Dreadnougts
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
Hey nice to see that people still remember me! University has been cutting into my time quite a bit but hey it's Wing Commander and I couldn't stay away.
Quarto: About the fighters, the number of it's designation doesn't necessarily mean the order in which it served. For example in the twentieth century the F 86 flew missions in the early 1950s. In the 1960s the F 86 gave way to fighters with designations like F 101, F 102, F 104, F 105 and F 111. In the 1970s F 14 and F 15 were the new birds. That's quite a gap in the numbers particularly in the 1990s when it jumped to F 117.
Knight: You seem to have a knack for getting into trouble.
Quarto: About the fighters, the number of it's designation doesn't necessarily mean the order in which it served. For example in the twentieth century the F 86 flew missions in the early 1950s. In the 1960s the F 86 gave way to fighters with designations like F 101, F 102, F 104, F 105 and F 111. In the 1970s F 14 and F 15 were the new birds. That's quite a gap in the numbers particularly in the 1990s when it jumped to F 117.
Knight: You seem to have a knack for getting into trouble.
ther really where over 117 F's, most of m don't even pass the drawingbourd though
------------------
When I'm in the air...
I'm indestructible.
No one can stop me...
But they try.
Real WC fans support the WCESCRP
------------------
When I'm in the air...
I'm indestructible.
No one can stop me...
But they try.
Real WC fans support the WCESCRP
Death's Head
Spaceman
I assume there was a maximum of ten built. If I had my End Run, I think I could come up with some info but I sold it. If I recall, at least half of them were destroyed though.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The TCS Concordia (CVS-65) is a Confederation class dreadnought -- whereas the TCS Lexington (CV-44) is a Concordia class fleet carrier... not the same classes of ship. The only other known Confederation class dreadnought would be the TCS Confederation itself. I do not believe that there's a TCS Bunker Hill known anywhere in the Wing Commander Universe.
Regarding the current day Air Force's system of fighters -- every type gets a number. In the 70s (?) the system was restarted around F-110 or so. (Which is why newer craft have numbers like 16 or 22, but WW2 era fighters are in the 30s-70s). The F-117 is an *exception* to this rule... the '117' is meaningless with regards to the Air Force's designation system (it *should* be the F-19, IIRC... although it's not actually a fighter). The '117' comes from one of the prototype's radio designations that either just caught on or was used to confuse the evil Soviets.
We know that the Avenger, at least, existed long before Wing Commander IV -- it was a class of shuttle which was in use in the mid 50s.
As for the Eisen not being the Vesuvius... can you name a class of heavy carrier that's not the Vesuvius or Midway? There's absolutely no reason such a class of mystery ship could exist...
------------------
Long live the Confederation,
Ben "Bandit" Lesnick
( loaf@wcnews.com - 302228)
The Wing Commander CIC
LOAF's Merry Guild
"You go, LOAF! Get some!" -JPG
Regarding the current day Air Force's system of fighters -- every type gets a number. In the 70s (?) the system was restarted around F-110 or so. (Which is why newer craft have numbers like 16 or 22, but WW2 era fighters are in the 30s-70s). The F-117 is an *exception* to this rule... the '117' is meaningless with regards to the Air Force's designation system (it *should* be the F-19, IIRC... although it's not actually a fighter). The '117' comes from one of the prototype's radio designations that either just caught on or was used to confuse the evil Soviets.
We know that the Avenger, at least, existed long before Wing Commander IV -- it was a class of shuttle which was in use in the mid 50s.
As for the Eisen not being the Vesuvius... can you name a class of heavy carrier that's not the Vesuvius or Midway? There's absolutely no reason such a class of mystery ship could exist...
------------------
Long live the Confederation,
Ben "Bandit" Lesnick
( loaf@wcnews.com - 302228)
The Wing Commander CIC
LOAF's Merry Guild
"You go, LOAF! Get some!" -JPG
Last edited by a moderator:
I just double checked the WCIV novel (p. 71) which said they were the same. However the novel also makes no mention of Avengers, Banshees, Vindicators or Bearcats, so it isn't the world's greatest source. And even when correcting for the differences in graphics, they don't look much the same. At least the Lex doesn't have the tail fins the Concordia had
Which brings me to a question, I've been meaning to ask you, LOAF. As the acknowledged WC historian, when you run into conflicts like that, what is your approach? Do the games override the books? Do certain books have more weight? I've been rereading WCIV which has as a minor character, Admiral Richards. This is the same Admiral Richards who, according to False Colors, died before WCIV. It's pretty clear they are talking about the same guy, but I guess it could be argued he somehow survived and would have reappeared in one of the other two novels of that arc, that, with the passing of Andrew Keith, won't be published. But still you run into these from time to time, the approach of the WCIV novel to Sosa is different than the game, for example. Just curious.
[This message has been edited by Shane (edited July 24, 2000).]
Which brings me to a question, I've been meaning to ask you, LOAF. As the acknowledged WC historian, when you run into conflicts like that, what is your approach? Do the games override the books? Do certain books have more weight? I've been rereading WCIV which has as a minor character, Admiral Richards. This is the same Admiral Richards who, according to False Colors, died before WCIV. It's pretty clear they are talking about the same guy, but I guess it could be argued he somehow survived and would have reappeared in one of the other two novels of that arc, that, with the passing of Andrew Keith, won't be published. But still you run into these from time to time, the approach of the WCIV novel to Sosa is different than the game, for example. Just curious.
[This message has been edited by Shane (edited July 24, 2000).]
Last edited by a moderator:
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
I can name at least two such classes, and possibly a third, LOAF.
First there's the heavy strike carriers known as the Bengal class. Then there's the Confederation class dreadnoughts.
Both of these classes were still in use in the late '60s, both would appear to be newer than then Concordia and Ranger classes (and the Concordias, at least, are still in use), and in both cases there is no evidence that no such ships exist any more.
It should be noted that while these ships had a smaller fighter compliment than, say, the Midway, the fighters they used were generally much larger. For example, the Hornet is bigger than any Confed fighter onboard the Midway except the two bombers. And even the Devastator is no larger than the Raptor or the Concordia's Broadsword. Thus, I believe that both the Confederation and the Bengal classes could in fact carry as many as 150 WCP-era fighers, and possibly more.
The third possibility is the type of heavy carrier used in Armada. There is very little we can say about this vessel - indeed, we don't even know the name of its class. What we do know is that it is a heavy carrier, and that it carried the largest fighters ever seen in any WC game, with several designs of over 40 metre length (and by my estimate, the Gladius has a wingspan of roughly 70 metres).
Because we saw the TCS Lexington (the Conc, not the Armada ship, obviously) recommissioned at the start of WC4, I see no reason to assume that there wouldn't be Bengals, Confederations, and <Armada> carriers out there, newly-refurbished and all.
BTW, do you (or anyone else) know the numbers for the fighters in WC1, WC3, or Armada?
First there's the heavy strike carriers known as the Bengal class. Then there's the Confederation class dreadnoughts.
Both of these classes were still in use in the late '60s, both would appear to be newer than then Concordia and Ranger classes (and the Concordias, at least, are still in use), and in both cases there is no evidence that no such ships exist any more.
It should be noted that while these ships had a smaller fighter compliment than, say, the Midway, the fighters they used were generally much larger. For example, the Hornet is bigger than any Confed fighter onboard the Midway except the two bombers. And even the Devastator is no larger than the Raptor or the Concordia's Broadsword. Thus, I believe that both the Confederation and the Bengal classes could in fact carry as many as 150 WCP-era fighers, and possibly more.
The third possibility is the type of heavy carrier used in Armada. There is very little we can say about this vessel - indeed, we don't even know the name of its class. What we do know is that it is a heavy carrier, and that it carried the largest fighters ever seen in any WC game, with several designs of over 40 metre length (and by my estimate, the Gladius has a wingspan of roughly 70 metres).
Because we saw the TCS Lexington (the Conc, not the Armada ship, obviously) recommissioned at the start of WC4, I see no reason to assume that there wouldn't be Bengals, Confederations, and <Armada> carriers out there, newly-refurbished and all.
BTW, do you (or anyone else) know the numbers for the fighters in WC1, WC3, or Armada?
Quarto, correct me if im wrong but are you saying the Bengal carriers and the Confed class dreadnoughts are newer than the Concordia (and possibly derived Ranger class)? This goes against what appears to be common sense. You have capital ships armed primarily with flak guns and lasers for the first two chapters, with the occasional battery of AMG (nasty nasty things) thrown in for good measure. When you reach WC3, everything down to corvettes are (apparently) carrying numbers of heavy weaponry. You also have the elimination of large, vulnerable open flight decks needed for handling the more massive early fighters. Sure you can still make a strafing or suicide run, but your angle of approach is much more limited, and usually somewhat better guarded. Sure the Confed class carriers had their PTCs, and sure they had the tailfins, and I still love seeing one of them take on another capship or three, but the point is their defensive systems are antique, and it shows.
Take another approach: look at the fighters. True, the older fighters were larger. They were also much more poorly armed (the freakin EPEE was almost, if not better, armed than the Rapier!) seeing as weapons like the particle gun (impressive in WC2 era) were the midrange armament (and damn near useless) in 2669. Plasma guns and meson blasters (relatively new developments) were the order of the day, and the venerable neutrons were relegated to the main punch of the Hellcat. Not that great for a gun I used to rejoice using in WC1...
As for your idea for retrofitting the older carriers to use modern craft: very possible in terms of cubic meters, but using that space is another matter. The older ships were much simpler, and probably required fewer spare parts to keep running. The newer ships are most likely hangar queens for a good part of the time, and the extra space would be used in maintenance and upgrading the shields to modern standards. Even if you left them as is, and maintenance wasnt an issue, it would still take a lot of tearing down and rebuilding bay walls to park them all efficiently.
anyway, im short on time again but I think you can get where im going here.
------------------
You deal death with your roars and your screams, your threats, your taunts, your overblown ego. I hand it out, one with the steel and the silence, the blackness around me, with a thought.
Take another approach: look at the fighters. True, the older fighters were larger. They were also much more poorly armed (the freakin EPEE was almost, if not better, armed than the Rapier!) seeing as weapons like the particle gun (impressive in WC2 era) were the midrange armament (and damn near useless) in 2669. Plasma guns and meson blasters (relatively new developments) were the order of the day, and the venerable neutrons were relegated to the main punch of the Hellcat. Not that great for a gun I used to rejoice using in WC1...
As for your idea for retrofitting the older carriers to use modern craft: very possible in terms of cubic meters, but using that space is another matter. The older ships were much simpler, and probably required fewer spare parts to keep running. The newer ships are most likely hangar queens for a good part of the time, and the extra space would be used in maintenance and upgrading the shields to modern standards. Even if you left them as is, and maintenance wasnt an issue, it would still take a lot of tearing down and rebuilding bay walls to park them all efficiently.
anyway, im short on time again but I think you can get where im going here.
------------------
You deal death with your roars and your screams, your threats, your taunts, your overblown ego. I hand it out, one with the steel and the silence, the blackness around me, with a thought.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
You heard me, Chernikov
. I can't remember what the story is with the Concordia class, but the Ranger class supposedly was around nearly 50 years before the war. Given the design similarities, it would be natural to assume that the Concordia class fleet carriers are from the same time period, +/- a few years. At any rate, what we do know is that the Bengal class (at least this version of it) was designed in 2642 - that's just 14 years before WC1. These vessels were still being used as flagships (ref: TCS Wolfhound) in the late '60s.
As for the Confederation class... well, given the fact that there were no PTC cannons before 2655, we must assume that the TCS Concordia is no older than 5 years when we first see it in 2665. Thus, the Confederation class is actually one of the newest carrier designs - though of course, we can assume that no new ones are being made, since the whole design was based around the PTC which has now been retired.
As for turret differences, these can quite obviously be refitted - though I don't see why, because both the Bengals and the Confederations were far better armed than the Concordias and Rangers could ever hope to be. Flak is effective.
Neither the Confederation nor the Bengal class had a flight deck more open than that of the Ranger and Concordia classes. In fact, I would have to argue that their flight deck design was better than that of the Ranger & Concordia classes.
Oh, and it doesn't matter one bit if the older fighters were worse - that's only to be expected, and it's not like anyone was planning to use the older fighters.
And as for refitting the carriers, it wouldn't be that much of a problem. In fact, these ships were probably designed with such revisions in mind - simply because a carrier class is expected to be around longer than a fighter class.
As for the Confederation class... well, given the fact that there were no PTC cannons before 2655, we must assume that the TCS Concordia is no older than 5 years when we first see it in 2665. Thus, the Confederation class is actually one of the newest carrier designs - though of course, we can assume that no new ones are being made, since the whole design was based around the PTC which has now been retired.
As for turret differences, these can quite obviously be refitted - though I don't see why, because both the Bengals and the Confederations were far better armed than the Concordias and Rangers could ever hope to be. Flak is effective.
Neither the Confederation nor the Bengal class had a flight deck more open than that of the Ranger and Concordia classes. In fact, I would have to argue that their flight deck design was better than that of the Ranger & Concordia classes.
Oh, and it doesn't matter one bit if the older fighters were worse - that's only to be expected, and it's not like anyone was planning to use the older fighters.
And as for refitting the carriers, it wouldn't be that much of a problem. In fact, these ships were probably designed with such revisions in mind - simply because a carrier class is expected to be around longer than a fighter class.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Gah, Quarto, my dear, you fail to understand... Heavy Carrier is a type of carrier. It's not the same as Fleet Carrier or Strike Carrier. The Bengal's are Strike Carriers and the Confederation's are Dreadnoughts. Despite the CIC Ship Database's claim that the Lexington is a 'Heavy Carrier', there is no evidence to such an end. It is listed only as a 'capital ship'. Further, none of the ships you listed fullfill one of the Eisen requirements -- namely, carrying more than one wing of fighters.
The comments regarding fighter size are similarly non-sensical... the literal space a craft takes up is only part of the resources onboard a carrier it will require. Weapons stores and repair bays and space for tech crews and such are an even larger part of the equation. To say more bluntly, when we are told that a Bengal carries 104 fighters, we are not being told that it carries 104 Hornet sized fighters, we are being told that it carries 104 fighters.
Regarding the 'at least', we know that the Ranger class ships were retired following the war... and we further know that Concordia class ships are no longer being produced.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'the numbers for the fighters in WC1, WC3 or Armada'... if you mean the fighter compliments of the main character's carriers, they are 104, 40 and 18 respectively.
The Concordia and Ranger class ships -- though they may look the same -- have little to do with eachother... just compare their sizes.
We have been blessed with specific service entry dates for all of the carriers in question, do with them as you will. (Weapons are immaterial, as it is almost neccessary that ships be upgraded to whatever the current technology is in this regard).
2584 - Ranger class light carrier.
2619 - Bengal class strike carrier.
2629 - Concordia class fleet carrier.
2657 - Confederation class dreadnought.
Regarding Shane's question... when there is a conflict between the games and anything else that cannot be resolved, the games take precedence -- all other sources are e
equally secondary.
Admiral Richards is an special case, though... shortly after False Colors was released, Andrew Keith was made aware of his error, and promised to resolve it in a future book -- unfortunately he's no longer with us. In this (and other cases of characters dying and then coming back) we must assume that there is some story explaining their survival that we haven't yet heard.
------------------
Long live the Confederation,
Ben "Bandit" Lesnick
( loaf@wcnews.com - 302228)
The Wing Commander CIC
LOAF's Merry Guild
"You go, LOAF! Get some!" -JPG
The comments regarding fighter size are similarly non-sensical... the literal space a craft takes up is only part of the resources onboard a carrier it will require. Weapons stores and repair bays and space for tech crews and such are an even larger part of the equation. To say more bluntly, when we are told that a Bengal carries 104 fighters, we are not being told that it carries 104 Hornet sized fighters, we are being told that it carries 104 fighters.
Regarding the 'at least', we know that the Ranger class ships were retired following the war... and we further know that Concordia class ships are no longer being produced.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'the numbers for the fighters in WC1, WC3 or Armada'... if you mean the fighter compliments of the main character's carriers, they are 104, 40 and 18 respectively.
The Concordia and Ranger class ships -- though they may look the same -- have little to do with eachother... just compare their sizes.
We have been blessed with specific service entry dates for all of the carriers in question, do with them as you will. (Weapons are immaterial, as it is almost neccessary that ships be upgraded to whatever the current technology is in this regard).
2584 - Ranger class light carrier.
2619 - Bengal class strike carrier.
2629 - Concordia class fleet carrier.
2657 - Confederation class dreadnought.
Regarding Shane's question... when there is a conflict between the games and anything else that cannot be resolved, the games take precedence -- all other sources are e
equally secondary.
Admiral Richards is an special case, though... shortly after False Colors was released, Andrew Keith was made aware of his error, and promised to resolve it in a future book -- unfortunately he's no longer with us. In this (and other cases of characters dying and then coming back) we must assume that there is some story explaining their survival that we haven't yet heard.
------------------
Long live the Confederation,
Ben "Bandit" Lesnick
( loaf@wcnews.com - 302228)
The Wing Commander CIC
LOAF's Merry Guild
"You go, LOAF! Get some!" -JPG
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the answer. Oh, not sure where I came up with Bunker Hill, may have been Red Storm Rising, which I read a couple months back. As for Andrew Keith, it is a shame about his death. However, I wonder if he would have had any more luck than Telnep has been having.
I don't know the classes of the ships, but for someone who asked, a few of the other carriers involved in battles fighting with the Concordia were the Sartoga, the Traflagar, and the Moscova. There are a couple others from both End Run and Fleet Action I am forgetting, but those I do recall.
[This message has been edited by Shane (edited July 25, 2000).]
I don't know the classes of the ships, but for someone who asked, a few of the other carriers involved in battles fighting with the Concordia were the Sartoga, the Traflagar, and the Moscova. There are a couple others from both End Run and Fleet Action I am forgetting, but those I do recall.
[This message has been edited by Shane (edited July 25, 2000).]
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
No no, LOAF. I do understand that
. It's just that I see no reason why a "heavy strike carrier" wouldn't carry the same state-of-the-art fighters that a "heavy carrier" (or rather, "heavy fleet carrier", which is the term the ICIS used) carries.
Regarding the Lexington, there is indeed such evidence - the KSaga timeline (...and Victory Streak, maybe?), which labels it as a "heavy carrier".
The number of Wings on the Eisen. I'm not disputing that claim, but I would like to know where you're getting that from. As well as how we know that those other carriers only carry one Wing?
Fighter size... the 'Claw indeed carries 104 fighters, not 104 Hornet-size fighters. But this further supports my claim, because all other WC1-era fighters are larger. And of course a fighter requires additional equipment and such. However, there is no reason to assume that older fighters required less equipment than the modern ones. Indeed, given the miniaturisation trend in Confed fighter technology, it would be logical to assume that all other equipment used has also gotten smaller. This means that repair bays and weapons stores can also be reduced in size (though of course, tech crews aren't reduced in size
... they're a constant, though).
Oh, as for the 'numbers', I actually meant design numbers. As in, the "F-xx" part. We've got them for WC2, WCP, and the Excal. We can also assume that the Bearcat was F-104 (because the Excal is 103, and the Tigershark is 105). But the others?
Hey, cool. I didn't know we've got a specific date for the Confederation class
. Two years since the destruction of the Sivar to Confed's own prototype... somebody was obviously in a hurry
.
And yes, the Bengals first appeared in '19 - but the later, much bigger version that we see in WC1 only appeared in '42. Interestingly enough, the size difference between the two versions seems no larger than that between the Ranger and the Concordia classes.
Regarding the Lexington, there is indeed such evidence - the KSaga timeline (...and Victory Streak, maybe?), which labels it as a "heavy carrier".
The number of Wings on the Eisen. I'm not disputing that claim, but I would like to know where you're getting that from. As well as how we know that those other carriers only carry one Wing?
Fighter size... the 'Claw indeed carries 104 fighters, not 104 Hornet-size fighters. But this further supports my claim, because all other WC1-era fighters are larger. And of course a fighter requires additional equipment and such. However, there is no reason to assume that older fighters required less equipment than the modern ones. Indeed, given the miniaturisation trend in Confed fighter technology, it would be logical to assume that all other equipment used has also gotten smaller. This means that repair bays and weapons stores can also be reduced in size (though of course, tech crews aren't reduced in size
Oh, as for the 'numbers', I actually meant design numbers. As in, the "F-xx" part. We've got them for WC2, WCP, and the Excal. We can also assume that the Bearcat was F-104 (because the Excal is 103, and the Tigershark is 105). But the others?
Hey, cool. I didn't know we've got a specific date for the Confederation class
And yes, the Bengals first appeared in '19 - but the later, much bigger version that we see in WC1 only appeared in '42. Interestingly enough, the size difference between the two versions seems no larger than that between the Ranger and the Concordia classes.
Last edited by a moderator:
THANK YOU LOAF for the dates and some back on the fighter size thing. As for miniaturization, yes, that does mean that it is possible to make something with smaller support devices, but it sometimes means that they're less durable. Or much much more expensive. However, ship size in 1 and 3, and 4 is relatively similar (20 meters for light fighers, 36-38 for heavies, etc.) but there are major miniaturizations in WC2 and WCP. Either someone produced major miniaturizations in either of these two time periods (probable - the Rapier is actually the smallest ship in WC1 and probably represents the first of this new wave) or there is a major continuity problem. Relating between WC1 and WC3, there is no problem with probable ship capacities. The minor increase between WC1 and WC2, despite the extra 280 meters of hull, can be attributed to the heavy antiship armament. This indicates that the fighters probably require roughly the same space for storage and maintenace. However, once you hit WCP, the capacities of the Concordia and the Midway (which carry ships of similar size) dont quite equate. A much larger ship, with over twice the mass and what appears to be around four times the internal space, with none devoted to larger weapons such as the PTC or AMG, carries around twice the fighters. The implications? Either someone in RnD was really sloppy with the internal layout or the ships require much more maintenance space per ship. Ergo refitting earlier craft such as the Bengal with modern fighters would result in a significantly smaller fighter compliment.
Carrier entry dates... wow. I knew the Victory was "the oldest tub in the fleet" but I didnt think a carrier could survive the entire fifty years of the war (Doubtful that Rangers were still being produced after forty years, given the newer designs and wartime envirtonment). I was under the impression that we were losing the entire fleet over a twenty-year or so period and gradually replacing them with newer ships. Whatever. If that is so, why are there no Bengals or Confeds in the Border Worlds strike force? And why are none shown afterwards, even at the main ConFed base or the signing of the Treaty of Torgo?
As for design philosophies, Quarto... If ship damage in WC1-4 were accurately modeled, then a spread of dumbfires at an unshielded ship would cause diabling of the flight deck, no? A torpedo would have the same effect against a phase shielded ship. Now we come to the interesting part: when one is attempting to diable the flight deck on a Bengal, he has half a hemisphere of space from which to launch his weaponry. 180 degrees to the side, 90 degrees elevation from where he can plant a dumbfire in the doors of the hangar and shut the ship down. That's a lot of space to stop a missile from coming at you in. The Concordias and Waterloos have the same problem: the exposed hangars with the nice convenient flight deck to "catch" the missile if you miss the doors, and are actually targetable from a wider arc of space because of the backsweep of the entryway. With the Ranger/Concordia designs, there is no exposed flight deck to hit, meaning you have to plant the dumbfire right in the door. Easiest from in front, where all the guns are conveniently located, and which is a much smaller cone of space then the arcs of the Confed and Bengal.
Anyway, this is getting interesting, but Ive got to take my g/f to lunch. Catch you on the flip side.
------------------
You deal death with your roars and your screams, your threats, your taunts, your overblown ego. I hand it out, one with the steel and the silence, the blackness around me, with a thought.
Carrier entry dates... wow. I knew the Victory was "the oldest tub in the fleet" but I didnt think a carrier could survive the entire fifty years of the war (Doubtful that Rangers were still being produced after forty years, given the newer designs and wartime envirtonment). I was under the impression that we were losing the entire fleet over a twenty-year or so period and gradually replacing them with newer ships. Whatever. If that is so, why are there no Bengals or Confeds in the Border Worlds strike force? And why are none shown afterwards, even at the main ConFed base or the signing of the Treaty of Torgo?
As for design philosophies, Quarto... If ship damage in WC1-4 were accurately modeled, then a spread of dumbfires at an unshielded ship would cause diabling of the flight deck, no? A torpedo would have the same effect against a phase shielded ship. Now we come to the interesting part: when one is attempting to diable the flight deck on a Bengal, he has half a hemisphere of space from which to launch his weaponry. 180 degrees to the side, 90 degrees elevation from where he can plant a dumbfire in the doors of the hangar and shut the ship down. That's a lot of space to stop a missile from coming at you in. The Concordias and Waterloos have the same problem: the exposed hangars with the nice convenient flight deck to "catch" the missile if you miss the doors, and are actually targetable from a wider arc of space because of the backsweep of the entryway. With the Ranger/Concordia designs, there is no exposed flight deck to hit, meaning you have to plant the dumbfire right in the door. Easiest from in front, where all the guns are conveniently located, and which is a much smaller cone of space then the arcs of the Confed and Bengal.
Anyway, this is getting interesting, but Ive got to take my g/f to lunch. Catch you on the flip side.
------------------
You deal death with your roars and your screams, your threats, your taunts, your overblown ego. I hand it out, one with the steel and the silence, the blackness around me, with a thought.
Chernikov said:
I always thought that automated fighter launching mechanism on the Midway looked cool, but also looked like it wasted space. I'm assuming it is designed in such a way as to store the fighters as close to the center of the ship as possible and then use a central secure storage area or several of them. The automated system then moves them into the launch bays. In addition to wasting space it seems like one more thing to go wrong in a tight situation. I guess it is a trade off for more security. Remember, as well, the Midway was also designed to carry a 1500 man Marine Expeditionary Unit (and I'm assuming all the weaponry that entails.) That would take up a good chunk of space and was something the Concordia class didn't have.
I just noticed I cut off part of your quote. The Victory was lucky, to an extent, that she survived until the Bengals and other came on line. Then, as these newer ships came on line she was likely moved to more rear echelon duties, like ferrying fighters forward to the main line ships, guarding sectors of space that weren't so much in contention, etc. However, after the pounding Confed took at the Battle of Earth, Confed was forced to use these older ships as their main line carriers. If Confed could have held out without using the T-Bomb and was able to start building new carriers, and the Victory continued to survive she likely would have been moved back into the rear.
As for the question about why no Bengals or Confeds were seen later. I have a couple guesses. First they may not have made many of them, particularly the Confeds, which if I recall from the KS manual, didn't have a long run. At least her main gun didn't. I always assumed it was a problem in the design and Confed discontinued them for saftey reasons. I don't know how long the full sized Benagls were built, but it could be they just didn't make it through. One of them, the Wolf Hound was the flagship of the fleet during End Run. Confed may have drawn the line at selling Bengals and Confeds to the Border Worlds, since they didn't want to give them that much fire power. Don't know about the treaty signing. If any were left they may have been tied up elsewhere.
The graphics from WC1 always made it look like you started in the hanger but then ended up launching from some kind of hexagonal shaped tube, sort of like Battlestar Galactica. Clearly you landed on thatbig flight deck. I never could figure where those tubes would be located though, so I wrote it off as me been delusional during launches
[This message has been edited by Shane (edited July 26, 2000).]
Last edited by a moderator:
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Uh, Chernikov, I hardly see how a 24 metre Rapier is smaller than a 20 metre Hornet
. The Rapier does do very well to show us miniaturisation trends very well, though. Its first version (YF-44A?) is 24 metres, and the (presumably) final version (F-44G) is just 19 metres.
The minor increase of fighter capacity between WC1 and 2 is actually a major increase, in case you failed to notice. The TCS Concordia is a dreadnought. It has as many as 120 fighters, but I'm guessing this is less than a proper heavy strike carrier would have. The Concordia's primary armament was the PTC, and the hangars were probably just an afterthought.
If, on the other hand, you look at other WC2-era capships, you will see ample evidence of the benefits of miniaturisation. The Waterloo class cruiser has 40 fighters - that's double that of the Kilrathi Fralthi cruiser in WC1 (unfortunately, we know nothing about the WC1-era Gettysburg class cruisers). And speaking of the Kilrathi, the Fralthra design also features a doubling of fighter capacity. But there's more. For the first time ever, the Kilrathi were able to outfit a destroyer with fighters. For a 400 metre vessel, 23 is a lot.
. In the end, what it comes down to is that the Midway has 6000 crew, while the older vessels had a mere 700 or so. This suggests that these modern fighters do indeed take a lot less space than the old ones.
There are no Bengals or Confeds in any strike force, because the Confederation held back most (read: all) of the best capships in Sol, as the newly-formed Earth Defence Fleet (after Battle of Terra).
Re: Design philosophies.
To disable the flight deck of a Bengal, it takes a hell of a lot more than a few hits on the flight deck (note that to our knowledge the 'Claw's flight deck had never been disabled - even when it lost 3/4 of its engines in Custer's Carnival). You would have to damage the actual hangar bay itself. And what do you have to do to damage the hangar bay? You have to aim. But the trouble is that it's got that huge runway in front of it. Thus, to be able to get a good shot at it, you must fly in along the runway - at burners, of course, since otherwise the numerous turrets will shred ya (also note that flak shakes you quite a bit, making aiming even harder). This gives you a total of about 1 second aiming time. I see that as slightly problematic
.
As for the Confederations and Waterloos, I would argue that it's not the design that's problematic, but rather miniaturisation, mandarins, and kamikaze furballs. Even a lonely Sartha (fast, manoeuvrable, just 8.3 metres in lenght) could charge in and take down the fighter elevators with its missiles. Note however that it wouldn't have the slightest chance of destroying the entire fighter compliment.
But then along comes the ol' Victory. Feel like taking out the fighter compliment? No problem, just aim for the rear entrance, fly through (take your time, no turrets inside a ship), gunning down the fighters so conveniently lined up along the sides. If necessary, take another pass to finish the job. No problems whatsoever. Sure, you don't disable the flight deck (this seems to only be possible in ships which use fighter elevators, like the TCS Concordia), but what's a flight deck without fighters?
Finally, note that WC fighters don't actually need runways. Thus, if the exposed runway on the Bengals, Confederations, or Waterloos catches a missile or two, that's all to the good, because it doesn't affect operations.
Shane:
[Warning: the following is UE fiction, not official WC stuff]
Confed did sell a pair of Bengals to the Border Worlds after the end of the war. This was before the Border Worlds became the Union of Border Worlds. Confed didn't feel like wasting resources defending the already semi-independent colonies, so they sold them a pair of badly, badly damaged Bengals, as well as a bunch of Rangers. No Confederations were sold though, because the PTC remains a classified weapon (and there still are Confed scientists out there trying to resolve the problems that led to its retirement).
The minor increase of fighter capacity between WC1 and 2 is actually a major increase, in case you failed to notice. The TCS Concordia is a dreadnought. It has as many as 120 fighters, but I'm guessing this is less than a proper heavy strike carrier would have. The Concordia's primary armament was the PTC, and the hangars were probably just an afterthought.
If, on the other hand, you look at other WC2-era capships, you will see ample evidence of the benefits of miniaturisation. The Waterloo class cruiser has 40 fighters - that's double that of the Kilrathi Fralthi cruiser in WC1 (unfortunately, we know nothing about the WC1-era Gettysburg class cruisers). And speaking of the Kilrathi, the Fralthra design also features a doubling of fighter capacity. But there's more. For the first time ever, the Kilrathi were able to outfit a destroyer with fighters. For a 400 metre vessel, 23 is a lot.
What? I just don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. The Midway is not just a carrier, it is a mobile Naval base. As Shane pointed out, those 1500 Marines do take up a bit of space. And so does Science division. And so do all those corridors where you can actually walk two abreast
There are no Bengals or Confeds in any strike force, because the Confederation held back most (read: all) of the best capships in Sol, as the newly-formed Earth Defence Fleet (after Battle of Terra).
Re: Design philosophies.
To disable the flight deck of a Bengal, it takes a hell of a lot more than a few hits on the flight deck (note that to our knowledge the 'Claw's flight deck had never been disabled - even when it lost 3/4 of its engines in Custer's Carnival). You would have to damage the actual hangar bay itself. And what do you have to do to damage the hangar bay? You have to aim. But the trouble is that it's got that huge runway in front of it. Thus, to be able to get a good shot at it, you must fly in along the runway - at burners, of course, since otherwise the numerous turrets will shred ya (also note that flak shakes you quite a bit, making aiming even harder). This gives you a total of about 1 second aiming time. I see that as slightly problematic
As for the Confederations and Waterloos, I would argue that it's not the design that's problematic, but rather miniaturisation, mandarins, and kamikaze furballs. Even a lonely Sartha (fast, manoeuvrable, just 8.3 metres in lenght) could charge in and take down the fighter elevators with its missiles. Note however that it wouldn't have the slightest chance of destroying the entire fighter compliment.
But then along comes the ol' Victory. Feel like taking out the fighter compliment? No problem, just aim for the rear entrance, fly through (take your time, no turrets inside a ship), gunning down the fighters so conveniently lined up along the sides. If necessary, take another pass to finish the job. No problems whatsoever. Sure, you don't disable the flight deck (this seems to only be possible in ships which use fighter elevators, like the TCS Concordia), but what's a flight deck without fighters?
Finally, note that WC fighters don't actually need runways. Thus, if the exposed runway on the Bengals, Confederations, or Waterloos catches a missile or two, that's all to the good, because it doesn't affect operations.
Shane:
[Warning: the following is UE fiction, not official WC stuff]
Confed did sell a pair of Bengals to the Border Worlds after the end of the war. This was before the Border Worlds became the Union of Border Worlds. Confed didn't feel like wasting resources defending the already semi-independent colonies, so they sold them a pair of badly, badly damaged Bengals, as well as a bunch of Rangers. No Confederations were sold though, because the PTC remains a classified weapon (and there still are Confed scientists out there trying to resolve the problems that led to its retirement).
Last edited by a moderator: