test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
battlecrusiers and battleships
khan1000
Member Posts: 264 Arc User
a battleships are the most powerful ship ever to sail the sea's and battlecrusiers have the guns and armor of BB's and the speed fo crusiers. so why does a ship 10x smaller bet them in power,also what the hell are dreadnought crusiers and heavy battlecruiser. a dreadnought cruiser would be a battlecruiser and heavy battlecruiser would be a battleship. those are oxymorons
Fear the Dominion
Post edited by khan1000 on
0
Comments
Are you new to MMOs?
however if I were to score a few direct hits on an escort, it's blown up. It has to pound me for awhile before I die...
It's agility vs strength. The strong guy can take a hit, but has a hard time landing that critical hit... the agile guy can do quick, shallow cuts that eventually takes its toll... but if the agile guy gets sloppy or the strong guy lands a hit, that's it for the agile person.
And the end of the day nothing in Star Trek, not canon and not the game, makes much sense in a real-world way. Canon is whatever some writer needed to make up for a particular story. It is whatever hand-waving magic they needed. Thus a Galaxy would stand up to a Cube and then get taken down by Ferengi in a B'rel.
Your real world answer isn't real.
Or rather not in today's real world. Rather it's what you see, you kill. Small craft are just bite size chunks that take less ammo to kill.
Now I would have preferred a STO where one started as a runabout commander, and went up the tree in ships sizes. But honestly, that real world concept of ship power and size being connected was completely destroyed by the shows after TOS. And those are the shows this game is based on.
Riiight. Which is why big heavy bombers in ww2 needed escorts from small agile planes. Or do you honestly believe that those 16 inch guns on a battleship can accurately and reliably hit a speedboat going full throttle? In space there is no water resistance so agility is a much larger factor, though even in naval combat small warships can and have defeated larger ships.
Let the stupid suffer
You said real world, to me that means the modern world. Since we're talking about ships in STO, that also to me means real world modern ships.
So be more clear. Further are you actually suggesting that STO mirror WWII air combat, because that's rather silly.
The rest of your post makes no sense to me, for example WWII Battleships have large numbers of 5" guns, 40mm guns, 20mm guns, and/or .50 cal guns to attack small attack boats and they were highly effective in that role. The 16 inch guns were used against larger ships and shore targets.
In general, I think your knowledge of the subject is... limited to movies. So this is the last response I'll make to you until you show otherwise somehow.
None of these classifications mean anything in STO, they never have. They literally just use those terms when they think it sounds cool.. they have no other meaning in STO whatsoever.
On film, have they ever used the term Battleship or Dreadnaught?
In fact, on film have they ever label any Federation ship as 'cruiser', 'escort', etc.? I don't recall that ever happening but there was a lot of TNG and later that I just won't watch.
TOS always referenced the Enterprise as a "Starship", a label not applied to other vessels which were called transports or "star cruiser". They did call the D7 a Battlecruiser.
I always found it interesting that in "Search for Spock", the Klingons labeled the Enterprise a Battlecruiser. It made me consider how they'd translate other ships, for example would they have called the Connie class Excalibur "The battlecruiser Sword of Kings" or something like that... yes, I'm wandering now.
Air combat is actually a better analog than naval combat because of the maneuverability and as such the fact that the b17 still had fighter escorts even though it's own firepower was superior.
As for the small ships beating larger ships I point to the battle off samar as an example.
Let the stupid suffer
Sorry but you're wrong right out of the gate. Carriers are the most powerful ships to ever sail the seas.
Except that there is nothing in this game, or on film that indicates that WWII aircraft is a model for Star Trek. And many things that indicate it isn't.
You're talking to a guy who flies the U.S.S. Johnston in a fleet named Taffy 3. I happen to know a bit about Samar oddly enough.
Yes the Japanese were amazed and impressed by a bunch of destroyers that punched above their weight, and in fear that they were about to encounter even more formidable foes, did withdraw giving the strategic victory to the US.
However many of the little tin cans including my brave namesake were sunk. By far most of the damage to the Japanese was done by aircraft (almost 400 American planes in total) and not those destroyers whose role was harassment and the spreading of confusion (and in this they did an heroic job).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar#Aftermath
An aegis cruiser can whips out a carrier with one hit a world away.
That is why carriers have more than one ship protecting it.
Well, yes and no. I found this a bit interesting concerning Aegis.
Aegis is a defensive system, and has nothing to do with it.
Also the comparison is rather silly. An US Carrier is more than one ship. By itself, a carrier can do little other than sail and provide a power supply to a city
Rather it should be considered as part of a weapon system, i.e.:
It's a mobile Airfield with around 100 aircraft capable of performing nearly any airborne mission including early warning and command and control.
It's also a fleet of support ships tasked with it's defense including Aegis equipped surface vessels and attack submarines.
It is not deployed in one vs. one combats, and talking about it in such terms is nonsense.
Simply put, the US Navy does not deploy Battlestars at this time, it deploys Battle Fleets.
Abstractions for the sake of gameplay.
Also, the real-life comparisons are silly. Larger naval vessels usually have a stupidly powerful powerplant(The U.S.S. Enterprise ran on 8 nuclear reactors, for example) and propulsion system in them that can typically outrun smaller ships. While the higher mass means it does take a lot longer to slow down, it also lets them pivot in water faster/with less effort than a smaller ship would. Battleships were traditionally lined with a lot of armor plating to absorb the punishment of being such a large target - they were designed to kill ships while taking damage that others couldn't(they protected the smaller ships, not the other way around). Smaller ships are smaller targets(which is why modern/future designs are moving in this direction) and cheaper/faster to make. Carriers aren't direct-combat vessels, they're mobile strategic bases, hence the entire task force surrounding them.
The hard part of larger ships, both in space and sea, is that you've got more structural stress to worry about while under (de)acceleration. Heck, it's common for even race cars to warp their frames over the course of a race, and even fixing that is no trivial matter. Star Trek kind of gets to cheat with the whole "Inertial Dampeners" thing, so it's really hard to even speculate about the whole size versus acceleration thing(larger ship = more power = stronger dampeners?). For all we know, the larger the ship, the more agile it could be(which generally seemed to be the case for things like the Scimitar and Borg Cubes).
This almost certainly was the case TOS, afterwards there are indications both ways. Things got confused and even the most basic concepts became unsettled.
Like can phasers be used at warp speed or not? It's gone both ways since TNG on.