Jutland class

Nob Akimoto

Rear Admiral
Just flipped through the WC Bible, noticed something about the description preceding the Jutland class.

The Waterloo is post-scripted with the words-

"Waterloo-class cruisers are also configurable as carriers, with these modifications:"

Followed immediately by the Jutland stats.

The similarity in tonnage and lack of generalized stats seems to suggest that they're based on the same keel or even just varients of eachother rather than the Jutland being a totally new/different design.

Has anyone ever come to a consensus on this description? In a way if that were the case, it could clear up the whole Gettysburg being referred to as a carrier issue, if we assume that the name was simply a holdover after a carrier conversion.
 
The bible is fun, but we can't really consider any new data in it to be part of the continuity.
 
The name is non-canon, but the unnamed class of attack carrier to which it refers comes from End Run.
 
LOAF, isn't a bible supposed to be THE canon on a given "universe"? If it is NOT canon, shouldn't it be called something else? Like WC Apocrypha
 
A bible is a writers guide, nothing more - it's value today is that it helps understand where a lot of elements in some of the fiction came from from an external standpoint... but no one requires it to be continous with anything, since a) it isn't published, and b) it's been superceded by lots of later products.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
The name is non-canon, but the unnamed class of attack carrier to which it refers comes from End Run.
But that wouldn't exclude that this attack carrier is only a waterloo carrier version.
Tarawa is also called Escort carrier although it is nothing more than a converted transport.
 
The "Waterloo carrier" blurb is to explain why the Gettysburg is counted as a carrier in End Run, not to explain what the 'heavy attack carrier' is.

The Tarawa is built on a transport hull... just like the real first group of escort carriers.
 
Thus the author made a new class of Attack Carrier which should actually serve as an explanation for the WC2 "carrier"?
 
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

What fans refer to as the "Jutland-class" is the "TCS Trafalgar" referenced in End Run, which is described as being a 'CVA'. People have connected this undefined carrier (it's not one of the known classes) with some other references that make clear that there's another major fleet carrier - things like the production numbers discussed in Fleet Action and the Confed Handbook's reference to the fact that a replacement for the Bengal-class would enter production in the late fifties.

The bible refers to this unidentified attack carrier as the Jutland-class. This, and the very brief specifications provided are not canon, because they weren't published anywhere. If you want to be completely and absolutely safe, refer to it as a Trafalgar-type CVA... but there's certainly no indication anywhere that it has anything to do with the Waterloo cruisers.
 
And Although nothing is really very clear officially on these matters, the Jutland that the Mod people designed is a true beauty.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
The "Waterloo carrier" blurb is to explain why the Gettysburg is counted as a carrier in End Run, not to explain what the 'heavy attack carrier' is.

The Tarawa is built on a transport hull... just like the real first group of escort carriers.

Thats the same one in WC2 SO right?
 
The Waterloo-class TCS Gettysburg is the one from Special Ops 1. The Tarawa doesn't show up anywhere in the games.
 
The Gettysburg was badly damaged during Operation Backlash, and at the end of End Run (2667) the claim was that it'd be in drydock for at least a year. We never see it again after this.
 
Back
Top