Talk:TCS Kirsk: Difference between revisions
The Terran Knowledge Bank
(New page: Do we have confirmation that the Kirsk was a Concordia-class ship? As far as I know, no ship was prior to Wing Commander IV was ever called "Concordia-class".) |
Aeronautico (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Do we have confirmation that the Kirsk was a Concordia-class ship? As far as I know, no ship was prior to Wing Commander IV was ever called "Concordia-class". | Do we have confirmation that the Kirsk was a Concordia-class ship? As far as I know, no ship was prior to Wing Commander IV was ever called "Concordia-class". | ||
Well, in the WC novelizations, there are several mentions of Concordias serving at the Battle of Earth, some in the process of mothballing. So, Concordias have been around for a while. They are also a spiritual successor to the Ranger carriers like the Victory, which should have been retired long ago. Yes, WC2 fails to identify the class of the Kirsk, but that's the class given in the CIC Encyclopedia. I'm working with the info the most trusted WC sites give me. I am not responsible for any of their content.[[User:Aeronautico|Aeronautico]] 23:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:23, 26 June 2009
Do we have confirmation that the Kirsk was a Concordia-class ship? As far as I know, no ship was prior to Wing Commander IV was ever called "Concordia-class".
Well, in the WC novelizations, there are several mentions of Concordias serving at the Battle of Earth, some in the process of mothballing. So, Concordias have been around for a while. They are also a spiritual successor to the Ranger carriers like the Victory, which should have been retired long ago. Yes, WC2 fails to identify the class of the Kirsk, but that's the class given in the CIC Encyclopedia. I'm working with the info the most trusted WC sites give me. I am not responsible for any of their content.Aeronautico 23:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
