On Broadswords...

[Ilanin]

Is there any particular reason the WCPedia and Encyclopaedia articles for the A-17 Broadsword list it with a crew of 1?

I'm sure somebody must have had a good one at some point, but WC2 seems to contradict it fairly thoroughly.

ANGEL: You will fly this mission in a Broadsword. Your turret crew is on the flight deck.

ANGEL: Because of the losses taken during the last campaign, we have a shortage of top gunnery officers for bomber missions. The gunnery stations will be manned by a pilot in addition to the gunnery teams. Maverick, I will be your Chief Gunnery Officer for this mission, along with Loubet and Miller.

I know that Maverick and Angel like each other, but the two of them in a one-crew ship might impede performance of the mission, and they probably wouldn't want two others watching anyway.

I think the 2665 variant, at least, has four crew.

 

[Wedge009]

I can only imagine that, for whatever reason, incorrect or not, only pilots were considered in the crew count.

For the latter quote, Angel is clearly taking one of the turret positions, along with the other two gunners.

 

[Saturnyne]

Is this the part where I say "Angel can handle my turrent any day"?

 

[frostytheplebe]

I also remember them talking about the "Gun crew" aboard the broadsword on more then one occasion in WC2.

In my mind, I always looked at the Broadsword as sort of a light Corvette then an actual bomber. It's larger then almost any other fighter/bomber in the game and definitley more heavily armed.

 

[-danr-]

In my mind, I always looked at the Broadsword as sort of a light Corvette then an actual bomber.

I think a few people hold the same opinion, I don't know know the defining difference between a heavy fighter/bomber and a corvette.

I guess a corvette being a small capship has its own breathable environment, and space to move around inside...whereas in the fighter, you're strapped in and rely upon supplied oxygen to breathe. I don't know if you could take a Broadsword on a week long deployment, but a Venture on the other hand carries its own supplies and life support facilities without having to land on a carrier.

Purely supposition

Also - not to take the thread O/T, does anybody know if like the Sabre and Broadsword, the WC3 heavy fighters have a rear gunner aboard? I seem to remember understanding that the Thunderbolt and Longbow have computer programmed rear turrets.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Is there any particular reason the WCPedia and Encyclopaedia articles for the A-17 Broadsword list it with a crew of 1?

You are, obviously, correct that the Broadswords in Wing Commander II (and elsewhere) had a crew of four. WC2 goes through great lengths to remember that gun crews exist (ie, making sure Spirit's gunner has been killed in an explosion before she can ram the station--which, convenient as it is, really is a spectacular bit of forethought). Broadsword gunners show up elsewhere, too--the novelization of Wing Commander 4 says that Bean, the down on his luck pilot at the start of the game, began his career as a Broadsword gunner.

My best guess would be that the WCPedia hasn't made it to Wing Commander II yet and so has only been updated for Broadswords that appear earlier in the timeline--those in the Wing Commander movie and on Wing Commander Academy operate with a single pilot and a series of automated guns. They do seem to have a co-pilot's seat (and even space for additional crew, seen in Academy)... but it's only sometimes occupied.

In my mind, I always looked at the Broadsword as sort of a light Corvette then an actual bomber. It's larger then almost any other fighter/bomber in the game and definitley more heavily armed.

I believe Milk Run specifically says that a corvette is a jump up from a bomber and a step below a destroyer.

Also - not to take the thread O/T, does anybody know if like the Sabre and Broadsword, the WC3 heavy fighters have a rear gunner aboard? I seem to remember understanding that the Thunderbolt and Longbow have computer programmed rear turrets.

They do carry live gunners, but this is not referenced nearly as often as those in the Wing Commander II fighters/bombers. The Wing Commander IV novelization, I believe, is the only place that remembers them. There's one point where Blair has to scramble unexpectedly in a Thunderbolt and is told that there hasn't been time to find him a gunner--so he has to use the inferior computer program. There's also a passage where he notes the tail-gunner of a Longbow targeting him.

 

[Dundradal]

My best guess would be that the WCPedia hasn't made it to Wing Commander II yet and so has only been updated for Broadswords that appear earlier in the timeline--those in the Wing Commander movie and on Wing Commander Academy operate with a single pilot and a series of automated guns. They do seem to have a co-pilot's seat (and even space for additional crew, seen in Academy)... but it's only sometimes occupied.

The Broadsword pages is one of the ones I'm working on for improvements. See it's discussion page with where I'm trying to go with it in the future.

 

[Farbourne]

I think a few people hold the same opinion, I don't know know the defining difference between a heavy fighter/bomber and a corvette.

I guess a corvette being a small capship has its own breathable environment, and space to move around inside...whereas in the fighter, you're strapped in and rely upon supplied oxygen to breathe. I don't know if you could take a Broadsword on a week long deployment, but a Venture on the other hand carries its own supplies and life support facilities without having to land on a carrier.

Purely supposition

They may be similar in combat capabilities, but they are completely different types of ships. Consider the size of some of the corvettes we see:

Venture: 80 m, 1,000 tonnes
Kamekh: 135 m, 1,300 tonnes
Kamrani: 110 m, 5,500 tonnes

Now consider some bombers and "Superheavy Fighters":

A-17 Broadsword: 36 m, 100 tonnes
A-18 Crossbow: 24 m, 40 tonnes
Grikath: 18 m, 27 tonnes
F/A-76 Longbow: 38 m, 22 tonnes
Paktahn: 37 m, 30 tonnes
Sorthak: 38 m, 22 tonnes
F-107 Lance: 40 m, 26 tonnes
TB-81 Shrike: 28 m, 18 tonnes
TB-80 Devastator: 36 m, 23 tonnes

Most bombers, like superheavy fighters, run in the 20-40 ton range. The Broadsword is more massive than all the others, but even it is only about 100 tonnes. Bombers run in the 25-40 m length range.

Corvettes are generally 2-3 times longer, and 10 - 20 times more massive. They simply are much, much bigger ships than bombers. A corvette could never fly off a carrier.

And even their operational capabilities are probably quite different. Yes, both carry torpedoes, strong forward-firing guns, missiles, and usually some turrets. However, a bomber is generally good for in-system use, with maybe the capability for one or two jumps. A corvette is a self-sufficient interstellar ship that can roam from system to system without needing to refuel.

 

[Farbourne]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the movie Broadsword (the CF-131) was a distinctly different craft than the Broadsword (A-17) that appears in Academy and WC2, just as the movie Rapier (CF-117) was distinct from the medium fighter flown in WC1/2 (F-44). Not only does the ship look completely different, but it's size and tonnage are radically different as well...

 

[frostytheplebe]

I believe Milk Run specifically says that a corvette is a jump up from a bomber and a step below a destroyer..

Whoa, the LOAF HAS RETURNED!!! Did you bring the stone tablets with the WC commandments on them?

Anway, yeah I remember that. It's kind of a bit of gray area to me especially if you look at the WC3 Kilrathi corvette, it isn't MUCH more heavily armed then the Broadsword, though it is much larger.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Whoa, the LOAF HAS RETURNED!!! Did you bring the stone tablets with the WC commandments on them?

Soon enough.

Anway, yeah I remember that. It's kind of a bit of gray area to me especially if you look at the WC3 Kilrathi corvette, it isn't MUCH more heavily armed then the Broadsword, though it is much larger.

Taking down a WC3 corvette is a heck of a lot tougher than taking out a Paktahn, though--so there's your answer (basically). Beyond that, I think the idea is that they carry some more significant weapons that don't affect the fighter combat in the game overly much--like the skipper missiles carried by those same WC3 ships (or larger caliber laser cannons for ship-to-ship fighting).

Their sustainability, previously mentioned, is important too--look at the Johnny Greene, on patrol for *two years* without returning to base versus a bomber that could operate for a matter of hours off of a carrier.

 

[frostytheplebe]

Their sustainability, previously mentioned, is important too--look at the Johnny Greene, on patrol for *two years* without returning to base versus a bomber that could operate for a matter of hours off of a carrier.

Hadn't thought of that... well played Loaf!

 

[-danr-]

Farbourne - thanks for listing all the ship sizing stats, certainly puts things into context, damn though, that Kamrani has gained weight on its predecessors.

 

[ChrisReid]

damn though, that Kamrani has gained weight on its predecessors.

That's an interesting thing to think about. Clearly the only thing we know for certain is that there is a large difference in their masses, but it might be fun to theorize why. Maybe the Kamrani carries some "heavy" ordnance that the others do not (though such a thing probably wouldn't be factored into the ship's mass). Maybe its thicker armor plating was achieved through simply plating on more and more layers of common material instead of using a more advanced alloy. It does have a wider and more wedge shaped body, so perhaps its density isn't really any greater than the more streamlined hulls of the other corvettes after all.

 

[Dundradal]

Skipper/Capship Missiles stored on board?

 

[-danr-]

Yeah new weaponary is a possibility, along perhaps with extra protection.

The Kamekh boasts 300cm of armour basically all-around, whereas the Kamrani is blessed with more than double that amount at 800cm per side.

Although similar in length to the Kamekh, the Kamrani appears denser, chunkier.

 

[frostytheplebe]

It does have a wider and more wedge shaped body, so perhaps its density isn't really any greater than the more streamlined hulls of the other corvettes after all.

See this is what I thought when you compare the corvettes. Or perhaps Kilrathi ship designs had increased in size overall. I mean factor in the WC3 Dreadnought.

 

[ChrisReid]

See this is what I thought when you compare the corvettes. Or perhaps Kilrathi ship designs had increased in size overall. I mean factor in the WC3 Dreadnought.

I don't know if that is a good comparison piece. The Dreadnought has a very very low density relative to other warships.