Plunkett-class cruisers

oh, bye the way, what does IIRC stand for anyway? you guys use that all the time and I never get it.
 
Originally posted by Ghost
Capiche.
Click to expand...

why thank you :)
*runs for dictinary*
eek2.gif
 
Hey... going by looks...

The "Ranger" class looks exactly like the "Concordia" class. Plus or minus a little "bulge".

Why would you exactly mirror a design and only make it bigger to perform a very different role?

Yet, despite looks, "Concordia" carries 90 fighter craft, carriers enough work/store areas to support these 90 fighter craft, the class largely survived the war, despite the WC material which stated Confed's fleet carrier status was less than 10 after suffering 50% losses. There isn't room in the numbers to support a class that survives throughout the war somewhat intact.

As to "standard fleet carrier", I'm ignoring WW2.. we're goign to talk supercarriers.. which are largely more intricate, capable, and comparable to ships in role of the WC universe...WWII carriers were cranked out like Cruisers and Destroyers..

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_super.htm

You will see that Forrestel ships led way to the Kittyhawk class, which led way to the JFK class. The ships in these classes were constantly updated, and even underwent some changes while under construction... Forrestal,KH,JFK all follow the same construction lines but each are a result of trial-error.

As for the Nimitz class, depending on how you view it, there is but 3 Nimitz class ships, and the rest are sometimes called Theodore Roosevelt class.. due to the huge difference in construction methods (Teddy was constructed a bit more modularly if I remember) and equipment capabilities.

So what material source lists the Victory as "Ranger" class? And what material gives the "Concordia" class 90 craft?
 
Originally posted by Gagarin
Hey... going by looks...

The "Ranger" class looks exactly like the "Concordia" class. Plus or minus a little "bulge".

Why would you exactly mirror a design and only make it bigger to perform a very different role?

So what material source lists the Victory as "Ranger" class? And what material gives the "Concordia" class 90 craft?
Click to expand...

Look the rear of the Concordia they aren´t the same, look the Aft, and all sides.

The Victory Streak, Tolwyn in WC3
 
Originally posted by Gagarin
As to "standard fleet carrier", I'm ignoring WW2..
Click to expand...
Why? The clarification of "during wartime" was clearly stated. Why ignore the most prominent example of maritime warfare?

Originally posted by Gagarin
we're goign to talk supercarriers.. which are largely more intricate, capable, and comparable to ships in role of the WC universe...WWII carriers were cranked out like Cruisers and Destroyers.
Click to expand...
And this somehow invalidates them? I don't think so. The ESSEX-class is generally regarded as one of the most successful classes of ships EVER. You cannot simply ignore that because the might of the US industrial power cranked them out quickly.

Originally posted by Gagarin

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_super.htm

You will see that Forrestel ships led way to the Kittyhawk class, which led way to the JFK class. The ships in these classes were constantly updated, and even underwent some changes while under construction... Forrestal,KH,JFK all follow the same construction lines but each are a result of trial-error.
Click to expand...
And the point is...what? Fact remains, they are still different CLASSES of ships. Of course there are improvements and updates -- that's WHY they're different classes, because those changes are major across the design board.

Originally posted by Gagarin
As for the Nimitz class, depending on how you view it, there is but 3 Nimitz class ships, and the rest are sometimes called Theodore Roosevelt class.. due to the huge difference in construction methods (Teddy was constructed a bit more modularly if I remember) and equipment capabilities.
Click to expand...
Uh, no, there is no "depending on how you view it". These ships are all NIMITZ-class, period. "Sometimes referred to..." merely is a means to clarification. There are certainly some (relatively minor) differences ship to ship (as is also quite common), but ultimately they were built from the same basic plans. The USS RONALD REAGAN, lanched but a few months ago, is clearly designated a NIMITZ-class carrier. And the next carrier, CVN-77, though a transitional vessel and markedly different, is even considered an "enhanced NIMITZ".

You're reaching here....

[Edited by OriginalPhoenix on 05-01-2001 at 00:08]
 
I don't understand what you're going on about -- none of the original Concordia class ships survive the war... but the *design* itself is produced throughout the conflict. Confed was building Concordia's when the war started, and they were still turning them out in '69.

Ranger class comes from Action Stations, the Concordia class ships fighter complement comes from the WCIV novel.

Re: Launch Tubes. Of course the Tiger's Claw has launch tubes -- have you ever taken off in WC1? You run down a hall, following a sign that says "TUBES 6-9"... and then you get shot out of a small tube...
 
The Concordia doesnt have launch tubes but the Tiger's Claw does, as scene in WCATV. Those arent just crappy graphics cause you can see what the flight deck looks like in the landing sequence, which is definitly rectangular, but the tubes are more oval
 
hay i am trying to build a model of the tiger's claw from scratch. i am trying to build the one from wc1. if anybody has any drawings i can look at or possably any pictures i can look at. thanks for helping out
 
So the Tiger's Claw in effect has launch tubes and landing hangers much like the Midway? (Only possibly reversed, hanger being foreward on the TC)

Interesting they went back to this design after Confederation and Ranger classes had just the landing hanger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top