PTC Deactivated?

[Iceyl86]

I don't know where I read this, but after the damage the Concordia took (which I believe was a couple direct torpedo hits), the Phase Transit Cannon on the Concordia was supposedly deactivated because Confed was worried about whether the ship could handle the strain of firing that weapon after taking such severe damage.

If I'm not mistaken, the term "Dreadnought" in the Wing Commander Universe is given to ships that are built around a single main weapon, and carry, in some cases, more fighters then the standard carrier... so if the Concordia lost the ability to fire that weapon, does that make her a Mega carrier?

Also, with this in mind, shouldn't the Midway have been classified as a Dreadnought once she recieved the heavy plasma gun?

 

[Tigerhawk]

I don't know where I read this, but after the damage the Concordia took (which I believe was a couple direct torpedo hits), the Phase Transit Cannon on the Concordia was supposedly deactivated because Confed was worried about whether the ship could handle the strain of firing that weapon after taking such severe damage.

If I'm not mistaken, the term "Dreadnought" in the Wing Commander Universe is given to ships that are built around a single main weapon, and carry, in some cases, more fighters then the standard carrier... so if the Concordia lost the ability to fire that weapon, does that make her a Mega carrier?

Also, with this in mind, shouldn't the Midway have been classified as a Dreadnought once she recieved the heavy plasma gun?

You can't reassign a ship type to a ship on a whim. That's like saying you're no longer aboard an aircraft carrier during mid-cruise because it no longer carries aircraft, but thousands of troops instead...you're now aboard a troop transport because of that.

Doesn't work that way.

 

[Death]

The PTC was retired from service entirely in 2665 due to discovered instabilities of the gun that could cause a catastrophic failure that destroyed the ship on which it was mounted. It wasn't just battle damage to one ship that caused the discontinued use.

(From a purely gameplay/storyline perspective, limiting the superweapon makes sense, to not negate the usefulness of an individual pilot/player. It's not unlike "really big fucking guns" in SF anime like Macross or Space Cruiser Yamato having plot reasons to not function at full capability, though the concern is more storyline than player usefulness since there is no player about which to be concerned.)

As for the designations, even without the PTC the Confederation class wasn't exactly toothless, with 8 antimatter guns that, like the PTC, were unaffected by phase shields. There is nothing in the official fiction for WC that has any definition whatsoever of "dreadnaught", let alone one that specifies a ship so designated was designed "around a single main weapon".

 

[t.c.cgi]

I don't know where I read this, but after the damage the Concordia took (which I believe was a couple direct torpedo hits), the Phase Transit Cannon on the Concordia was supposedly deactivated because Confed was worried about whether the ship could handle the strain of firing that weapon after taking such severe damage.

I don't think it was an issue of ship damage so much as another ship of the class spontaneously exploded when using the weapon. At that point command deemed the PTC too risky to fire. After all, it was just the cherry on top of the cake. The ship was no less lethal without the weapon.

If I'm not mistaken, the term "Dreadnought" in the Wing Commander Universe is given to ships that are built around a single main weapon, and carry, in some cases, more fighters then the standard carrier...

The Kilrathi "Dreadnought" of WC3 had no super laser, PTC, or other such mega weapons. The class distinction comes from the mass and overall capability of the ship, I believe. At the time the Concordia was pretty big, and pretty damn powerful.

 

[Iceyl86]

The PTC was retired from service entirely in 2665 due to discovered instabilities of the gun that could cause a catastrophic failure that destroyed the ship on which it was mounted. It wasn't just battle damage to one ship that caused the discontinued use.

No no, I mean after the Battle of Earth, I read that the Concordia was rendered incapable of using the weapon because of her damage, I wasn't talking about the general uselessness of the weapon.

Btw... did that mean that the Confederation class was retired along with the Cannon? Or did they just build it without the gun?

The Kilrathi "Dreadnought" of WC3 had no super laser, PTC, or other such mega weapons. The class distinction comes from the mass and overall capability of the ship, I believe. At the time the Concordia was pretty big, and pretty damn powerful.

It didnt have one that we know about... but the Sivar Dreadnought had one.

 

[criticalmass]

The "dreadnought"-designation is always a tricky one - there just is no objective structural or tactical criterion for any (existing) vessel to be classified as a dreadnaught. As far as I know it's the same for Wing Commander.

Dreadnoughts take their name from a historical ship, and most often because of different but mostly symbolical reasons: The original HMS Dreadnought (Royal British Navy, 1906) was revolutionary for its time, being the first battle ship running under steam turbine power, and being the first ship with a gun-turret-only layout. The ship was faster than any other, and with its ability to swivel its guns (instead of using the traditional battery arrangement of cannons along the sides) it became the trademark of the technological lead in warfare.

While the gun configuration might have been the reason for the "dreadnought = built around a large gun" argument, it is rather the technological advances that made Concordia a dreadnought. Why the Kilrathi WC3 Dreadnaught got this class designation escapes me somewhat - it's big and powerful, but not very advanced.

 

[6and7eighths]

That's not entirely accurate; the term dreadnought does, in fact, have a textbook definition, although it's archaic to the point of being moot with advances in modern ordnance and shipbuilding technology. A dreadnought is specifically any battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more. Since it's safe to say that the vast majority of contemporary battleships meet this minimum requirement, every contemporary battleship is essentially a dreadnought.

 

[Death]

No no, I mean after the Battle of Earth, I read that the Concordia was rendered incapable of using the weapon because of her damage, I wasn't talking about the general uselessness of the weapon.

Btw... did that mean that the Confederation class was retired along with the Cannon? Or did they just build it without the gun?

What you read was incorrect. Use of the PTC was discontinued after 2665 because of that flaw, well before the BoT in 2668.

As for the class, it was still used, the PTC just wasn't fired. That the Concordia was around to be destroyed after the BoT supports that Confederation class ships were still in use, as does the fact that Confed didn't have a lot of fleet carriers after TCN was gutted by the Kilrathi drive towards Earth. The weapon wasn't removed, just deactivated, since the PTC is a structural member as well as a weapon, forming the keel of Confederation class ships.

[The WC3 kat dreadnaught] didnt have [a megaweapon] that we know about... but the Sivar Dreadnought had one.

While true, it's irrelevant to the discussion of the definition for "dreadnaught". Also, as per False Colors, the kat dreadnaught did have a capship missile launcher (the destruction of which was a focus of the attack to disable the Vorghath (sp?)), as well as other armaments besides the laser turrets we saw in WC3.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

If I'm not mistaken, the term "Dreadnought" in the Wing Commander Universe is given to ships that are built around a single main weapon, and carry, in some cases, more fighters then the standard carrier... so if the Concordia lost the ability to fire that weapon, does that make her a Mega carrier?

I believe you are mistaken. The requirements for being a dreadnought are never spelled out -- but we see several that do not have "a single main weapon": the regular Sivar, the H'var Kann (WC3), the Agon Ras Sivar (WCATV)... many of them aren't known to carry or are known to carry a limited number of fighters, too.

I don't think it was an issue of ship damage so much as another ship of the class spontaneously exploded when using the weapon. At that point command deemed the PTC too risky to fire. After all, it was just the cherry on top of the cake. The ship was no less lethal without the weapon.

Lets be clear, most of what you guys have heard about the Phase Transit Cannon is something fans created. The Kilrathi Saga Manual says this and *only* this: "Continual problems with the phase-transit cannon led to its retirement in late 2665."

There is no in-continuity story about a ship exploding... or even any definition of what 'problems' means.

Fans are a lot more interested in the stupid super-gun than anyone was ever supposed to be: they stuck that reference in Kilrathi Saga to unceremoniously get rid of the thing (it makes no sense from a gameplay perspective for the good guys to have a weapon capable of killing anything), not to explain where it was hidden in various later novels.

We know absolutely nothing about the production and retirement of the Confederation-class.

No no, I mean after the Battle of Earth, I read that the Concordia was rendered incapable of using the weapon because of her damage, I wasn't talking about the general uselessness of the weapon.

You absolutely read wrong, there is no reference to the PTC ever after the 'Kamekh' scene in Special Operations 2.

The original HMS Dreadnought (Royal British Navy, 1906) was revolutionary for its time, being the first battle ship running under steam turbine power, and being the first ship with a gun-turret-only layout. The ship was faster than any other, and with its ability to swivel its guns (instead of using the traditional battery arrangement of cannons along the sides) it became the trademark of the technological lead in warfare.

Wouldn't the Monitor be the first ship with a gun-turret-only layout (and the ability to swivel its guns)?

 

[criticalmass]

Wouldn't the Monitor be the first ship with a gun-turret-only layout (and the ability to swivel its guns)?

You're certainly right here, due to my sloppy syntax: I meant that the HMS Dreadnought was the first battleship in the British navy to simultaneously use steam turbines and the turret-only configuration. And that only as far my humble knowledge of military history goes, based on a tour through the Royal Naval Museum in Portsmouth.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Lets be clear, most of what you guys have heard about the Phase Transit Cannon is something fans created. The Kilrathi Saga Manual says this and *only* this: "Continual problems with the phase-transit cannon led to its retirement in late 2665."

Wasn't there also an arguement netween Angel and Tolwyn at one point in WC2 that its use was "too risky" or some such?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Wasn't there also an arguement netween Angel and Tolwyn at one point in WC2 that its use was "too risky" or some such?

Yes, but that problem was specific to the situation -- she's worried that the power plant could blow because it isn't at full capacity:

Angel: The Kamekh is making its attack approach now.
Tolwyn: Prepare to fire the main gun.
Angel: But Admiral, we’re only at 60 per cent power. Our power plant could blow.
Tolwyn: You heard the order, Colonel. Fire the main gun!

 

[Zebum]

LOAF is correct that HMS Dreadnought was not the first war ship to have all big guns that could fire in any direction. However the Moniter was not a battleship and also did not have guns of a lerge enough size to be counted.
Dreadnought was also the first battleship to use steam turbines. This made her the fastest, most powerful battleship in the world by some way. She was so revolutionary, that she rendered every other battleship in every navy obsolete (it would take 3-4 old battleships to lay down the same fire at one target as Dreadnought and she could outrun them), and because of this all battleships since were known as Dreadnoughts.
The Royal Navy followed this tradition of naming ships that were revolutionary Dreadnought by naming Britains first nuclear sub by the same name.
So in History at least, it would seem that the term Dreadnought is applied to a new form of warship that is so powerful, it renders everyhting else obsolete.

 

[Iceblade]

Well, wouldn't it be reasonably to assume that the WC3 Kilrathi dreadnaught was rather powerful and impresive when first discovered by Confed--this of course assumes that this capship-class has been around a while.

 

[criticalmass]

In light of the historical discussion I'd like to go back to the original question: Should the Concordia have been reclassified (even if this were possible under protocol)?

I think not. The original HMS Dreadnought was the fear of its opponents for sheer technical advancement, but not for long. Other nations quickly adopted the gun configurations, better turbines were built, and other ships became faster and more powerful in a very short time. THe Dreadnought never saw any real action, and by WW1 she was outpaced and outgunned by every major battleship in the European theater, bering ordered to do backwater patrols (see any parallels?). She indeed was the only battleship to sink a submarine in WW1 - by accidentally ramming it - and was never able to play out her forces.

But she wasn't renamed (which would have been easier than reclassification, but let's let that stand as a technicality), and as Zebum says, even then got honored by having her name becoming the symbolic designator for technical quantum leaps, such as the nuclear sub.
Now, we can argue if it is at all smart to name a ship as dreadnought when you can be sure that in a few years time it will only draw pitiful smiles - but it has nothing to do with a reasonable classification system. It is just as much marketing as any soda you ever bought is claiming to be the most refreshing, revolutionary and best.

 

[Quarto]

Now, we can argue if it is at all smart to name a ship as dreadnought when you can be sure that in a few years time it will only draw pitiful smiles.

Huh? Going by that logic, why not just name all your ships "useless piece of scrap metal"?

 

[Iceblade]

Huh? Going by that logic, why not just name all your ships "useless piece of scrap metal"?

Ah Quarto, you actually gave me a laugh with that statement.

Well, you do have to look at one thing about classifying a ship a dreadnought, for a few years time that ship is the baddest thing around. Then it is scrap metal.

 

[Iceyl86]

LOAF is correct that HMS Dreadnought was not the first war ship to have all big guns that could fire in any direction. However the Moniter was not a battleship and also did not have guns of a lerge enough size to be counted.
Dreadnought was also the first battleship to use steam turbines. This made her the fastest, most powerful battleship in the world by some way. She was so revolutionary, that she rendered every other battleship in every navy obsolete (it would take 3-4 old battleships to lay down the same fire at one target as Dreadnought and she could outrun them), and because of this all battleships since were known as Dreadnoughts.
The Royal Navy followed this tradition of naming ships that were revolutionary Dreadnought by naming Britains first nuclear sub by the same name.
So in History at least, it would seem that the term Dreadnought is applied to a new form of warship that is so powerful, it renders everyhting else obsolete.

\

Also, the "Dreadnought" design was retired at the end of world war 1... most likely due to one of the dumbest moves in history: The Washington Treaty, which was a treaty to reduce the size of warships in all allied navies... how long do you think the Axis abided by this treaty!?

 

[TankGunner]

Also, the "Dreadnought" design was retired at the end of world war 1... most likely due to one of the dumbest moves in history: The Washington Treaty, which was a treaty to reduce the size of warships in all allied navies... how long do you think the Axis abided by this treaty!?

Actually, most nations held on to their battleships until the beginning of WWII. But production of battleships was shifting more and more to carriers, which weren't as tightly regulated.

Germany, which was the main aggressor in WWI abided by the treaty until after the rise of Hitler in the late 1930s. But by they, most nations had seen the war comming and were slowing rearming. Also, the league of nations was powerless to enforce any parts of the treaty.

 

[Quarto]

Germany, which was the main aggressor in WWI abided by the treaty until after the rise of Hitler in the late 1930s. But by they, most nations had seen the war comming and were slowing rearming. Also, the league of nations was powerless to enforce any parts of the treaty.

Germany did not abide by the treaty, because it was not a signatory of the Washington Treaty (...or the London Treaty). Germany's rearmament was limited by an entirely different treaty (Versailles) - and when Germany started rearming, it did so with the permission of the UK.

Also, the League of Nations had nothing to do with any of these treaties, so obviously it wasn't able to enforce them - in the same way that today's United Nations cannot enforce military agreements or peace treaties signed between individual member states.


Oh, and finally, I'd sure love to hear somebody explain in what way was the Washington Treaty a problem for the Allies. It limited the construction of battleships? It forced them to convert some of their battleships and cruisers in production into carriers? Wow, that's really a terribly harmful thing to happen right before WWII. I'm sure the US and UK would have had a much easier time winning the war if they had less carriers and more battleships .