman’ is a category of frigate-sized freighter owned and operated by independent merchant-captains who don’t stick to a single trade route. They can’t carry as much as a pure freighter, but they’re better armed and armored and have longer range. Size 4: Cruisers, Battlecruisers, and Fleet Carriers. Cruisers are like Frigates, but bigger and slower. They can be fitted for almost any kind of role. Battlecruisers are equipped with Battleship-caliber weapons, and as a consequence lack most of a cruiser’s armor and amount of time it can stay out of port. Only found in military fleets. Fleet Carriers are also only found in fleets, and likewise cannot function independently for any length of time. ‘Bulk Freighters’ are cruiser-sized transports. Size 5: Battleships, Super Carriers, Battle Carriers. Biggest, strongest, toughest, slowest, and most expensive. Fill ‘‘em full of guns and point them at the space stations orbiting a planet owned by someone you hate. Super Carriers carry more attack craft than Fleet Carriers, and can even carry some of the really big stuff that normally requires an orbital installation to operate out of. Battle Carrier = “I want a Battlestar.” Mass Freighters are fuckhueg cargo movers that can also carry fleets of Cutters. Speaking of: Size 0: any ship capable of lifting off from a planet under its own power and has enough space onboard for multiple decks and/or a degree of operational independence but isn’t big enough to fit an FTL is called a ‘Cutter.’ Governments use Cutters as Customs Boats and Search and Rescue ships. Militaries use them as Torpedo Boats, Heavy Attack Craft, and Insertion Craft/Heavy Fire Support/Mobile Command Centers for ground forces. Private owners use them for just about everything.

uh oh

@@TemplinInstitute better lock down the institute

@@TemplinInstitute That's an ominous Uh-oh...

the Daedalus class is a Battlecruiser, also a Deep Space Carrier, because it is designed for independent operation. Able to outrun anything it cannot outfight and outfight anything it cannot outrun. It makes sense (in space) it would be a battlecruiser. Also, if you image Earth building a 'battleship," it would be bigger, and slower but with more firepower than the Daedalus-class.

@@ak102986 I doubt it highly. The Daedalus is overwhelming centred around it's powerful shields. It's engine and hyperdrive are nothing special and it's firepower is downright anaemic. To be a battle cruiser it would need a much more powerful hyperdrive.

I honestly wish there was more of this in scifi. People underplay the effect politics actually has on naming conventions and even design. The Federation from Star Trek absolutely abhors making their military vessels look the part in addition to basically refusing to give their ships traditional military roles. A real-world example of this would be the Chinese Communist Party whose entire political doctrine revolves around personnel expendability and thus either never or very rarely even allow designers to add armor to any of their vehicles. Regardless of whether it's a main battle tank or carrier. We've now confirmed this thanks to the greatest intelligence agency mankind has ever created: War Thunder. Essentially, CCP MBTs frontal armor can be penetrated by a measly 105mm which is essentially a light gun you could expect to find on an armored car.

@@Ryanowning don’t forget Japan’s not carrier

BATTLE CARRIER, the word you are looking for is Battle carrier

That only makes sense from inside that one navy; it's a distinction that isn't going to mean anything to a foreign navy, unless they're neck-deep in a war (or preparing for same) _and_ they're close enough to being a peer that it might matter. For random alien civ of the week? No.

Dreadnaught is fine as it's never been a real warship classification. Dreadnaught was simply an easy way to refer to the new revolutionary style of battleships that emerged in the early 1900s and was named so after the first of said battleships, the HMS Dreadnaught. The Royal Navy has since then had two vessels named HMS Dreadnaught, both of which were/are nuclear powered submarines. About as far away from a battleship as you can get. The name 'dreadnaught' means 'to fear nothing' and so there's really no reason why any ship or ship class can't be called a "Dreadnaught".

@@jensonkiin3678 Depends on whether or not the setting uses 'dreadnought' as a classification; many settings do use it, specifically to mean a bigger, more powerful, more technologically advanced battleship, and usually replaces it in 'modern' navies in the setting.

the original age of sail definition of a cruiser was a ship that cruised and could support itself on long voyages. They'd sail between foreign ports and show the flag in port and host diplomatic visits. They'd also spend years doing this. So this is writers going back to a definition that was in use for hundreds of years, rather than the 50 odd years of "large general purpose warship" current navies use

I think it works, IRL frigates are usually smaller than destroys (with a few exceptions like when the US was calling guided missile destroyers, frigates), and in Homeworld the jump in size between ship classes is always huge, the jump from corvette to frigate is similarly massive.

yea can't mistake a Destroyer for a Frigate in Homeworld

The impression I get is that "Star Destroyer" essentially means "large, do-anything capital ship". Named as such because, in theory, a Star Destroyer carries enough armour, weaponry, and troops to conquer a (lightly-defended) star system without assistance from support ships. Both the Venator and Imperial-class fit this definition, being deployed individually or in small groups to project power across the galaxy, but with different specializations.

@@Mitchz95 It doesn't help that there are _Imperial_ variants that remove the ability to deploy troops or fighters in exchange for a more powerful turbolaser armament (and the infrastructure to support it). These are still referred to as 'star destroyers.'

@@Mitchz95 I also really like the idea that Star Destroyer is an organic term in the Starwars Universe and represents a new classification of ship. This is similar to what the HMS Dreadnought did. It is partially public relations but also a good way to differentiate between a paradigm breaking design.

That’s why I use ‘destroyer’ to refer to corvette-sized ships optimized and outfitted for attacking larger ships in my setting. Or at the very least, corvette-sized ships optimized and outfitted to be proactively aggressive.

Funny idea, given that there was a RL "Cruiser Destroyer": It was originaly refered to by the british royal navy as a "dreadnought armed cruiser" and later as a "Battlecruiser". Basically a warship with guns big enough to easily overcome the belt arour of a armoured cruiser - that meant originaly the same 12" guns as used on the first Dreadnoughts - , while just heavily enough armoured to resist return fire at the envisioned combat range - the royal navy would like you to ignore the "questionable wisdom" of giving the Indefatigable class only 4 inches of belt over the main magazines and thus making them vulnerable to fire form their intended prey - , and enough speed to rund down and force into action at least most enemy cruisers.

@@Bird_Dog00 Given the intended role of the Star Destroyer, I would say that this justifies the 'Cruiser-Destroyer' moniker even further.

well, consider that our RL destroyers started out as 'torpedo boat destroyers', litterally 'the ships we built to destroy torpedo boats', where 'torpedo boats' could mean anything from row boats with spar torpedos through whatever point in the cold war that submarines switched from using torpedoes to anti ship missiles for attacking surface warships. By a similar process you could end up with pretty much Anything labled a destroyer, provided it started out as a "destroyer of Xs" and there was no real competition for the term in the fleets of the day.

HMS Dreadnought (meaning fear nothing) was a British Battleship so revolutionary that it redefined the term battleship. Battleships were now refereed to as pre-Dreadnaught type and post-dreadnaught type battleship. The Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruiser is just a type of heavy cruiser that the lead ship was likely named Dreadnaught or the manufactures wanted to convey that their cruiser had nothing to fear. And if I remember the legends lore correctly, the Dreadnaught class had a similar affect on Star Wars ships as the HMS Dreadnaught did IRL.

It also makes sense in the context of the Federation itself, as the enterprise is an "exploration cruiser", just like it has "escorts" instead of destroyers. It's most likely an attempt to differentiate themselves from purpose build combat vessels.

I could be wrong, but that term seems to have arisen in the 24th century with ships like the Galaxy Class. In the 23rd century, the Constitution Class and the like were still being referred to as "Heavy Cruisers".

@@TemplinInstitute fair enough. they most def were terms for TNG and beyond era though. around the time of the excelsior is when they started using that term i believe.

I always thought the name was based on it's damage output. It's called a destroyer because it destroys things. It's more of a flying gun than a proper battleship.

Counter argument: The Aggressor is actually a Star Destroyer, so the Destroyer classification fits within the Star Wars universes naming conventions. Also as a further point, and to add some confusion, in the Star Wars universe a Destroyer (with out the Star in front) is actually capital ship class with a size and armament between a Heavy Cruiser and a Battlecruiser, so even it was just a Destroyer it would still fit.

Properly speaking, a 'helicopter destroyer' should be a ship specifically designed and built for destroying helecopters ('destroyers' being, properly speaking, 'torpedo boat destroyers') so I'd argue that that is the Japanese navy misclasifying their ships, rather than grounds to justify the scifi equivalent error. Arguably, such ships should be "helicopter tenders", assuming they're fairly lightly armed for their size and one doesn't want to call them a carrier.

@@laurencefraser my point was that the japanese navy intentionally misclassified a very large ship as a destroyer for political/optics reasons, which is exactly what the last ship in this video did. we can argue about what the proper designation for the ship should be, but its very clearly not a destroyer lol. light carrier, assault ship, you could argue. helicopter tender isn't accurate enough because they can carry F-35s and other fixed wing aircraft with minimal modification and were designed to do so from the get go.