Battlecruisers
> From what I hear of the new ship design rules we should be able to have
proper battle cruisers ("The agility of a cruiser and the firepower of a
battleship but don't kick it, your foot might go through the hull"). Strange,
I hate the things but I want to be able to model them properly and I am
looking forward to the new Chatham book on them. In SF I always assumed they
were almost exactly the same as a battleship
only without the several metres of foamed steel/ceramic armour, the
reduced mass giving better acceleration at the expense of durability.
> Michael Blair wrote:
> Battlecruisers
> proper battle cruisers ("The agility of a cruiser and the firepower of
Yup. Live fast, die young, like :-/ And in the FB design rules a BC with
the same armament as a BB will in all likelyhood be a bit larger - just
as many wet navy BCs were larger than wet navy BBs with similar armaments (but
heavier armour and weaker engines).
> Strange, I hate the things but I want to be able to model them
> and I am looking forward to the new Chatham book on them.
They didn't seem to work very well in naval practise, either - though
that may be because the admirals tried to use them as battleships rather than
as cruisers...
> In SF I always assumed they were almost exactly the same as a
That depends entirely on what background you're reading. Most military SF I've
read (notably but certainly not exclusively Weber <g>) use "battlecruiser" as
an intermediate size between "heavy cruiser" and "battleship" instead of using
your (historically correct) definition.
Later,
> Michael Blair wrote:
Thrust 8 battlecruisers on toast: just the thing for those cold days in space.
:)
'Neath Southern Skies