What was with the Waterloo?

C

Concordia

Swabbie
Banned
I like the fact that it carried 40 fighters and all, but what the hell?

That strikes me as being more like a carrier than a cruiser. The only thing it had that made it cruiser-like was it's thin armor and (compared to the Fralthra at least) and it's speed.

-Concordia
 
Actually, while 40 fighters is a lot for a cruiser, it's still less than a carrier. The 'Claw had 104, and the TCS Lexington (from WC4) had around 80. The fact that the Waterloo is similar in stats to the Fralthra is of course to be expected, since they're both cruisers :). On the other hand, note that the Ralatha, a destroyer, carries 23 fighters. Since cruisers seem to usually carry more fighters than destroyers, the 40 fighters figure makes sense.
 
Eh, pretty much all Kilrathi ships carry some number of fighters, that isn't the same for Confed capital ships. A Confed destroyer with fighters would be the exception, rather than the rule.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Actually, while 40 fighters is a lot for a cruiser, it's still less than a carrier. The 'Claw had 104, and the TCS Lexington (from WC4) had around 80. The fact that the Waterloo is similar in stats to the Fralthra is of course to be expected, since they're both cruisers :). On the other hand, note that the Ralatha, a destroyer, carries 23 fighters. Since cruisers seem to usually carry more fighters than destroyers, the 40 fighters figure makes sense.
Click to expand...

Okay, I meant: Why do the WC2 cruisers, Kilrathi OR Confed, carry so many fighters?

-Concordia
P.S. I'm getting this "90-second flood" warning. Even though I've waited as much as 7 minutes between posts. WTF? I'll post again, and see what reason now the computer has from keeping me from posting this message.
 
Cruisers are meant to be able to hold their own if they need to (WC1-WC2 era at least), hence the fighter compliment. It's not like a destroyer or light carrier which need support from other ships to keep from being just another deb field in waiting. :D
 
Cruisers in Wc1 (Confed) had no Fighter Complement.On the other Hand Waterloo (Wc2) kicked some ass !

Then again the Tallahhasse from Wc3/Wc4 has no Fighter Complement.
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
Cruisers in Wc1 (Confed) had no Fighter Complement.On the other Hand Waterloo (Wc2) kicked some ass !
Click to expand...

This is no surprise, as, AFAIK, there weren't any WC1 cruisers. The Exeter was a destroyer, and the Venture a corvette. Of course, that doesn't bar WC1-era cruisers from turning up in the novels (which I haven't read), but just because one class doesn't carry fighters doesn't mean another we've never heard about can't. Alternatively, the difference from WC1 to WC2 could simply reflect shifting paradigms in warship construction...
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
Cruisers in Wc1 (Confed) had no Fighter Complement.On the other Hand Waterloo (Wc2) kicked some ass !

Then again the Tallahhasse from Wc3/Wc4 has no Fighter Complement.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a cruiser in WC1... you're probably thinking about the Exeter-class destroyers (although those carried 18 fighters). The Waterloo class was around during that time period as well.

The Tallahassee class carries a half-squadron of fighters.
 
how much is a squadron? i know it is usually 12, but the midway carried 252 fighters in 3 squadrons, or about 84 fighters a squadron.
 
one thing that gets me... why would Confed switch from a crusier that carries 40 fighters to a cruiser that carries (assuming that the standard WC squadron is 12 fighters) 6 fighters. since most of the fighting is done with fighters, wouldn't it make since to use a crusier that carries a lot of fighters?
 
an edition to what aries just asked that I'm wondering about is why would in wc 3 and 4 would they even have cruisers or any cap type ship without any fighter compliment. Now I can understand transports but even they have ship escorts. but having some ships with no fighter complemint is just plain stupid nin that day and age.
 
Why would a ship NOT have fighters?

Easy - internal volume, mass, or cost limits. Either a ship's frame may not have enough free compartments to house fighters and their support equipment and crew, the mass of such extra crew and equipment would be too much for the class of engines and design... or because it's too expensive to station a bunch of fighters and support staff on there.

Besides, with jeep/escort carriers... you've got a handy solution for covering ships that can't support their own fighter half-squadrons. :D
 
The other thing you have to realize is the ships in WC3 are, for the most part, pre-war ships. Victory is an old Ranger class carrier they pulled out of mothballs... It's quite possible (although LOAF will probably correct me here) that Coventry and the destroyers are also older designs. Pretty much all of the newer carriers and most of the newer capital ships were lost or damaged at the Battle of Earth.
 
Originally posted by Jumper
The other thing you have to realize is the ships in WC3 are, for the most part, pre-war ships. Victory is an old Ranger class carrier they pulled out of mothballs... It's quite possible (although LOAF will probably correct me here) that Coventry and the destroyers are also older designs. Pretty much all of the newer carriers and most of the newer capital ships were lost or damaged at the Battle of Earth.
Click to expand...

Coventry was a new destroyer, which is why it had a half-squadron of fighters. Ajax was older, IIRC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top