Talk:Southampton-class destroyer: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Again, that wording made it sound like it was under sustained attack. In HOTT, there is no doubt it's a mine in a chance. Tolwyn says that the Conventry has discovered a mine field across their path. Blair is in the process of scrambling the wing and no mention is made of enemy fighters.--[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 07:23, 21 August 2010 (CDT) | Again, that wording made it sound like it was under sustained attack. In HOTT, there is no doubt it's a mine in a chance. Tolwyn says that the Conventry has discovered a mine field across their path. Blair is in the process of scrambling the wing and no mention is made of enemy fighters.--[[User:Dundradal|Dundradal]] 07:23, 21 August 2010 (CDT) | ||
I was just going off what you told me, and put the edits in place until you fixed them yourself. Which you just did. I suppose one has to consider, especially in the light of conflicting stories, that the perspective of the character being quoted can distort what actually happen, as it seems in this case. Given that Tolwyn was an observer and Bondarevsky was a victim, I think it sensible that Tolwyn's quote be given more weight. - Wedge | |||
Revision as of 13:12, 21 August 2010
Intrepid was a Gilgamesh class ship.
- Sylvester
Actually it's never stated what class it is. We can assume neither.
I've stated this countless times to you Aeronautico. STICK TO THE FACTS. Don't fill in anything you think, just what we know. If you have a question ask it at the forums. Don't just assume this or that.
- Dundradal
IIRC - Captain Greirson makes a comment that Tarawa's engines make her as fast as his ship. It is explicitly stated that Tarawa's engines are the same as found on a Gilgamesh class ship. I think we can therefore infer that Intrepid was a Gilgamesh. But like Dundradal said - no where is the ship's class actually stated, and it probably wouldn't be a Southampton - because of practical reasons - End Run was written in 1992, and the WC3 Destroyer wasn't created until 1994, and didn't recieve its class name until the Star*Soldier manual came out in 2007.
- Sylvester
HOTT says it was a mine on page 300 that struck the Conventry
FC says on page 29 that it was a missile - remember to note that in this article as well --Dundradal 23:40, 20 August 2010 (CDT)
I just did a quick edit for the time being. It looks like Wikipedia-style reference/citations needs another extension installed on this system. - Wedge
Again, that wording made it sound like it was under sustained attack. In HOTT, there is no doubt it's a mine in a chance. Tolwyn says that the Conventry has discovered a mine field across their path. Blair is in the process of scrambling the wing and no mention is made of enemy fighters.--Dundradal 07:23, 21 August 2010 (CDT)
I was just going off what you told me, and put the edits in place until you fixed them yourself. Which you just did. I suppose one has to consider, especially in the light of conflicting stories, that the perspective of the character being quoted can distort what actually happen, as it seems in this case. Given that Tolwyn was an observer and Bondarevsky was a victim, I think it sensible that Tolwyn's quote be given more weight. - Wedge
