> On 16 Sep 96 at 11:42, johnjmedway wrote:
> Massive == durable? Idunno. Most of those ships seem to brew up
I had the same opinions about big ship durability until 'Shadow Dancing'. In
the big space battle in that, on at least two occasions large (i.e. cruiser or
equiv) ships get hit by beam fire and keep on going. With bits missing yes,
but they keep on going. Plus the casualties coming back suggest ships taking
damage but not losing hull integrity completely. Also, it seems Shadow vessels
aren't as
impregnable as we first thought - a Narn ship manages to take one
out using only a main beam weapon. Finally, the only Minbari cruiser we see
destroyed is the subject of a combined attack by three shadow vessels. This
implies that in general 'new race' ships are tougher than we at first thought,
at least when not taken by surprise.
As to relative mass, I would say a EA vessel of the same volume as a
Minbari Cruiser would prbably be heavier - one consistent form of
technical advance is that the materials to construct things get
lighter without losing strength - carbon fibre vs. steel, for an
example..
> >> The capital Ship weaponry needs to be sufficiently powerful, and
It appears the strategy in B5 is to start with your fighters out front, then
put your small ships in behind them, THEN put your capital ships at the back.
The 'waves' combat each other until all are merged then we get a free for all.
Please also remember that a squadron of B5 fighters did an awful lot of damage
to a centauri battlecruiser in (I think) 'Fall of Night'.
TTFN
Jon
As to the damage that small fighters can cause capital ships then I think
there are many 'wet' navy examples fighters/airpower doing large
amounts of damage. Pearl Harbour an attack on an unprepared fleet at anchor,
the
sinking of the Yamamto, the bombing of Taranto harbour, the hunt for the
Bismark (Crippled by a Swordfish Torpedo). The loss of Royal navy ships
in the Falklands....................... I could go on. Remember the
battle for the 1st Death Star the unknown aid turns to Darth vader and
says "....................... their too small they're evading our turbo
lasers" and lets face it you can't get capital ships much bigger than the
Death Star?
----------
From: FTGZG-L[SMTP:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk]
Sent: 17 September 1996 11:31
To: FTGZG-L
Subject: RE: A, AA, BREW, ...*B5 SPOILERS*
> On 16 Sep 96 at 11:42, johnjmedway wrote:
> Massive == durable? Idunno. Most of those ships seem to brew up
I had the same opinions about big ship durability until 'Shadow Dancing'. In
the big space battle in that, on at least two occasions large (i.e. cruiser or
equiv) ships get hit by beam fire and keep on going. With bits missing yes,
but they keep on going. Plus the casualties coming back suggest ships taking
damage but not losing hull integrity completely. Also, it seems Shadow vessels
aren't as
impregnable as we first thought - a Narn ship manages to take one
out using only a main beam weapon. Finally, the only Minbari cruiser we see
destroyed is the subject of a combined attack by three shadow vessels. This
implies that in general 'new race' ships are tougher than we at first thought,
at least when not taken by surprise.
As to relative mass, I would say a EA vessel of the same volume as a
Minbari Cruiser would prbably be heavier - one consistent form of
technical advance is that the materials to construct things get
lighter without losing strength - carbon fibre vs. steel, for an
example..
> >> The capital Ship weaponry needs to be sufficiently powerful, and
the
> >> ships sufficiently large such that fighters do not compleatly
It appears the strategy in B5 is to start with your fighters out front, then
put your small ships in behind them, THEN put your capital ships at the back.
The 'waves' combat each other until all are merged then we get a free for all.
Please also remember that a squadron of B5 fighters did an awful lot of damage
to a centauri battlecruiser in (I think) 'Fall of Night'.
TTFN
Jon