How many Star Destroyers does it take to destroy a star?

No no, they're Destroyers that fly among the stars.

>>15083537

∞

It doesn't matter how many you have, or what class there's nothing to indicate any amount of any of them can output that kind of damage. You need a Death Star with something like a billion times the mass of a Star Destroyer and a unique weapon (well, almost) just to destroy a planet, never mind a star. If you convert a planet in to a station and install another system you can drain a star though. It's not quite destroying it, but it has much the same effect.

>>15083537
When I was just a kid and hearing about Star Wars, I always wondered why the Empire would need to build a Death Star to destroy planets if they already had Star Destroyers. It wasn't until I took a naval class in college that I realized that the term "destroyer" came from the naval parlance "torpedo boat destroyer".

It's funny how misleading that term is to the layman, when in fact destroyers are among the smallest of warships (second only to frigates).

Why are ISD called Destroyers, if they're one of the larger vessels that the Imperial Navy fields ?(Discounting SSDs in all their flavors)

Wouldn't they rather be Imperial Star Cruisers?

>>15083581
Because Destroyer sounds cooler than Cruiser.

>>15083537
One, at sufficient velocity.

SUN CRUSHER

>>15083738

Has a hyperspace ship hitting a sun taken one out? I thought the mass shadow would destroy the ship and a bit of the shadow would be destroyed too, but nothing big enough to generate a shadow would be destroyed by such an impact.

>>15083767
FLARE FUCKER

>>15083767
>Grand Moff Tarkin
>personally commands Death Star and oversees development
>wrote the doctrine the whole project was founded on
>still thought it was so stupid that he diverted funds to secretly develop a fighter-sized craft that did the same thing but better

>>15084060

Also said fighter is literally invincible.

>>15083581
Because writers don't know squat when it comes to naval terms. To be fair the series Babylon 5 makes the same mistake with the Omega class destroyers when they identify them as a heavy cruiser in a few episodes.

>>15083537
It shouldn't take too many if you go at night

>>15083566
These days it's something to the effect of the Destroyer being a ship destroyer, the unit that runs defense for a larger fleet while also capable of operating at the front of the fight.

At the very least there's some weird grey space with the USN Arleigh Burkes, which are quite fat for mere destroyers.

Star Destroyers are more evocative of something like Russia's aviation cruisers, except with less smog belching and no fancy ski ramps.

>>15084543
Most USN destroyers are closer to cruisers in construction. The name is largely a holdover to sneak bigger boats through Congress' funding bills.

>>15084060
>This thing was ridiculously stupid
>So i made something that MORE ridiculously stupid

Mr Tarkin, you know that the whole planet busting system are too big to even fit in an Executor right?

File: StarDestroyer046.jpg (291KB, 1000x655px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1000x655px

ILM talks about the Star Destroyer model
26:12
https://youtu.be/85MK2GDkoxo?t=26m12s

Funfact: originally the Super Star Destroyer Executor in TESB was going to be a regular Star Destroyer, painted blue, to save money. ILM told Lucas it was a bad idea because they would have scrape blue paint off the thousands of fiber optic holes in the SD model, and ILM got to build the SSD model in just a few weeks, working 24 hour days to get it finished.

>>15083543
Well that's disappointing. Here I was thinking the Empire just liked it's edgy names.
I liked the idea of the name being a boast that the ship is powerful enough to destroy stars (even if that's an obvious exaggeration).

File: 975281289204.jpg (41KB, 500x853px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x853px

>>15083767
So stupid.
>The Sun Crusher was a nearly indestructible craft that was no larger than a starfighter, but was capable of unleashing destruction on a magnitude that dwarfed even the Death Star's capabilities.

This is why the EU was retconned out of existence.

>>15083581
They use the term Destroyer on the same rank as our real world Battleships.

In Star Wars i think the size categories goes like:

Dreadnaughts
Star Destroyers
Cruisers
Frigates
Corvettes

>>15084511
Ok I chuckled.

You win this time, Anon.

Ship terms have changed over time yes? To say nothing of terminology a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

>>15084511
Samy pls

>>15083543
I always assumed it was named that because one ship could take over a star system by itself.

>>15085273
To be fair all its missiles did were trigger a chain reaction that lead to the star going supernova, destroying the host system. And each individual missile cost just as much to develop as did the prototype Death Star's superlaser.

Not that any of this matters anymore anyway, since nothing new for Legends will ever be released again.

Galaxy Gun was the best EU superweapon anyway.

>>15085540
>>15085273
It also looked super goofy and was stolen by the edgelord of the Jedi Academy, right?

File: Death_Star_Prototype_destruction.jpg (100KB, 656x496px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 656x496px

>>15085562
Yep. Kyp Durron went on a rampage with it once he got it, tearing through Imperial Remnant fleets and used it to destroy the Carida system. Once Han caught up with him though, Durron's students destroyed Exar Kun and purged his influence from the galaxy, freeing Durron from his hatred. To pay for his crimes, he flew the Sun Crusher into one of the Maw black holes, surviving via escape pod at the last moment.

The New Republic deemed that Skywalker should decide Durron's fate for his genocide, and after determining that it really was the evil spirit of Kun that caused Durron to go berserk, Skywalker had Durron undergo the same sort of spirit training he did on Dagobah, letting him live with the knowledge that billions of people are dead because of him, so he would always atone afterwards and remain on the side of the light.

>>15083738
fuck off back to SB

NOT CANON
And dumb
EUfags, eat shit

File: complete canon.png (404KB, 944x585px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 944x585px

>>15086393
There we have it. Star Destroyers are not canon. You heard it here first.

>>15087515

That image has never been true. Not even in the early 80s. By the time Return came out Splinter of the Mind's Eye had been published and Marvel had printed a fair few comics.

Yeah, nah. Vader tripped over his own severed arm, fell in a hole and bloody well died in Splinter of the Mind's Eye. That means The Empire Strikes Back ignored it.

It's not about tastes m8, I even like the goofy old Marvel comics, the fact is until 2015 canon was JUST movies. Not even The Clone Wars, which is canon now, was canon while it was being made.


The EU was just that, an expanded universe. The old multi-tier canon system determined what was canon to the EU. Not to the movie timeline.

>>15087579

> the fact is until 2015 canon was JUST movies.

Even if that were true, and it's not even remotely so, there's still be another three movies on that list. And The Clone Wars was canon since it's inception,not just the last two years.

>>15083537
A lot, they're not very powerful

>>15087583
The image is obviously having a laugh at the expense of people who argue canon, m8. And for the longest time 'just the movies are canon' was the offical stance from Lucasfilm.

>>15084552
Modern naval terminology is a mess.

The only things that should be canon are the X-Wing/Tie Fighter games.