Hull Numbers

[Dragon1]

Hello everybody,

The confusion of Confed carrier hull numbers has always perplexed me. I have created a list using many sources, including Mr. Lesnik's valuable ship list in the Article section of the wcnews.com site and the WC Bible. I have tried to make it is canon as possible.

We know that Victory class Light Carriers were designated "CV", that Bengal class Carriers were also "CV" and that the only canon variations we have seen have been CVS (Terran Confederation class), CVE (Wake Island and Eagle class), and CVX (Midway class). I have tried to resolve the overlapping of some of the hull numbers of various carriers.

Please read through the document and tell me what you think.

 

[d3r3k]

Good job. The document looks very well researched.

 

[Dragon1]

Of course, most of the names of the carriers are conjecture, I have tried to keep a general theme within each class. I am not sure how many Lexington class carriers served at all, so I could be completely in left field.

The Tiger's Claw from the movie of course had a different look than in the game. We could chalk this up to artistic interpretation of the story, but I have chosen to accept the movie design and say that the game design was actually a redesign. This could justify why WC1 made the assignment to the Claw a real attraction. Also, the Ranger class in my spin of the Wing Commander Universe appeared more like the Tiger's Claw from the movie until a major refit/reconstruction in the early 60s.

I am going to do a section of other Confed capital ships based on Bandits ship list and the WC Bible soon. Does anyone have a date on when the Concordia class Super Cruiser came into service? Further, would anyone know when they were retired or destroyed? We know that the Concordia survived until at least 2656, but would have to be out of service by 2661. The TCS Vanguard wasn't at the Pegasus fleet base ambush and thus perhaps survived the war. Any thoughts?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

We know that Victory class Light Carriers were designated "CV", that Bengal class Carriers were also "CV" and that the only canon variations we have seen have been CVS (Terran Confederation class), CVE (Wake Island and Eagle class), and CVX (Midway class). I have tried to resolve the overlapping of some of the hull numbers of various carriers.

There's also CVA, for the TCS Trafalgar from End Run.

It's certainly an impressive effort, but I have to admit it feels kind of awkward to me.

I really don't think adhering to information in the Bible is necessary - particularly when it's completely contradictory, like the early take on the Confederation-class designation. The Bible is certainly a historical curiosity, but it isn't worth the e-paper it's e-printed on for deciding arguments about anything.

The bit about the Lexington being the 'TCS Quinson' and then being renamed after the Battle of Earth is sort of odd for several reasons. For one, he's a sitting politician. Further, he's a sitting politician who doesn't fit the name scheme you've given the ships (American presidents)... and he's also someone who isn't important (or president of anything) until the Battle of Earth. The idea that the Confederation is building a class of ships named after their current Vice President until he becomes a relevant figure so they rename it something else is a strange one.

I think you're jumping through a lot of hoops to explain things that have easier answers. These are the hull numbers we know:

CV-7 - TCS Tiger's Claw
CV-40 - TCS Victory
CV-44 - TCS Lexington
CV-48 - TCS Princeton
CV-70 - TCS Vesuvius
CV-71 - TCS Mt. St. Helens

CVS-14 - TCS Confederation?
CVS-65 - TCS Concordia

CVX-1 - TCS Midway

CVE-4 - TCS Sevastopol
CVE-6 - TCS Normandy
CVE-8 - TCS Tarawa
CVE-12 - Tarawa-type?

The easy explanation is that Confed reuses numbers - so the Tiger's Claw can be CV-7 in 2644 and the Lexington and Princeton can replace the '40 series CVs' (meaning the Victory and her sister ships) retired at the end of the war.

There's also some ugly fanon in there:

* The 'Jutland-class' does not refer to a modified Waterloo-class Cruiser.

* The Confederation-class isn't a conversion of anything. This was a longstanding fan explanation that had no basis in fact.

* We need to stop giving ships more elaborate class types than they actually have - Fleet Tactics is a horrible offender for this. Ranger-class Light Carrier, Waterloo-class Cruiser, Midway-class Heavy Carrier and so forth are fine. Giving them additional words like heavy or scout or advanced just makes everything more confusing.

I am going to do a section of other Confed capital ships based on Bandits ship list and the WC Bible soon. Does anyone have a date on when the Concordia class Super Cruiser came into service? Further, would anyone know when they were retired or destroyed? We know that the Concordia survived until at least 2656, but would have to be out of service by 2661. The TCS Vanguard wasn't at the Pegasus fleet base ambush and thus perhaps survived the war. Any thoughts?

There's no firm date. They were "developed" in 2635 and the Concordia became the flagship in 2645... but there's no absolute date for service entry. Plenty of Concordia-class supercruisers are referenced in Pilgrim Stars, so it's possible that there are others that could have survived the war.

 

[Dragon1]

Thanks for the tips Bandit!

I agree, the WC Bible has some interesting things in it, but on the whole seems somewhat contrived.

The bit about the Lexington being the 'TCS Quinson' and then being renamed after the Battle of Earth is sort of odd for several reasons. For one, he's a sitting politician. Further, he's a sitting politician who doesn't fit the name scheme you've given the ships (American presidents)... and he's also someone who isn't important (or president of anything) until the Battle of Earth. The idea that the Confederation is building a class of ships named after their current Vice President until he becomes a relevant figure so they rename it something else is a strange one.

The Lexington class has been something of a curiosity to me. I had stated that the 1st of the class was originally something other than Lexington (I had happened to pick 'Quinson') primarily because it didn't make sense to me that Confed would build and name a carrier (and an entire class) after one that is already in service and in no way near retirement (until of course the disaster at Earth in 2668). Did "Fleet Action" reference the name of the new carrier class under construction, or is this more fanboy conjecture based on the heavy carrier Lexington seen in WC Armada?

* The 'Jutland-class' does not refer to a modified Waterloo-class Cruiser.

This one I took directly from the WC Bible. Of course, we have already discussed the Bible as being non or semi-canon. The WC Bible makes it pretty clear that the Jutland-class CVA (also mentioned only in the Bible) is a Waterloo class cruiser converted to a carrier. My problem with this is that the Waterloo already carried something like 40 fighters. So why any further modifications? I did prefer to use the semi-canon bible's take on the CVA as opposed to the modders Jutland. On second thought though, I might just remove the class entirely.

CV-70 - TCS Vesuvius
CV-71 - TCS Mt. St. Helens

This I was always funky about. The WC4 game shows both ships as 01 and 02, although sometimes they switch which is which. I freely admit my ignorance in this matter.

Total # of Concordia-class Carriers built 66 or is this more fan speculation based on the 8 units per 5 year quote?

What do you guys think about my idea for the Ranger-class? Good, or should I scrub it?

I really appreciate the criticism! I plan to redo a good portion of the document and make it as true to the canon as possible.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The Lexington class has been something of a curiosity to me. I had stated that the 1st of the class was originally something other than Lexington (I had happened to pick 'Quinson') primarily because it didn't make sense to me that Confed would build and name a carrier (and an entire class) after one that is already in service and in no way near retirement (until of course the disaster at Earth in 2668). Did "Fleet Action" reference the name of the new carrier class under construction, or is this more fanboy conjecture based on the heavy carrier Lexington seen in WC Armada?

Oh, I understand your reasoning -- it's just that Quinson isn't a very good choice for a ship entering service in 2668. (On the other hand, there's perfectly reasonable explanations why the intent could have been to name the first ship Lexington all along. There's the idea that it was a covert ops project and maybe it was intentionally misleading... or maybe Confed planned to replace the current Lexington with the new ship when it entered service, much as the next generation of real carriers will probably start with 'Enterprise' even though there's one in service right now.)

This one I took directly from the WC Bible. Of course, we have already discussed the Bible as being non or semi-canon. The WC Bible makes it pretty clear that the Jutland-class CVA (also mentioned only in the Bible) is a Waterloo class cruiser converted to a carrier. My problem with this is that the Waterloo already carried something like 40 fighters. So why any further modifications? I did prefer to use the semi-canon bible's take on the CVA as opposed to the modders Jutland. On second thought though, I might just remove the class entirely.

Sorry, I guess I thought you were referring to a debate we've had here before. The version of the Bible online is missing the 'modifications' note for the Waterloo - it's not referring to the Jutland-class. The Bible was trying to explain two separate things:

* A class name for the CVA Trafalgar.

* An attempt to explain why the Waterloo-class TCS Gettysburg is 'counted' as a carrier in End Run.

The 'modifications' never really became part of the continuity and instead the Kilrathi Saga manual opted to just give all Waterloo-class ships 40 fighters.

This I was always funky about. The WC4 game shows both ships as 01 and 02, although sometimes they switch which is which. I freely admit my ignorance in this matter.

Yeah, they mixed up the textures in some of the cutscenes and didn't have time to re-render them (rendering high resolution CGI was a lot tougher in 1995). The novel says that the Vesuvius and Mt. St. Helens will be CV-70 and 71.

Total # of Concordia-class Carriers built 66 or is this more fan speculation based on the 8 units per 5 year quote?

Yeah, it's all speculation based on the initial number being built in 2634 and the number we know have to enter service at various points towards the end of the war.

What do you guys think about my idea for the Ranger-class? Good, or should I scrub it?

Eh, there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't really see the need --
there's nothing wrong with the Victory being around for the entire war.

 

[Dragon1]

The 'modifications' never really became part of the continuity and instead the Kilrathi Saga manual opted to just give all Waterloo-class ships 40 fighters.

Interesting. I have noticed that from the novel referrences that after the Battle of Earth, through WC3 and WC4, we see a large number of the older Tallahassee class Cruisers with the occasional heavy cruiser (Agamemnon or Achilles). Actually, I think the only Waterloo even mentioned is the TCS Centurion (in the 'Victory Streak' manual), although I may be wrong about that. Did most of the Waterloo class get it prior to WC3?

What I might actually do is delete all the hull numbers and place them only on special ships mentioned specifically in the canon (with the side note that Confed hull numbers change frequently).

This feature of changing hull numbers is quite peculiar from an American perspective, but the Russian Navy has always had a tradition of changing numbers (they are actually mission specific as opposed to hull specific).

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Interesting. I have noticed that from the novel referrences that after the Battle of Earth, through WC3 and WC4, we see a large number of the older Tallahassee class Cruisers with the occasional heavy cruiser (Agamemnon or Achilles). Actually, I think the only Waterloo even mentioned is the TCS Centurion (in the 'Victory Streak' manual), although I may be wrong about that. Did most of the Waterloo class get it prior to WC3?

It's not as much that as it is that the novels and manuals usually reference the ships seen in their games... but that's not really enough to be telling. We know, for instance, that Waterloo-class ships were around in 2654 -- but we can't expect to see one in the original Wing Commander.

(We only know that the Centurion is a Waterloo-class ship because she shows up in Special Operations 2.)

 

[psych]

Actually, I think the only Waterloo even mentioned is the TCS Centurion (in the 'Victory Streak' manual), although I may be wrong about that. Did most of the Waterloo class get it prior to WC3?.

There was the TCS Agincourt from WC2. Then there was a Tallahassee-class TCS Agincourt in the WC3 card game, which probaly means the Waterloo Agincourt was destroyed before the events of WC3.

 

[Dragon1]

Bandit, I just found that list of active carriers (year-by-year breakdown) that you did some time ago.

The note you made about the Bengal class stated that 37 ships were constructed in two blocks between 2619 and 2656 at a rate of one per year.

I am thinking of re-writing what I had on the Bengal class to conform to this. I like the idea of including both the movie design and the game design. What I might do is state that the Block I ships remained unchanged throughout the war, whereas the Block II underwent an exterior reconstruction in 2654 (after the events of the movie, but prior to the Vega campaign).

Any thoughts of resonably canon specs for the CVA Trafalgar, or is it pretty much open to interpretation? Would it be unreasonable to list the Trafalgar as Jutland-class, or would this simply be conjecture? I am not totally against using conjecture when the facts are missing, but I do not want to run over stated information with my fanboy immagination.

On a quick off topic note, it would appear that Confed ships stopped using durasteel armor in or around 2660 and switched to plasteel (rated 10x stronger according to Wing Commander Privateer). Then by 2669, Tungsten (20x durasteel) was the primary amor material. Would this be a valid assumption? I ask because I am currently do a specifications write-up for the Tallahassee class. This ship was in service right around the beginning of the war, and the stated armor for the ship in the WC3 manual are too high for the period. Also, AMGs which do 30 cm. of damage would easily cut through a capship of the WC1 period, although we know that they were in service as early as the 40s, did the Tallahassee originally incorporate these guns or were they a product of weapons refits?

Thanks all!

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The note you made about the Bengal class stated that 37 ships were constructed in two blocks between 2619 and 2656 at a rate of one per year.

That's based on Claw Marks' claim that the TCS Tiger's Claw entered service in 2644 and the TCS Kipling followed in 2645. It's impossible to be certain with only two reference points, but that was certainly the intent at the time. (The dates, 2619 and 2656, are from The Confederation Handbook.)

I am thinking of re-writing what I had on the Bengal class to conform to this. I like the idea of including both the movie design and the game design. What I might do is state that the Block I ships remained unchanged throughout the war, whereas the Block II underwent an exterior reconstruction in 2654 (after the events of the movie, but prior to the Vega campaign).

There's no real time for the Tiger's Claw to be refit -- and it's kind of awkward to say that all the movie ships happened to have their designs changed entirely(Besides, that still leaves the alternate looks internal to Wing Commander I, the alternate design in Wing Commander Academy and the alternate design in Super Wing Commander -- style is a battle you can't win).

In terms of the alternate set of specifications provided in The Confederation Handbook, I would say that was the version of the ship built from 2619 to 2643 -- and that the 2642 redesign that lead to the Tiger's Claw is the set of specifications provided in Claw Marks.

Any thoughts of resonably canon specs for the CVA Trafalgar, or is it pretty much open to interpretation? Would it be unreasonable to list the Trafalgar as Jutland-class, or would this simply be conjecture? I am not totally against using conjecture when the facts are missing, but I do not want to run over stated information with my fanboy immagination.

I don't mind calling the Trafalgar Jutland-class... it's just that everyone got far too excited about the name the minute the Bible showed up. Think about it -- the thing is referenced in a grand total of three sentences in End Run:

* "'Damn, the whole fleet's here,' Janice announced, and she pointed out CVA Trafalgar, cruising astern of the flagship, the four carriers surrounded by a swarm of corvettes, destroyers, cruisers, supply ships, minesweeps, and light battle frigates."

* "'How many carriers will we be facing?' a rear admiral, the commander of the Trafalgar, asked."

* "We lost the Trafalgar, and Gettysburg will be in dry dock for a year."

Give it a name and suddenly every fan fiction, fan project and fan web site wants to talk about the amazing Jutland-class ships that were apparently soooo important to the war.

(Which is also to say that there's certainly no specifications or pictures of her.)

On a quick off topic note, it would appear that Confed ships stopped using durasteel armor in or around 2660 and switched to plasteel (rated 10x stronger according to Wing Commander Privateer). Then by 2669, Tungsten (20x durasteel) was the primary amor material. Would this be a valid assumption? I ask because I am currently do a specifications write-up for the Tallahassee class. This ship was in service right around the beginning of the war, and the stated armor for the ship in the WC3 manual are too high for the period.

That's always been the speculation - there's also Isometal, which is 60x Durasteel.

Also, AMGs which do 30 cm. of damage would easily cut through a capship of the WC1 period, although we know that they were in service as early as the 40s, did the Tallahassee originally incorporate these guns or were they a product of weapons refits?

The version that does 30 cm of damage entered service in 2667, according to the Kilrathi Saga Manual, so that's a non-issue. Earlier versions would have different specifications.

In all likelyhood, Tallahassee-class ships with AMGs are a modern development -- because we see them laser batteries instead of AMG emplacements in Wing Commander IV.

 

[Dragon1]

Ok cool!

I am in the process of re-writing the document (without most of the hull numbers).
I will take your advice on the Bengal-class. I am also doing a doc on all fighters, the standard ones as well as the esoteric ones.

The Terran Confederation class, I have limited to a total of three ships that have entered service. All were destroyed or retired by late 2669. A fourth was in production, but when the problem with the PT-Cannon was discovered in the early 60's the ship was delayed. The entire construction program was cancelled by 2665. I am no longer going by the Bible's BAH designation, from the start, they all have CVS.

The Jutland class will be a replacement for the block I Bengal class (as per the Confederation Handbook reference of a possible Bengal replacement). The ships began commissioning in 2657, but only 3 units were produced to make funding avaliable for the TC-class Dreadnoughts and the later Lexington class Carriers.

I plan to use the Armada stats for the Lexington class (excepting Mass which is way too low) and the Fleet Tactics stats for the Jutland class. Weapons have always appeared to be variable, because the games never modded all the weapons onto Capships.

The earlier AMG which we see on the Concordia Super Cruiser will do 10cm. of damage which is closer to the turreted Neutron gun of the same period which did 7cm.

The Armor scheme will go something like this...
Bengal-class 2619-2657 24cm. of durasteel (forward) = 24cm. fore protection
2657-2668 24cm. of plasteel fore= 240cm. fore protection
2669- 24cm. of tungsten fore= 480cm. fore protection
...and if a Bengal remained in service post-war...
24cm. of isometal fore= 1440cm. fore protection

Tallahassee class Cruisers commissioned in the early period of the war will be armed with 6 dual laser turrets, 4 dual neutron turrets, and 2 early flak guns, plus torpedoes.

Does all this mesh with you guys?

 

[Dragon1]

Ok. here is the new document.

Again, I am trying to make it is canon as possible. So by all means, criticise it as much as you want.

By the way, I really am a fan of the Fleet Tactics website. I think the amount of work that has gone into that project is just incredible. My project is not meant to slight that site at all, I just want to develop a resource for myself and anyone who wants it, that comes as close the games, novels, and movie as possible.

Thanks for your time and support!

 

[Dragon1]

Ok, here is the specs of all Confed capital ships that I could find. This includes obscure ships like the Valiant-class Destroyers. I have used Durasteel / Plasteel / Isometal as the three main armor components. Durasteel has a x1 modifier, Plasteel has a x10 modifier, and Isometal has a x60.

I also rounded some of these figures, so a Ranger-class Light Carrier in 2669 had 1000 cm (forward) equivalent of durasteel or 16.55 cm of isometal. Even though 16.55 x 60 = 993, it is close enough to were I don't have to say 16.66666666_ cm of isometal.

Hope you guys enjoy! Please tell me if something here rubs you wrong!

 

[Halman]

I don't understand the point of this if you're picking and choosing stuff to include and ignore when you don't think origin was right.

 

[Dragon1]

What was it that I ignored?

I might add some conjecture in the form of names, but I am trying to keep this as close to canon from all sources (books, games, manuals, and obscure references) as possible. I would like to think that by assembling all this data from all periods of the WC universe that many people making MODS (something I have no capability or knowledge in) could benefit from this.

It is my way of trying to give something back to the community. Even if it is small in comparison to the WC Saga or Standoff projects.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

It's late, so I apologize for anything that sounds crazy or anything I missed. Here's my comments, super bulleted list style. It's a good project you're working on, so please don't take any of my notes as being in any way mean spirited.

Battleships/Carriers Document

* CSS v. TCS. 'CSS' is only seen in the original game (the CSS Suffolk) and on the movie patches. In the latter case, 'TCS' is used in spoken dialogue in the movie. The idea that they go from 'CSS' to 'TCS' at some point doesn't make sense because we see ships with the latter earlier and the former later. It's such a tiny reference, too, that it's probably not necessary going through all this to try and explain it. (Easier explanation: the Suffolk belongs to some other Alliance faction.)
* Cruise Missiles. You give a lot of ship classes cruise missiles... but to the best of my knowledge, they don't actually show up anywhere in Wing Commander.
* 'Bathesda' should be 'Bethesda'.
* 'Solus Planum' should be 'Solis Planum'.
* 'Perron' should be 'Peron'.
* The reference to selling a battleship to the Goddard militia is awkward, because it doesn't really make sense. For one thing, a militia buying a battleship sounds more like the punch line to the joke about the Air Force having a bake sale than it does something that could actually happen. Can you see the USN ever selling an Iowa-class battleship to anyone as anything but scrap (similarly, can you ever see the Coast Guard or a private militia unit operating a ship like that?). Second, a battleship to defend Goddard would change the story of The Secret Missions -- why rush to Goddard when they've got a battleship to protect them!
* You gave the 2537-vintage battleship torpedoes.
* There's a reason armor is given in equivalents everywhere -- because doing multipliers in your head makes comparing values awkward. Just give everything in durasteel equivalents.
* The TCS North Carolina survied McAuliffe.
* One of the weapons mentioned in Action Stations is mine launchers onboard the North Carolina.
* Ranger-class needs a CapShip Missile Launcher - and as long as you're handing out weapons, throw these onto some of the 'older' ships, per Victory Streak.
* Action Stations implies that pre-war fleets are built around ten battleships and three carriers. Two such fleets participate in the Panama System War Games (2622)... which is to say, you need more ships.
* Your crew complements in general seem high -- but specifically the Bengal-class. The complement given with the "Flight I" specifications in TCH is 600, and the complement given for the Tiger's Claw in the WC12USG is 750.
* The Bengal-class is already far too heavily armed. Don't give it missile launchers.
* No need to create a system of variants for the Anti-Matter Guns -- all the guns in Wing Commander increase in capacity throughout the timeline.
* There's a reference to the Concordia-class having 84 fighters circa Action Stations. You could work that in.
* 150 kps for the Concordia-class Fleet Carrier.
* Based on an End Run reference, I'd give the Jutland-class 167 fighters and 3,400 crew.
* 2660 is the earliest date for the Confederation-class, as we need five years from the capture of the Sivar's remains (2655) to build the first one.
* Don't add lasers to the Confederation-class.
* I'm not a fan of adding 'Island' after 'Wake' for the CVEs.
* Service entry date for the CVEs is 2667.
* Fighter complement for the CVEs is 45 (three squadrons of 15).
* The history note is wrong, the CVEs were nine (military) heavy transports converted into escort carriers.
* The speeds given in End Run for the Tarawa are 100 kps cruising, 247 kps maximum and 10,080 kps scoops closed.
* Weapons included one quad-barelled heavy neutron cannon, two medium caliber mass driver cannons, two particle cannons and several missile launch racks (single tube).
* Lexington-class is a Heavy Carrier, length should be 725 meters. Mass is the ever-disappointing 3,250 tonnes. Speed is 50 kps. Weapons should be ten flak guns.
* 60 seems like an awful lot of fighters for an escort carrier (Eagle). I've also never liked the idea of calling the darned things Eagle-class just because we happen to see one named Eagle.
* Crew complement for the Vesuvius-class should be 7,800.
* Your Behemoth-class specs are very odd. First, I'd drop the old fan-made 'dreadnaught' classification and refer to it as a Behemoth-class Weapons Platform (re: the WC3 PSX guide). Then I'd throw out all the heavy weapons and fighters you're giving it because... it's the Behemoth, it's not a carrier, it's a giant space gun, not an ordinary ship of the line.
* The Midway entered service in 2680.
* All of the Midway's laser-turrets were dual mount, and she also had six IFF missile launchers.

Cruisers/Destroyers Document

* First off, production runs. Destroyers and cruisers should make up the bulk of both fleets -- TCH claims the Kilrathi have thousands of Ralari and Fralthi... presumably, the Confederation has similar numbers for its tin cans, and that a lot of the war we don't see in our carrier games is destroyer and cruiser base battles.
* Kudos on Antietam as a theoretical class name... though I have half a mind to suggest you go with the strange example of the TCS Manassas and call it Sharpsburg-class
* Crew complement for the Tallahassee-class is 360.
* The WC3 'frigate' is a destroyer model, not a cruiser model. The frigate thing is odd, I'm not sure what you're trying to explain.
* Crew complement of the Concordia-class is 700. Fighter complement is twenty.
* Gettysburg class is a plain Cruiser, no 'Heavy' (Fleet Tactics at work).
* You forgot my favorite Concordia-class ship, the TCS McClellan.
* The Gettysburg-class carrier a single squadron of fighters (16?).
* I'm not going to fool with the Plunkett or Murphy, save to suggest you look at https://www.wcnews.com/loaf/Murphy.doc and https://www.wcnews.com/loaf/Plunkett.doc
* The Union of Border Worlds didn't exist in 2672.
* Can somebody find the actual passage about the Valiant-class? Because I can't find it.
* The TPoF novelization claims that Caernavon-class ships are being retired after the war -- so they won't be around in 2682.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Zinc, found it - the Valiant-class Destroyer is from Action Stations and not Fleet Actions, and it's said to be 'ancient' in 2634.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I figured it'd be good to get some talkin going on this one -- your Sheffield explanation was complex, but too daunting for me at 2 AM. Here's what we have to work with regarding the WC3 and WC4 destroyers:

Tallahassee-class in WC3
(8) Dual Mount Laser Turret
(4) Dual Mount Anti-Matter Gun
(1) CapShip Missile Tube
Shields: 3,000 cm ea.
Armor: 1,000 cm ea.

Tallahassee-class in WC4
(12) Dual Mount Laser Turret
(1) CapShip Missile Tube
Shields: 600 cm ea.
Armor: 400 cm ea.

Sheffield-type in WC3
(8) Dual Mount Laser Turret
(1) Dual Mount Anti-Matter Gun
(1) CapShip Missile Tube
Shields: 2,000 cm ea.
Armor: 1,000 cm ea.

Sheffield-type in WC4
(9) Dual Mount Laser Turret
(1) CapShip Missile Tube
Shields: 600 cm ea.
Armor: 400 cm ea.

Furthermore, we know that there are both an early version like the Sheffield without a fighter half-squadron and a later version like the Coventry with one.

(Of course, the mechanical reason for doing so is that in Wing Commander 3 you had to protect them and that in Wing Commander 4 you had to blow them up... so they were 'downgraded'.)

 

[Dragon1]

Wow,

I will work this in. It will take some time.
The Cruise Missile Launcher thing I admit I took from the Fleet Tactics website. I will correct this. For now read Cruise Missile Launcher as CapMiss Launcher.

At the wcnews.com/ships2 page, Terran and Kilrathi ships have laser turrets and laser batteries. Would anyone know what the damage potential of the LB would be?