This is more of a random thought than anything else. I was at work today and the word "light" came up in a discussion describing something we were doing. It didn't have anything to do with Star wars, or Armada for that matter, unfortunately, but it just got me thinking.

We have a light cruiser and a light carrier. How can the word "light " be used when there's no medium or heavy as comparison?

Is it just part of the name? If so why not stick with Quasar and Arquiten?

The Victory could be considered a heavy cruiser and the Star Destroyer could be considered a battleship, going to World War II terminology but that's not what they're called.

The Subjugator-class heavy cruiser from Clone Wars has the "heavy" designation. As does the Ravenous (Maxima class heavy cruiser) from the Poe Dameron comic, so there are ships with those descriptions in canon.

So I'm asking, do you think the word light is just used as part of the name, or is there the possibility a medium or heavy something will come out in the future?

16 minutes ago, Davard said:

We have a light cruiser and a light carrier. How can the word "light " be used when there's no medium or heavy as comparison?

Is it just part of the name? If so why not stick with Quasar and Arquiten?

I suspect that much of the terminology in Sci-Fi (Star Wars or otherwise) has its roots in our own contemporary world's naval traditions.

We wouldn't have light and heavy cruisers in naval terminology except that the London Naval treaty of the `1930 (itself an extension of the Washington Naval treaty in 1922/3) addressed the burgeoning naval arms race among the major naval powers of the world. It capped maximum tonnage in different classes of ships, and part of that was looking specifically at cruiser class ships. There, the heavy/light distinction centered around whether the guns had a bore of greater than 6 inches. That left us with a set of cruisers carrying 8 inch guns, which was the cap, and those that carried 6 inch guns. If it weren't for the treaty, there really wouldn't have been the name to make a distinction between light and heavy cruisers, since whatever armament they have, they are still well above a destroyer in tonnage, and well under a battleship.

What I see in a lot of science-fiction is the borrowing of the names from naval terminology, but not really a clear expression of why one name applies to one ship in one situation versus another. But it really doesn't affect my enjoyment of the shows, movies, or game much, so I just run with it.

Which also goes to infantry. The Term 'LIGHT' has long been a military parlance that was transfered from there to Naval.

Light often meant, lightly armed, lightly armored, and fast. So Light Cavalry would be little armor, a light spear, and very fast. Heavy Cavalry we are now talking heavier armor, often a heavy spear or later a lance (Lances did not come into use until after the invention of Stirrups, so now lances for the Romans, but they did have light and heavy horse). Same for infantry. Light Infantry, light armor/shield and easy to use weapons, often just a spear. Heavy infantry got the better armor, their 'heavier' shields, and maybe a sword in addition to their spears.

In Napoleonic terms Light Cavalry was used for scouting, keeping contact with the enemy and reporting their movements, while screening the flanks of ones own army and preventing the enemy the full use of his Light Cavalry, as well as pursuit action on a fleeing enemy.

Horses used by light Cavalry, was usual small and nimble. And the rider had a sabre, lance or both as his primary weapon.

Heavy Cavalry, was used for shock attack, these was used when you really wanted the enemy in the hurt box, British Heavy Cavalry in particular, where big men on big horses (But poorly lead)

An unprepared Infantry formation, did on many occasions desintigrate when subjected to an attack by heavy cavalry

The prefered weapon of Heavy cavalry in that era was a straight sword, armour plating by some units came in the form of an cuirass, some armoured units had only a breast plate, but most when carried usually had both a breast and back plate, like the French Cuirassers. Dragoons on the other hand did not carrier armour but was still considered as heavy cavalry, unless the word "Light" was added in front.

Light cruisers in WWII was due to the caliber of guns rather than the tonnage of the ship. It was perfectly possible for a light cruiser to be heavier than a heavy cruiser. It could also have more firepower such as 12x6" guns v 6 or 8 8" guns.

Light carriers had a smaller aircraft compliment than fleet carriers. This was mainly due to the overall tonnage of the ship. There was also the escort carrier which was even smaller than the light carrier and they were often slower.

Remember different navies have different rules and naming standards and these could also evolve over time. Sci-Fi script writers then pick and choose from various military terms based on what they think the audience can relate to, and of course, what sounds cool. Then along come some wargame rule authors who try and make a little more sense out of this.

I cannot seem to make heads or tails of the Armada expansion naming schemes. Some with class names (Nebulon-B), some with generic sounding classifications (Imperial Light Cruiser), some with ship titles (Home One).

It's enough to drive a space grognard mad!!!

56 minutes ago, Maturin said:

I cannot seem to make heads or tails of the Armada expansion naming schemes. Some with class names (Nebulon-B), some with generic sounding classifications (Imperial Light Cruiser), some with ship titles (Home One).

It's enough to drive a space grognard mad!!!

I should've been clearer, but this is more of what I was talking about.

I understand about the historical military designations, but I meant the terms of the game itself. Is the fact that there are some "light" ships any sort of indication whether "medium" or "heavy" ships will show up in the future.

Like the 2 I mentioned above.

Ah...ok. yeah would be nice to see a heavy cruiser or assault frigate.

1 hour ago, Davard said:

I should've been clearer, but this is more of what I was talking about.

I understand about the historical military designations, but I meant the terms of the game itself. Is the fact that there are some "light" ships any sort of indication whether "medium" or "heavy" ships will show up in the future.

Like the 2 I mentioned above.

Anything is possible, but not necessarily- because you already have some medium and heavy ships out there. They're just not explicitly called out as such.

7 minutes ago, NeonKnight said:

Ah...ok. yeah would be nice to see a heavy cruiser or assault frigate.

Ummm, have you met the giant Space Egg/Whale of Dooooom?

http://starwars-armada.wikia.com/wiki/Assault_Frigate_Mark_II_Expansion_Pack

1 minute ago, Maturin said:

Ummm, have you met the giant Space Egg/Whale of Dooooom?

http://starwars-armada.wikia.com/wiki/Assault_Frigate_Mark_II_Expansion_Pack

Don't play rebels so slipped my mind.

3 hours ago, Mad Cat said:

Light cruisers in WWII was due to the caliber of guns rather than the tonnage of the ship. It was perfectly possible for a light cruiser to be heavier than a heavy cruiser. It could also have more firepower such as 12x6" guns v 6 or 8 8" guns.

Good point. The three major navies in WWII ended up going different routes. Since the London treaty capped the number of heavy cruisers, but placed no limit on the number of light cruisers, only the maximum tonnage allowance for all light cruisers, the US and UK both focused on developing good light cruisers in the 30s, which when push came to shove in the actual war, ended up performing better in their roles and are generally deemed as higher quality ships, than the nations' heavy cruisers. So Brooklyn and St.Louis class light cruisers packed 15 6 inch guns, but more importantly, had a fire rate significantly greater than the 8 inch guns, in turn producing a total broadside weight per minute substantially higher than the heavy cruisers. The Cleveland class light cruisers dropped to 12 6 inch guns, but also made substantial improvements in radar fire control and ship design, making them exceptional ships. Contrast those with the Northampton, New Orleans, and Portland class heavy cruisers, all of which packed 9 8 inch guns as the main armament.

Since both frames were capped 10k tons maximum displacement, yeah, some of the light cruisers really could have been heavier than their heavy cruiser counterparts.

Don't forget about Japan's Mogami class cruisers. They were originally fitted with triple 6" turrets but were designed to use twin 8" turrets. This way they didn't count towards their heavy cruiser quota but once the Washington Naval Treaty was abandoned they were "upgraded" to heavy cruisers by swapping the turrets.

8 hours ago, Maturin said:

I cannot seem to make heads or tails of the Armada expansion naming schemes. Some with class names (Nebulon-B), some with generic sounding classifications (Imperial Light Cruiser), some with ship titles (Home One).

It's enough to drive a space grognard mad!!!

Yeah, but isn't that more due to Star Wars then Armada? Those were pre-existing names.

11 hours ago, Maturin said:

I cannot seem to make heads or tails of the Armada expansion naming schemes. Some with class names (Nebulon-B), some with generic sounding classifications (Imperial Light Cruiser), some with ship titles (Home One).

It's enough to drive a space grognard mad!!!

Add to that the gozantis being labelled 'cruisers'... They are probably a corvette at best.

I would class the VSD as a slow battle cruiser.

The Arquittens is expressly a light cruiser. Gozanti I'd class as a destroyer flotilla. Raiders are of course corvettes. ISD would be a carrier/battleship, with the Quasar actually what it says...a cruiser/carrier.

Id class the Gladiator as a pocket battleship (like the WWII German Graf Spee). Not much armor, but fast and heavily armed.

The Interdictor is a strange case, so I'll just call it what it is...an experimental ship.

All the rebel ships just fall into the category of 'targets'. ???

3 minutes ago, ISD Avenger said:

Add to that the gozantis being labelled 'cruisers'... They are probably a corvette at best.

You could call Gozanti a light cruiser at which point I'll class the Arquittens as a heavy cruiser.

The wonderful thing about wars & prelonged period of conflict is that you take class A ship and up gun it, up armour, increase engine power as much as you can.... You then turn round and realise that you now have a completely different ship to what you started with.

So your wonderful light cruiser is now a very heavily armed battle cruiser masquerading under the name of light cruiser

Long names with propper adjectives... you know just makes it more fancy.

I think the classic breakdown for Imperials would be:

Battleship - ISD
Heavy Cruiser - VSD
Light Cruiser - Arq
Destroyer - Raider

Quasar is CV (Carrier).

8 minutes ago, Democratus said:

I think the classic breakdown for Imperials would be:

Battleship - ISD
Heavy Cruiser - VSD
Light Cruiser - Arq
Destroyer - Raider

Quasar is CV (Carrier).

missing from your list - Battle Cruiser, Dreadnought class Battlship (yes yes we know its SWA20 aka the SSD), corvettes, support class' such as mine sweepers (Gozonti's fill this role)

Armada, and Star Wars in general, uses a very inconsistent designation scheme in its names. A lot of ink has been spilled and time spent trying to retcon it into something meaningful , but at the end of the day anyone can see that it's just fanciful-sounding names taken from a mix of other sci-fi. In these stories, scene-building has always come first, and setting-building comes second. It doesn't help that Star Wars is obsessed with returning to the same visual designs so many times that the ship classification system depends partly on hull length, partly on tonnage, and partly on whether or not it kinda looks like a big triangle. It's also not helpful that the universe has rapidly filled up with Executor-sized things called Dreadnoughts, while dreadnoughts are heavy cruisers.

1 hour ago, slasher956 said:

missing from your list - Battle Cruiser, Dreadnought class Battlship (yes yes we know its SWA20 aka the SSD), corvettes, support class' such as mine sweepers (Gozonti's fill this role)

Classically, with battleships, there are pre-dreadnought and post-dreadnought. This is based on whether the design was created before or after HMS Dreadnought.

Battlecruisers are an aberration of battleship firepower on cruiser armor and speed. Maybe a VSD with Spinal armament and would qualify.

The classic model is Battleship, Heavy Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Destroyer. And each has a role in the fleet.

Mine sweepers, tenders, landing ships, etc. are roles which can be filled by many sizes of ship hull.

I usually look to Star Fleet Battles for a consistent SciFi classification of hulls and their roles.

So, using the Anaxes system (and using parentheses to mark ships where I'm partially guessing on size), we have:

Corvettes: CR-90, Raider, Hammerhead

Frigates: Nebulon-B, Arquitens-class, (Pelta-class), MC-30c

Cruisers: (Quasar), MC-30c, GSD

Heavy Cruisers: VSD, AFM2, (Interdictor)

Star Destroyers: ISD

Battlecruisers: MC-80 (H1/Liberty)

Dreadnought: SWM20

We also have the GR-75, which is a transport and not a warship and thus has no Anaxes classification. The Gozanti is a military starship, but too small to even be a corvette, as well as that its primary role is not as a warship.

In the show Rebels the Gozanti appears to serve as a Jeep Carrier .

I've never been in the armed forces. Is it wrong to say that a Gozanti is a military starship, but not a warship, because its main job isn't to shoot things?