Ship Sizes Argh!

Discuss Mongoose RPGs here, such as the OGL rulebooks, Jeremiah, Armageddon 2089 and Macho Women with Guns
User avatar
ShadowScout
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:48 am
Location: Matzen, AUSTRIA

Postby ShadowScout » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:11 pm

Whatta ya know... found it!

Earthforce Tethys Patrol Boat Length: 190 m
Earthforce Olympus Corvette Length: 445 m
Earthforce Hermes Priority Transport Length: 550 m
Earthforce Artemis Heavy Frigate Length: 585 m
Earthforce Oracle Scout Cruiser Length: 845 m
Earthforce Orestes System Monitor Length: 975 m
Earthforce Hyperion Cruiser Length: 1025 m
Earthforce Avenger Carrier Length: 1150 m
Earthforce Sagittarius Missile Cruiser Length: 1210 m
Earthforce Nova Battleship Length: 1505 m
Earthforce Omega Destroyer Length: 1715 m
Earthforce Warlock Battlecruiser Length: 1990 m
Earthforce Poseidon Supercarrier Length: 2415 m
Earthforce Explorer Survey Ship Length: 6105 m

Raider Battlewagon Length: 968 m

Narn Sho’Kos Police Cutter Length: 201 m
Narn Dag’Kar Missile Frigate Length: 237 m
Narn Tenthus Patrol Frigate Length: 248 m
Narn Rongoth Destroyer Length: 523 m
Narn Ka’Toc Battle Destroyer Length: 637 m
Narn Sho’Kar Scout Length: 804 m
Narn Th’Nor Light Cruiser Length: 837 m
Narn Var’Nic Destroyer Length: 872 m
Narn G’Karith Patrol Cruiser Length: 982 m
Narn T’Loth Assault Cruiser Length: 1046 m
Narn G’Quan Heavy Cruiser Length: 1264 m
Narn Bin’Tak Dreadnought Length: 1876 m

Dilgar Jashakar Frigate Length: 203 m
Dilgar Ochlavita Destroyer Length: 596 m
Dilgar Protra Scout Ship Length: 879 m
Dilgar Athraskala Bomber Length: 1198 m
Dilgar Targath Strike Cruiser Length: 1269 m
Dilgar Tratharti Gunship Length: 1361 m
Dilgar Mishakur Dreadnought Length: 1423 m

Abbai Tiraca Attack Frigate Length: 243 m
Abbai Shyarie Jammer Frigate Length: 283 m
Abbai Milani Carrier Length: 838 m
Abbai Lakara Cruiser Length: 993 m
Abbai Bimith Defender Length: 1018 m

Brakiri Halik Fighter Killer Length: 284 m
Brakiri Ikorta Assault Cruiser Length: 231 m (688 m wide)
Brakiri Avioki Cruiser Length: 986 m
Brakiri Brokados Battle Carrier Length: 1163 m
Brakiri Tashkat Advanced Cruiser Length: 1291 m

Drazi Stareagle Frigate Length: 354 m
Drazi Warbird Destroyer Length: 565 m
Drazi Stormfalcon Cruiser Length: 886 m

Gaim Moas GunScout Length: 921 m

Pak’ma’ra Urik’hal Destroyer Length: 270 m
Pak’ma’ra Resh’kas’u Carrier Length: 850 m
Pak’ma’ra Thar’not’ak Heavy Cruiser Length: 1060 m
Pak’ma’ra P’shul’shi Dreadnought Length: 1280 m

Vree Xvell Escort Saucer Diameter: 171 m
Vree Vymish Armed Trader Diameter: 247 m
Vree Vaarl Scout Saucer Diameter: 399 m
Vree Xixx Torpedo Saucer Diameter: 346 m
Vree Xorr War Saucer Diameter: 433 m
Vree Xill Battle Saucer Diameter: 617 m
Vree Xonn Dreadnought Diameter: 945 m

Centauri Haven Patrol Boat Length: 216 m
Centauri Maximus Frigate Length: 241 m
Centauri Mograth Frigate Length: 246 m
Centauri Kutai Gunship Length: 452 m
Centauri Vorchan/Demos Warship Length: 603 m
Centauri Sulust Escort Destroyer Length: 622 m
Centauri Darkner Attack Frigate Length: 649 m
Centauri Altarin Destroyer Length: 783 m
Centauri Covran Scout Length: 862 m
Centauri Dargan Strike Cruiser Length: 1008 m
Centauri Balvarin Carrier Length: 1147 m
Centauri Centurion Attack Cruiser Length: 1292 m
Centauri Primus Battlecruiser Length: 1586 m
Centauri Octurion Battleship Length: 1828 m

Minbari Torotha Assault Frigate Length: 244 m
Minbari Morshinn Light Carrier Length: 754 m
Minbari Tinashi Warfrigate Length: 796 m
Minbari Leshat Heavy Scout Length: 1178 m
Minbari Tigara Attack Cruiser Length: 1178 m
Minbari Troligan Armoured Cruiser Length: 1293 m
Minbari Neshatan Gunship Length: 1484 m
Minbari Sharlin Warcruiser Length: 1596 m

Ranger White Star Gunship Length: 268 m


And now some info... how did I come to these numbers? Easy - most of it is pure imagination, inspired by some "canon" numbers I found acceptable and others derived for one from how "big" the ships are in comparison in B5W, and for another on how big in comparison their B5W miniatures are (within their size class - since AoG didn't do their "full scale" minis to size except within their individual class I had to respect that - otherwise we'd have either small CapShips or huge MedShips...)
I also had a rough scale as "final checking" for ship sizes:
50 Meters and below = Fighter/Shuttle
50 to 100 meters = Light Combat Vessel
100 to 300 meters = Medium Ship
300 to 800 meters = Heavy Combat Vessel
800 meters and more = Capital Ship

(of course, for non-standard configurations you'd take either the longest "measurment" - like when a ship was taller then long you'd take height instead of length; and for completely non-standard ships you'd just guess - like the Vree Saucers, which became all smaller then their "size class" would indicate to represent that they use a more "efficient" mass distribution that allows them pack more into smaller measurments...)
After all that guessing, I usually round the numbers a bit, at least for EA ships - to the nearest full "5". For alien ships I prefer the opposite - nothing that ends in "5" or "0" so my players get the impression that these might be alien vessels which are built using a different set of measurments.

I stopped updating the stuff when AoG stopped their full scale minis, because I only used full scale for my RPG encounters - FA scale are nice, but basically glorified counters. Good for wargame fleet engagements, but just can't give me the RPG feeling I want for a space encounter... Oh, imagine the players in a 5-mm FA scale Minbari flyer pursued by an 120-mm Omega Destroyer... even though the "real" scale would be much, much worse (25-meter Flyer and 1715-meter Omega), it does create a really nice feeling reagrdless...

Anyway, so here's what I use for my games. It worked so far.
ShadowScout
Roman A. Perner

"True understanding can be found only in the Shadow between light and dark..." - inscription on Z'ha'dum
Abraxus
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:07 pm

Nice list

Postby Abraxus » Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:52 pm

Wow...seems like quite the comprehensive list!! I like it...It matches up with many of the ship sizes i've seen on other pages...Very good stuff...I think I'll use your comprehensive list for my game. :)

But.....

There's a few ships missing!!!

I need the sizes on the following ships....

Both best known Earth Force transports.
- The Civilian Transport
- The Corporate Transport

as they are called in the Mongoose main book.

I can't seem to find the sizes of these classic ships anywhere.

Abraxus..:)
"Show a little more gratitude. I'm here to save your butts".
User avatar
ShadowScout
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:48 am
Location: Matzen, AUSTRIA

Postby ShadowScout » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:28 am

es, there are quite a few ships missing - all those AoG didn't get around doing a mini for! And of course I did forgot to update the list back then with the last few AoG FS minis - like the few civilians.

Let me check my notes...

OK, I'd make that...
Civilian Survey Craft "Skydancer" Length: 25 m
Civilian Skylark Transport Length: 55 m
Civilian Light Transport Length: 105 m
Civilian Tug / Cargo Loader Length: 180 m
Civilian (Corporate) Freighter & Tanker Length: 445 m
Civilian Passenger (Space) Liner Length: 510 m
Civilian Ore Barge Length: 935 m
ShadowScout
Roman A. Perner

"True understanding can be found only in the Shadow between light and dark..." - inscription on Z'ha'dum
Abraxus
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:07 pm

Perfect

Postby Abraxus » Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:23 am

Thanks for the rest of your list...Excellent stuff..:)
"Show a little more gratitude. I'm here to save your butts".
User avatar
Dag'Nabbit
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:41 am
Location: Bryan, TX
Contact:

Postby Dag'Nabbit » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:54 am

Nicely done Shadowscout. Now here's a test, if the Victory class mini that Mongoose is making is really 14cm then how big would that make it?

You're on such a roll I'd figure that I throw a curve ball at ya' :wink:
Yummmmm.....Flan! It's really just styrofoam. Tasty styrofoam, like twinkies, but somehow better for you.
User avatar
ShadowScout
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:48 am
Location: Matzen, AUSTRIA

Postby ShadowScout » Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:45 pm

Nicely done Shadowscout. Now here's a test, if the Victory class mini that Mongoose is making is really 14cm then how big would that make it?
You're on such a roll I'd figure that I throw a curve ball at ya' :wink:
Hmmm... depends. 14 cm would be as large as the AoG Warlock mini... so at least 2 klicks. Add a bit for hero-ship and we can approach the 2400 meters cited in an episode IIRC ("One and a half miles" is the word I have at the back of my head... but I could be wrong there, as it's been some time since I last saw Crusade, my videos still being packed away in one of my moving boxes awaiting apperance of a bookcase to be transfered to... hope they'll do Crusade on DVD soon... these little disks are great, especially because you can get one season in the space of four episodes video-wise...)
Of course, for the final one I'd wait and see how the actual mini compares to the EA minis, especially the Warlock and Poseidon; then I'm gonna think up a size for my games. But I'd expect it to be somewhere around 2000 meters...
ShadowScout
Roman A. Perner

"True understanding can be found only in the Shadow between light and dark..." - inscription on Z'ha'dum
Natxomann
Mongoose
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:15 pm

Postby Natxomann » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:23 pm

Sorry people , but if the B5 starships (and very specially the warships) were as big as the "official" charts say , they would be impervious to the attacks of fighters (specially the small B5 fighters) , due to their sheer size .
For myself , I decided long ago that the real dimensions are 1/3rd of the official size .
The impossible can be made , it only takes a little bit of time and effort .
Lt Commander Jan Helder .
Abraxus
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:07 pm

A piece of paper, 5 miles long, all alone in the night

Postby Abraxus » Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:18 pm

I'm sorry Natxomann, but if the ships were the size you would say, then none of it would make sense.

Just because a ship is large, does not make it impervious. Size equals hit points, not impossible to damage ships. Look at the Omega..it has DR of 22. A starfury does 4d8 dmg for its main guns. At max damage, it can do 32 dmg.

I use a rule that if a fighter gets to within 0 hexes/boxes of a capital ship, then the DR of the target ship is reduced by 50% as they are able to target softer spots of a ship, as well as targeting weapon systems.

But by your reasoning, a piece of paper 5 miles long but 2mm thick could not be destroyed by a fighter...

A ships ability to withstand damage is based on either the quality of armour or thickness of armour, or both (ie: High Quality thick armour).

After all, take a look at the Explorer ship. It is estimated to be 6000 meters, or 6k. It has DR 17. Now look at the Hyperion, 1000m and DR 18. The Explorer is huge, we know this...nearly as big as B5...you can see it with your own eyes. But it could in no way withstand the assault of determined fighters.

So I guess, in the end, I could not support your claim of size = indestructable.

Abraxus
"Show a little more gratitude. I'm here to save your butts".
User avatar
ShadowScout
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:48 am
Location: Matzen, AUSTRIA

Postby ShadowScout » Sat May 01, 2004 8:49 am

Sorry people , but if the B5 starships (and very specially the warships) were as big as the "official" charts say , they would be impervious to the attacks of fighters (specially the small B5 fighters) , due to their sheer size.
Yeah, sure.
Could it be that you gave Emperor Palpatine the same advice? Like "...the Death Star will be impervious to the (even smaller then B5 fighters) rebel fighters because of it's sheer size... and the same goes for the new super star destroyer..." :wink: :P :D
Fact is, it's not size that makes ships impervious, it's defenses like armor, shields or energy diffusers that make thinsg difficult for fighters. Size only makes it take longer to blast the ship apart...

Of course, you DO have a certain point... fighters seen a bit overpowered in the B5 universe... I noticed that in B5W, when a fighter which was Smaller then a SPB turret had 15 hit points while the SPB had a mere 4... But hey, that's the way these things are seen acting in the show, so that's the way a game should reflect them. Personally I would like to ignore the show and have fighters which woudl have a reyll hard time getting through big ship armor with their guns and would carry missiles for anti-ship work... but since we saw scenes in the show where they did damage big bad capital shiops with just their onboard guns, well, seems we're stuck with it for B5. (actually I dislike the whole B5 combat system a tiny little bit - would have prefered a better thought-out system, like "missiles for long range, energy guns for short range", but since they didn't do that for B5, well... Of course, should I get REALLY bored some day with too much free time, I might redo all B5W ships -I have most of the pdf's- for a weapons layout and combat system I find more realistic in spite of the show... wouldn't that be nice, if suddenly all my players think they know anout ship capabilities suddenly doesn't apply anymore? :wink: Though I seriously doubt that this will ever happen unless I win some major money...)
ShadowScout
Roman A. Perner

"True understanding can be found only in the Shadow between light and dark..." - inscription on Z'ha'dum
User avatar
Dag'Nabbit
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:41 am
Location: Bryan, TX
Contact:

Postby Dag'Nabbit » Sat May 01, 2004 8:52 am

Natxomann wrote:Sorry people , but if the B5 starships (and very specially the warships) were as big as the "official" charts say , they would be impervious to the attacks of fighters (specially the small B5 fighters) , due to their sheer size .
For myself , I decided long ago that the real dimensions are 1/3rd of the official size .
I'm curious as to why you think this is the case. What in the rules, the show, or the books gave you that idea?
Yummmmm.....Flan! It's really just styrofoam. Tasty styrofoam, like twinkies, but somehow better for you.
Natxomann
Mongoose
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:15 pm

Postby Natxomann » Sat May 01, 2004 9:07 pm

Well , to answer one question , what gave me the idea that that "official" size chart was wrong was the fact that when we see a Sharlin in "Legacies" , its lenght is about 300 meters (C&C screens) , and now it is more tham 5 times that size . The other fact is commom sense and several indications given in the show . On top of that , we have heard several times that as the series progressed , the size of ships was increased to make them more impressive when moving along the station (beginning with those Sharlins and Omegas in "severed dreams") , and as the series carried on , and new CGI artists became involved , they were increased in size again , until we got the ridiculous sizes that appear in that "official" chart .
First of all , You need a big starship for endurance reasons (ie , to carry the massive amounts of fuel and other consumables) due to the fact that most warships are built for long duration (3-6 months at least) missions , while others (like the Nova) are massive weapon platforms , which must devote most of their internal space to energy generators and linkages .
Thus , the need for massive hulls should be theoretically the one for interstellar operation . However , in the B5 universe , we see that even diminutive (and I mean really diminutive) fighters , like the Aurora , can operate through hyperespace , travelling even between several jump points and being capable of combat operations , two things that consume a staggering amount of fuel . As has been said on several ocasions , engines and energy plants in the B5 era have a very efficient fuel consumption rate , so the necessity for massive amounts of fuel is rather low .
Second , if fighters were so incapable against warships as they should be when the respective sizes are compared , there would be few fighters in the battlefields of the B5 universe (and as we see in the show , that is not the case), and the Babylon 5 station would have no fighter complement , but at least a few Olympus corvettes as main defence . Remember , battleships were made obsolete by air power , and as a result of this , they were replaced by carriers as main warships .
Another point is the fact that in real naval warfare (ie , historical , seagoing warships) , was not the armour what really protected the (well , most of the time) but the robustness of the hull (to which the armour contributed , along with sheer mass and quality of construction) , so when we talk about the damage that armour can withstand we are making a serious error . To answer another claim , I am not saying that size is the equal to indestructiveness , but to the fact that the small weapons used by the (very) small fighters of the B5 universe should have the same effect that the machineguns of a WW1 plane would have on a same-era battleship : nothing at all . Oh , a few crewmwmbers would be wounded and/or killed , but the real effect would be nil .
Roman , I cannot but share your opinion that B5 fighters were overpowered . Even with my own interpretation of actual ship's sizes , the B5 Wars fighters were too powerful , and were too survivable against starships . In my opinion , they should do very little damage to ships , and should ba automatically destroyed by any impact from a shipboard weapon , not to talk about the fact that in that game , a fighter' fuel and energy endurance sems to be eternal .
I also agree with you about how actual fighting should be in the B5verse , but we have the picture given by the actual series about how space warfare is conducted is all that we have , so we have to conform .
I also think that the "weak point in the Death Star design" thing was a silly one , but we are talking here about Star Wars or B5?.
Sorry if this seems messy and all that , but my english is really poor , and I have to go to work just now , but we can continue this amiable chat some other day .
Have a nice weekend
The impossible can be made , it only takes a little bit of time and effort .
Lt Commander Jan Helder .
User avatar
ShadowScout
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:48 am
Location: Matzen, AUSTRIA

Postby ShadowScout » Sat May 01, 2004 10:20 pm

To answer another claim , I am not saying that size is the equal to indestructiveness , but to the fact that the small weapons used by the (very) small fighters of the B5 universe should have the same effect that the machineguns of a WW1 plane would have on a same-era battleship : nothing at all . Oh , a few crewmwmbers would be wounded and/or killed , but the real effect would be nil .

Not so.
But close.
One can assume that weapons got better in relation to armor, with the introduction of phased plasma cannons, particle guns and whatever, and that mere physical armor plating just can't help being damaged even by shots that don't penetrate.
But still, the sheer power these small fighters would need to get their energy bolts strong enough to really hurt a ship that can carry massive armor plating is a problem - especially since a common B5 fighter also needs to pack reaction mass, pilot and life support into a 10-15 meter frame. As I wrote, the small turrets on an Omega are bigger then a starfury, yet the fighter has three times the structure and around the same armor in B5W, while doing more total damage with it's twin mini-guns - that just doesn't look right to me.
It is a bit of a problem if you desire completely realistic fluff. But then, so are the later battles (who the hell infected the B5 CGI team with the "visual range space battles" bug?!?).

However, B5 does show us that fighters are quite able to damage big ships, and are also able to survive glancing hits from ship weapons... But what the hell, it's Science FICTION after all... that's just the fiction part winning over the science part. Unfortunately it's an core part of the show and all that came after it, so we can't very well expect any changes. So we're stuck with it. Pity (though I still wish from time to time that I could travel back in time to advise JMS on some parts of B5 he neglected - from ship designations over space battle structure to earthforce ranks).
But as we can't change it, we ought to find ways around it - like house rules for your personalized campaign...
I also think that the "weak point in the Death Star design" thing was a silly one , but we are talking here about Star Wars or B5?.
Actually I was refering to the X-Wings being able to take out some of the surface turrets... I do remember Luke blasting apart a few... and the destruction of the "Executor" was a classic anyway!
And the Death Star exhaust vent... well, I suppose there must be a law somewhere that all superweapons must have a vulvnerable point for the heros to find... (just as there seems to be a law that the beautiful daughter of the evil overlord will always fall for the rugged male hero {note to self - never have kids} :wink: )
ShadowScout
Roman A. Perner

"True understanding can be found only in the Shadow between light and dark..." - inscription on Z'ha'dum
Abraxus
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:07 pm

I have a point to make

Postby Abraxus » Sun May 02, 2004 1:20 am

Natxomaan....I have something to point out that perhaps you...

You subscribe to the Minbari Cruiser as being 300m.

So do you subscribe, then, that the White Star is the official length of 450m? If so, then your measurements state that the White Star is 150m larger then the Minbari War Cruiser.

If though, you say that the White Star is 1/3rd that size, then it would be 150 meters. Is that the number that you use? Or do you use the 250m length for the White Star? If so, then the White Star is only 50m's smaller then the Sharlin. If that is the case, then why can the Sharlin Carry 24 fighters and the White Star supposedly only 2-4 perhaps, if any at all.

That size, also, would not be consistant with statements made that the White Star is the only ship of its size that can open up a jump point. If the Sharlin is only 50m larger, it would fall into that category too right?

I think the measurements of 1600m for the Sharlin, and 268m or so for the White Star makes a great deal of sense when it comes to scale.

Looking forward to more responses.

Oh...I do have a suplementary question... What's with the Vorchan cruiser being Colosal III? Why is it the same "size" as the Sharlin?

Abraxus the Confused Alot.
"Show a little more gratitude. I'm here to save your butts".
User avatar
Dag'Nabbit
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:41 am
Location: Bryan, TX
Contact:

Postby Dag'Nabbit » Sun May 02, 2004 6:47 am

Natxomann wrote:Well , to answer one question , what gave me the idea that that "official" size chart was wrong was the fact that when we see a Sharlin in "Legacies" , its lenght is about 300 meters (C&C screens) , and now it is more tham 5 times that size.
OK, I believe they were using EA scan technology. The Sharlin had probably not taken its stealth systems offline. The EA has been unable to solve the problem of cutting through the stealth so therefore the evidence in "Legacies" is 'bad' evidence.
Natxomann wrote:Second , if fighters were so incapable against warships as they should be when the respective sizes are compared , there would be few fighters in the battlefields of the B5 universe (and as we see in the show , that is not the case), and the Babylon 5 station would have no fighter complement , but at least a few Olympus corvettes as main defence . Remember , battleships were made obsolete by air power , and as a result of this , they were replaced by carriers as main warships.//\\To answer another claim , I am not saying that size is the equal to indestructiveness , but to the fact that the small weapons used by the (very) small fighters of the B5 universe should have the same effect that the machineguns of a WW1 plane would have on a same-era battleship : nothing at all . Oh , a few crewmwmbers would be wounded and/or killed , but the real effect would be nil .
First, ships in space have to be constructed to battle 2 seperate aspects of physics whereas the ships of the sea only had to fight one. On the surface you only have to resist inward pressure, whether that's from the atmosphere/ocean or weapons fire. In space you also have to guard against the rigors of vacuum. Say your exterior hull/armor is superheated by fighter strikes and this weakens it so that the stress of vacuum can then pull it away from the superstructure. This opens that section to space as well as continued fire from the fighters. I'm not saying that this is the case, but the evidence from the show supports this. Look at how the fighters did their damage. They would fire, sparks and light would hit the hull then the ship would eventually have a failure in a specific area (minor to catastrophic).
Second, your comparison with air power overiding the need for battleships on the ocean doesn't apply in space. Fighters were put on carriers in order to project power over the horizon, where you could not reach with your ships. In space there is not really such a problem. The ships are the air power, but supplement this with fast moving, agile attack platforms (fighters). In this way a ship, like the Omega, can hit one target, from two different directions. There also is no horizon in space. Although you could argue that planets and other bodies in space create one, these are very minor and you can maneuver in ways to mitigate their affect on your combat power. You could use nothing but carriers in your fleet, but this would be foolish against smart commanders. Heck, if you design your fleet well you could get away with not having any dedicated carriers.
Yummmmm.....Flan! It's really just styrofoam. Tasty styrofoam, like twinkies, but somehow better for you.
Natxomann
Mongoose
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:15 pm

Postby Natxomann » Sun May 02, 2004 9:57 am

A veeeeeer....
First , I did not say that the Sharlin length was less than that of the WhiteStar . The only canon data on the Sharlin's length was given in "Legacies" and it was clearly 300 m , and we never saw what the length of the Whitestar was . I that official size chart of Tim Earls both become 1500 m (Sharlin) and 475 or so (Whitestar) , but if you want a more realistic approach , they should be reduced to 1/3rd , that was what I made , although I was quite happy with the 300m Sharlin . Just in case no one noted the fact , this is almost the same length of any US supercarrier , and given the a 300 m Sharlin's or 450 or so Whitestar's hulls configurations , they should have a LOT more of internal volume (I never saw a US supercarrier , but a few years ago , the french carrier Foch visited my city's port and I went on board , and believe me , a 250 m length carrier is a really BIG thing , with a lot of internal space) . However , if you are not satisfied with a 300m hull for the Sharlin , a 500m length (my 1/3rd idea of that size chart) should do more than fine for anyone , specially if you take into account that the Sharlin's hull is far more taller than longer .

Second , Any oceangoing ship operates in a more hostile environment than any spaceship operating in vacuum (at least when we talk about battle damage and survivability) .
Why?
Easy . When you punch a hole in a starship's hull , the worst that can happen in a explosive decompression which could kill a few crewmembers (if they are unprotected , or in an area that is directly affected by the impact , that is) , but when you do the same to a ship , and if the hole is below the waterline , it will enter water , which , if left unchecked , will sink the ship . If the damage to the ship's hull is due to an underwater explosion (like those of torpedoes and mines) , the effect is far worse , due to the fact that water does NOT attenuate the effects of near explosions , but magnifies them . Good examples of this were the heavy damages suffered by the battleships Nelson (due to a magnetic mine) , the Tirpitz (explosive charges placed by British midget subs) , or the Conte di Cavour (torpedoed by british Swordfishes at Taranto) . In all of these cases , the real (and massive) damage was inflicted by underwater overpressure , result of near , submerged explosions .
We could also argue about critical hits to energy plants , propulsion systems or ammunition magazines , but in both cases , both types of ships are subjected to such things .
Another thing is that both weapons and armour would be designed to counter those of the same period , ie , the ww1 armour would counteract WW1 weapons and futuristic armour would counter energy weapons . I really don´t think other thing , and the armour composites used to protect a Sharlin or Omega's hull would be capable not only of counter kinetic attacks , but also those of a wide spectrum of energy weapons (plasma , laser , etc) , and their specific effects . When I was talking about a WW1 airplane attacking a Dreadnought with its machineguns , I was only giving a reasonable example for comparative reasons .
Other thing that was perhaps misinterpreted , was that of the downfall of the battleships , and the rise of the carriers . Yes , you are right , the carrier succeeded the battleship due to the fact that its weapon compliment (its aircraft) were capable of detection and attack beyond the horizon , but that was not the only reason .
Other really good reason was flexibility . A battleship can only do one thing : attack other surface ships , and in the case of some US and British WW2 BBs , act as powerful AA platforms for fleet air defense , but a carrier needs only to change its airgroup composition to meet new missions , thus if your primary mission is air defense you replace some attack planes with fighters (and vice versa) , or if your primary mission becomes that of antisubmarine warfare , you replace fighters and attack craft with ASW planes or helicopters , and so on .
However , the real reason why battleships were replaced not really by carriers but by air power (sorry for my original error) , is the fact that aircraft are attrition units . It took several years to build a battleship , and the costs involved in the construction and maintenance of these ships were staggering , but by a far reduced price , you could build a good number of bombers or torpedo planes that would require far less people to operate , and that could sink or at least damage that same battleship , and if they were shot down , they were far cheaper and easier to replace in far less time .
One thing in which we share a common opinion is that true carriers have little sense in the battlefields of the B5verse , and that a more logical design is exactly what we see in the series : capital ships , in the range of heavy cruisers(Omega , Sharlin) /battlecruisers(Warlock)/battleships(Shargotti , Victory , Octurion) , that show a combination of heavy firepower and defenses , together with a heavy fighter complement (24-36 fighters) .
The impossible can be made , it only takes a little bit of time and effort .
Lt Commander Jan Helder .
PottsBr

Postby PottsBr » Mon May 03, 2004 9:18 pm

I believe that JMS himself has spoken on the fighter vs warship situation. If I remember correctly, he said that the fighters were of little use against the bigger capital ship, but that a ship that ignored them could soon find itself in a lot of trouble as the fighters damaged and destroyed external emplacements, like the weapons.

This was, I believe, in responce to questions about the Star Furies attacking the Centauri Cruiser in The Fall of Night.

Of course, in Season 5, we see the Star Furies just rip apart the smaller Centauri Cruiser in Movements of Fire and Shadow. Of course, this ship was completely unmanned and not defending itself.
Dan_55

Postby Dan_55 » Tue May 04, 2004 4:07 am

I'm afraid I agree with Natxomann. I remember seeing the stated length of the Sharlin as 300m and laugh when people insist on gigantic dimensions for it.

I also use 400m as the length of the Omega, judging by its relative size compared to a Sharlin. If you wish to ignore the ONLY cannon reference to size, then think of it logically. Do you believe one small world (Earth), aided by a dozen small colonies, build in just ten years somewhere between 30 and 50 (minimum) Star Destroyer sized battleships? Where'd they get the resources, the manpower, the money?
User avatar
Dag'Nabbit
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:41 am
Location: Bryan, TX
Contact:

Postby Dag'Nabbit » Tue May 04, 2004 6:17 am

Two hundred and fifty years in the future that's not that amazing an achievement. Even without the higher technology of the other races that's a lot of time to develop better, more efficient types and methods of manufacture. Imagine if somewhere along the way found a technique that was tantamount to the development of the assembly line. As such I think it's just a bad idea to use today's standards of production to measure output.

As for the supplies and resources, well, we do have an asteroid belt. If it is in fact a planet that broke apart, well, that's a lot of resouces that you can tap without having to worry about poluting or damaging the environment. And the EA has been exploiting that for over a century if my memory is correct.

As for size, well, I tend to follow along the same lines as Shadowscout. It may make them a little large and seemingly too large sometimes, but it works for me so I use it. And, to be honest, if I need to I'll change my mind in the middle of a campaign. But the drive for me will be the story and plot not whether or not it was canon or even if it had more evidence.

:wink: However, it's still fun to argue about.
Yummmmm.....Flan! It's really just styrofoam. Tasty styrofoam, like twinkies, but somehow better for you.
Enlightened Bystander
Stoat
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:05 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Enlightened Bystander » Tue May 04, 2004 1:44 pm

I may be wrong but.. I'm sure that the 1600 is given as the longest measurement (IE height), rather than just the length
nitflegal
Mongoose
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:13 pm

Postby nitflegal » Tue May 04, 2004 1:50 pm

Dan_55 wrote:I'm afraid I agree with Natxomann. I remember seeing the stated length of the Sharlin as 300m and laugh when people insist on gigantic dimensions for it.

I also use 400m as the length of the Omega, judging by its relative size compared to a Sharlin. If you wish to ignore the ONLY cannon reference to size, then think of it logically. Do you believe one small world (Earth), aided by a dozen small colonies, build in just ten years somewhere between 30 and 50 (minimum) Star Destroyer sized battleships? Where'd they get the resources, the manpower, the money?
The problem is, we see Omegas around the 5 mile (8000 meter) long station all of the time and they are at least 15-20% of the length of the station, which sets one up for a measurement of almost a mile in length at the least.

As for the 300 meters, it's worth mentioning that the folks from Foundation Imaging who made that display have discounted it, as they did with much of the weaponry. They just whipped it out with nonsense numbers and it never occurred to them that anyone would take the time to screen-cap it and enhance the image! They learned that Sci-Fi tech fans can be an obsessive lot indeed. . .

Matt

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests