The transports that ferried the marines were Marine Transports, armed with alot of weapons and such...maybe the transport Tarawa is based off of is a multipurpose transport, able to be converted to many things...but I don't think it's a marine transport, due to the fact that the held the marine transports in the hangar w/ the fighters, and not just one trans, many.
hey all
- Thread starter Sabre
- Start date
psych
Destroyer of assclowns
I hope you guys know that "Wake" thing is rather incomplete, it was based after the Battle of Wake Island. A rather infamous Marine battle in which the defenders (US Marines) were defeated by the Japanese forces but they were outnumbered and put up a valiant fight.
The point is, that same novel that referenced the "Wake" name also mentioned an incomplete name "Iwo" as well. And the CIC ship list referred to the "Iwo" by its full name, the TCS Iwo Jima.
In addition, my bet is that cover is another escort carrier, CVE-12.
The point is, that same novel that referenced the "Wake" name also mentioned an incomplete name "Iwo" as well. And the CIC ship list referred to the "Iwo" by its full name, the TCS Iwo Jima.
In addition, my bet is that cover is another escort carrier, CVE-12.
Your confusing the 2 marine craft. Theres the Marine transport (thats what Tarawa was escorting) and the Marine Landing craft (thats what was stored in both the Marine transport and the Tarawa). The Marine transport already has a small landing bay, so it would be an ideal carrier conversion. It would also be a reason for why the class of escort cariers have been named after "Marine" landings, originally being Mairne transports.Sabre said:
C-ya
overmortal
Bearded Person
Where's LOAF? He'll solve all of this.
Eder
Mr. Standoff
Indeed. And not in the sense that the picture itself is poorly drawn per se, but in the sense that it would be the most damn inaccurate drawing ever if it was supposed to be the Concordia, which I think is what all the stupid people were suggesting.GeeBot said:
If I thought the picture or the design on it were poor, I certainly wouldn't have spent so much time to make that damn CVE model for Standoff (and even more time afterwards to make sure it was as accurate as possible - I have a lot of "End run cover" renderings done using with my models
)Umm, I think it's pretty obvious that I said that he was claiming that if it were a Concordia, it would have to be a pretty poorly drawn one, and thus is obviously a Tarawa. And that he never claimed that the actual art was poorly drawn (unless, indeed, it happens to be a Concordia). If you look at the context, he's clearly arguing in favor of the cover art being the Tarawa, not the Concordia.
I'm not sure why you're being so argumentative, since as far as I can tell, we're on your side of this.
As for why the Tarawa looks somewhat like the Concordia, my argument here is that Confed had a certain style of carrier design, and when they converted the Tarawa, they used the same elements. Just like the Cerberus used EM catapults like the Midway, and the WC3/WC4 carriers had the fly-through covered flight deck. It's just a matter of the prevailing carrier flight deck technology at the time; when the escort carriers were being converted from transports, the open flight deck is what they were using.
Actually, the way I've heard it explained, the WC3/WC4 carriers are really just descended from the WC2 designs, with the exception that the flight decks are now covered (to defend against the 'Kilrathi kamikazes have disabled the flight deck' scenario so common in WC2
). In a way, even the Bengals are a sort of ancestor to the WC2-4 carriers, with their open landing deck/hangar.
I'm not sure why you're being so argumentative, since as far as I can tell, we're on your side of this.
As for why the Tarawa looks somewhat like the Concordia, my argument here is that Confed had a certain style of carrier design, and when they converted the Tarawa, they used the same elements. Just like the Cerberus used EM catapults like the Midway, and the WC3/WC4 carriers had the fly-through covered flight deck. It's just a matter of the prevailing carrier flight deck technology at the time; when the escort carriers were being converted from transports, the open flight deck is what they were using.
Actually, the way I've heard it explained, the WC3/WC4 carriers are really just descended from the WC2 designs, with the exception that the flight decks are now covered (to defend against the 'Kilrathi kamikazes have disabled the flight deck' scenario so common in WC2
). In a way, even the Bengals are a sort of ancestor to the WC2-4 carriers, with their open landing deck/hangar.
overmortal
Bearded Person
1) Tarawa's deck isn't an "open" or "uncovered" deck, or whatever the heck you're calling it. Tarawa's deck is quite similar to that of the Victory or Lexington, just much much smaller, and doesn't run the entire length of the vessel.
2) the TCS Victory is a Ranger class, and I'm assuming that Lexington is either a Ranger or Concordia class (Someone verify this?). If you bother to read up on the subject, both classes of vessel pre-date even the Tiger's Claw. So, in reality, the list would go Ranger, Concordia, Bengal, Confederadtion, Wake (or CVE), and then on to Midway and Cerberus. Thus your argument of "covered" decks versus "uncovered" decks is unfounded.
3) Even in the Bengal and Confederation class vessels, the bay is covered, but has a runway extending beyond the covering of the bay, which, really, is just to look good, as there's no gravity on those runways. Because there is no gravity on the runway, the only purpose it might possibly serve is to allow pilots to have their landing gear almost on the 'deck' before they move into the gravity of the actual "covered" bay.
4) You're only serving to piss off LeHah by commenting on the whole "poorly drawn" subject. And, God knows, we already have enough rage floating around with Psych sniping at the newbies, as he is known to do.
2) the TCS Victory is a Ranger class, and I'm assuming that Lexington is either a Ranger or Concordia class (Someone verify this?). If you bother to read up on the subject, both classes of vessel pre-date even the Tiger's Claw. So, in reality, the list would go Ranger, Concordia, Bengal, Confederadtion, Wake (or CVE), and then on to Midway and Cerberus. Thus your argument of "covered" decks versus "uncovered" decks is unfounded.
3) Even in the Bengal and Confederation class vessels, the bay is covered, but has a runway extending beyond the covering of the bay, which, really, is just to look good, as there's no gravity on those runways. Because there is no gravity on the runway, the only purpose it might possibly serve is to allow pilots to have their landing gear almost on the 'deck' before they move into the gravity of the actual "covered" bay.
4) You're only serving to piss off LeHah by commenting on the whole "poorly drawn" subject. And, God knows, we already have enough rage floating around with Psych sniping at the newbies, as he is known to do.
LeHah
212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
GeeBot said:
If it is or isn't the Concordia isn't the problem here. You stated that if it is, it's poorly drawn. So, because you're too lazy to look up if it is or is not the Concordia, you're basing your opinion on a lack of information. The subject here is the art - and the unidentified subject of the work shouldn't have any affect on the appreciation of it's style or detail.
Don't be an asshat. I won't repeat myself again without using long lines of swearing and, quite possibly, long descriptions about what dark, dank hole you could shove your idiotic, uneducated art opinions.
Good day.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
I don't really mind the whole Tarawa/Concordia debate, what really pisses me off is how people say that those ugly generic things in FA's cover are the Hakagas.
Those drawings do not look like ANY ship the kilrathi ever design, they do not fit the descriptions in any of the books, and it's not written ANYWHERE that they should be the Hakagas. Some editor just slapped a crappy drawing with big spaceships on it on the cover.
Those drawings do not look like ANY ship the kilrathi ever design, they do not fit the descriptions in any of the books, and it's not written ANYWHERE that they should be the Hakagas. Some editor just slapped a crappy drawing with big spaceships on it on the cover.
overmortal
Bearded Person
1) shut up
2) take into consideration that we see a string of those "ugly generic things" making a beeline to smash earth, and that we see some sort of hideous explosion on earth surface (which tells us it's the Battle of Terra). Since those actually don't look like any other Kilrathi ship that we know of (except possibly an oddly misrendered Ralari), we have to assume that those are the Hakagas. It's obvious that they're intended to be Hakagas from the context of what's happening in the picture contrasted with what happens in the story.
3) To quote Professor Digory Kirke; "Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"
2) take into consideration that we see a string of those "ugly generic things" making a beeline to smash earth, and that we see some sort of hideous explosion on earth surface (which tells us it's the Battle of Terra). Since those actually don't look like any other Kilrathi ship that we know of (except possibly an oddly misrendered Ralari), we have to assume that those are the Hakagas. It's obvious that they're intended to be Hakagas from the context of what's happening in the picture contrasted with what happens in the story.
3) To quote Professor Digory Kirke; "Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"
Haesslich
Spaceman
Remember the rules of the forums, aye, lad?
Besides which, the cover also shows explosions large enough to cover a good section of North America, so I'd say that was an artists' rendition of what were much smaller explosions on 'real life'... since airbursts of that size would've left FAR more than a few cities destroyed, and ground bursts of that size would've left Earth a moonscape in many places if not cracked open the crust.
Besides which, the cover also shows explosions large enough to cover a good section of North America, so I'd say that was an artists' rendition of what were much smaller explosions on 'real life'... since airbursts of that size would've left FAR more than a few cities destroyed, and ground bursts of that size would've left Earth a moonscape in many places if not cracked open the crust.