Vesuvius refit

$

$tormin

Vice Admiral
All vesuvius carriers have been sent to drydock to be refitted to better combat the nephilm.
what things would you add/remove?
 
more laser turrets, dual mount prefered, they shoot real fast so they would have more chance to shoot down those cap ship missiles, like when the Mt Saint-Helends got fried, not nuf guns shooting those cap ship missiles, i think thats all it really needs.
 
Well, I'd definitely try to up the amount of fighters the bays could pump out during a magnum launch. I'd also update the anti-fighter and capital ship weaponry. A good idea is emplacing maybe 2 pair of anti-capship turrets on the fore end of the ship, so the carrier can make a strike as shes coming in with a fighter launch. This also protects the fighters if they RTB into the rear opening in the carrier.

Personally though, I'd stray away from the Vesuvius-class and go to a Ranger or light carriers. Nephilim ships, for the most part, are large and slow. Granted, they probably carry more fighters than a Ranger or a CVE carrier but the Ranger is smaller and can launch 40 fighters, not to mention is faster and more manuverable than something so bulky. Have the Ranger out at extreme sensor range and start tossing point-interceptors at breakneck speed to take out the Nephilim's fighter cover, then deploy strike bombers with a mix of medium & light class fighter escort to make anvil strike runs on the Nephilim capital ship.
 
Well, I'm not sure about Rangers themselves or CVEs of the same class as the Tarawa (as those designs are either freaking old or were a scratch response to a desperate situation), but I'd definitely agree with more light and escort carriers to supplement the big guns. The Vesuvius and Midway class ships can't be everywhere at once, and smaller ships to cover the gaps is a good idea. Besides, as we've seen repeatedly in WC, the small ships (Tarawa, Victory, the Landreich carriers in FA, the Intrepid, the Cerberus) can often hurt the enemy out of all proportion to their size.

Best, Rapptor
 
Wow... if your carrier is in range to use anti-capship turrets, it deserves to die... Carriers aren't meant for that type of engagement.

TC
 
When I said Ranger or CVE I meant those kinds of carriers as an example. Face it, two Fleet Carriers slugging it out is one thing but a pair of Rangers against a Fleet Carrier...As long as the CVEs know their place isn't in Cap ship warfare (unless its a flanking manuver against a crippled superior vessel), they'll stay back and let the fighters do their jobs.

Then again, if the CVEs stay back, I think a Destroyer would be highly nessessary since the Nephilim's anti-fighter fire might be a bit much against a total fighter strike with no capital support...

But, this is all "sterile conjecture"...;)
 
But neither Vesuvii nor smaller carriers are supposed to get in range of a cap ship... it's point defense/intercepter fighters are there to keep possible attacks away. A vesuveus might be able to take on a destroyer or even a cruiser if it's lucky... but realistically, it isn't worth trying, you risk damage to a tactically important ship. If the launch bay gets damaged, you're SOL. That is the primary reason you keep carriers away from other capships.

TC
 
TC made it clearer.

but look at the Cerb'. It gets loads of cap ship to cap ship action. and its a carrier, sure, a strike carrier, but its a carrier
 
The Cerebus is a strike CRUISER. Its main purpose is to get up to other capital ships and blow them to hell, pun intended. It just happens to have a 30 fighter compliment. A carrier like the Tiger's Claw, a strike carrier can engage a ship close up. It has enough torpedo tubes for it. Smaller carriers can be useful but not the Ranger class. Its incredibly old, the same size as a Bengal with not even half the fighter compliment. A bunch of escort carriers, like the Tarawa are cheap, easy to build, and carry just as many fighters as a Ranger. They would compliment bigger ships like Vesuvius and Midway class carriers quite well.

If you were to build a ship that can engage captial ships, yet have a full fighter wing compliment, Hell would not freeze over, pigs would not fly, and it wouldnt be breaking any universal law that says carriers cant engage in ship to ship fighting. In fact it would be a smart idea, doubling the ship's usefullness.
 
well.. concidering how many people die when a bridge fries i wouldnt think its a good idea.. cause.. well.. you'd aim for a carriers bridge first thing to make a rukus and confusion etc.

and sorry for the mistake on the cerb, its late, my brain is dying on me again
 
well obviously you wouldnt be stupid enough to put the bridge up high unshielded by hull and a prime target to hit. Thats just asking to have your command crew wiped out and leaving the ship uncontrolled.
 
The problem with making a ship that does the jobs of both a carrier and a destroyer or cruiser is that it will be more costly, it won't do either of the jobs as well as a specialized craft and it isn't really a great thing tactically.

Carriers are expensive things, they take a long time to build because of the launch facilities, and are expensive in the sense of manpower. A carrier carries many expensive smaller craft, as well. The pilots and those that support the fighters cost millions of credits each to train. On the other hand, a destroyer is quickly and cheaply (relatively) made. Though it has skilled workers, it's not comparable to the price of fighter pilots and the huge amount of auxiliary crew members that are needed to support a fighter wing.

To be useful, a destroyer is relatively small, maneuverable and packed with guns. Unfourtunately, having fighters takes up a lot of space. You need storage space, somewhere for support facilities, and launch areas. This affects the speed and maneuverability rather negatively. It also creates holes in defenses, since you can't safely place defenses near landing and launching areas. They're a hazard for the pilots. So you need to cut down on the amount of fighters to make the ship semi-viable when attacking capships, but it's still basically a lumpy destroyer. It's a great target for the enemy.

Tacrically it isn't much more useful than a carrier *or* a destroyer. While you're launching fighters you can't be maneuvering too much. It's rather hard to launch ships while you're moving around like crazy. You also can't go and fight after you've launched them... you have to be there to support your fighters in case something happens. What if a bunch of ships get badly damaged? What if they meet up with greater resistance and have to retreat? The ship can attempt to pull back, but it will be followed by hostiles. Either you launch your fighters and leave them to die, or you keep them locked down and fight it out.

So what you have, basically, is something that is either a crappy destroyer or a crappy carrier. You end up with something that is too expensive to risk throwing away on a capship battle, but is supposed to fill that role. When you look at the Cerberus, it's really more of an escort carrier than a cruiser of any sort. I very much doubt it could hold itself too well in a fight. It's anti-capship capabilities are based off a single gun, which is a rather easy target for the enemy. Realistically, carrier/destroyer combos don't really work.

TC
 
Originally posted by Supdon3
well obviously you wouldnt be stupid enough to put the bridge up high unshielded by hull and a prime target to hit. Thats just asking to have your command crew wiped out and leaving the ship uncontrolled.
Click to expand...

look at the ranger, the bridge is in a tower on the side, if you're lucky enough to maneuver around it (probly wont concidering it seems pretty nimble) fire off a few dozen shots you can take down the bridge, would you risk that? On a carrier? I wouldnt, like TC said, these buckets of bolts cost money and time.
lots of it
 
it was just a rough example you know.

plus i love the ranger :)

[Edited by RATM on 07-01-2001 at 03:20]
 
Well i wont argue that the Victory wasnt a great ship:) It rocked. But smart carrier design would put the bridge inside the hull of the ship protecting it from damage up to a direct torpedo strike. Just like on any warship.
 
The Ranger class was a good ship for its day, and would still be good value for cash strapped factions like the Border Worlds and the Landreich. I think Confed itself would be able to spring for a new CVL though, seeing as the Ranger class was old before the war started.

Best, Raptor
 
It would definitly be a deal for the Border Worlds. Its old so its cheap and there are plenty of replacement parts around. The BW probably doesnt have that many fighters to put on board and it cant carry that many anyway so theres no wasted space.
 
Originally posted by TC
The problem with making a ship that does the jobs of both a carrier and a destroyer or cruiser is that it will be more costly, it won't do either of the jobs as well as a specialized craft and it isn't really a great thing tactically.
Click to expand...
Well, aren't the Kilrathi Dreadnoughts we see in WC3 (in the failing game), the ones we read about in Fleet Action, and the KIS Karga (False Colors) exactly that type of ship?..

They are costly obviously, but I would tend to think they do their jobs rather well TC...

[Edited by mpanty on 07-01-2001 at 11:29]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top