The Durangos are way better than he Rangers

[Delance]

Well, reading the M6 fiction, I'd like to make a comment. Durangos are much better than Rangers. They do handle themselves well in combat. Remember the "Outruan Ella" mission? The Intrepid stands fine on its own against a confed destroyer. Capship against Capship, the Intrepid wins. Would a Ranger? Unlikely. The confed frigate and corvette have the same end.

Yeah so the Intrepid was getting its engines kicked by the Vesuvius, the *supercarrier*. So what? Every single pre-WC4 carrier would, including the bengals.

 

[Starkey]

Starkey: "Well, carriers don´t fly themselves, Delance."
Delance: "Right, Major. It is the men, isn´t it?"

The Intrepid had a hell of a crew, highly skilled pilots (Maverick, Maniac, Hawk, Panther, etc.), excellent fighters (Dragons, Bearcats) modified by a great mechanic. They had to beat all the odds to survive WC4. The same crew in a Ranger would probably get past Ella more easily. Comparing stats, the Rangers are bigger and better than the Durangos.

 

[Filler]

Remember Bengals are newer than Rangers too.

 

[Quarto]

Ah, while there's no doubt about the Durangos having better capship combat capabilities than Rangers, I think you missed the point of the article, Delance. As carriers Durangos suck. Sure, they suck less than the Rangers, but what doesn't? What's being discussed here is the long-range power projection capabilities - that is to say, the fighters.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Delance
Well, reading the M6 fiction, I'd like to make a comment. Durangos are much better than Rangers. They do handle themselves well in combat. Remember the "Outruan Ella" mission? The Intrepid stands fine on its own against a confed destroyer. Capship against Capship, the Intrepid wins. Would a Ranger? Unlikely. The confed frigate and corvette have the same end.

Yeah so the Intrepid was getting its engines kicked by the Vesuvius, the *supercarrier*. So what? Every single pre-WC4 carrier would, including the bengals.

What is M6 fiction?...

 

[Delance]

Re: Re: The Durangos are way better than he Rangers

Originally posted by Quarto
Ah, while there's no doubt about the Durangos having better capship combat capabilities than Rangers, I think you missed the point of the article, Delance. As carriers Durangos suck. Sure, they suck less than the Rangers, but what doesn't? What's being discussed here is the long-range power projection capabilities - that is to say, the fighters.

Yeah yeah it's not a big fighter complement. I don't have the numbers, but it sure is less than a big carrier. But note that the Intrepid, I think, is a light carrier, which means it has lots of stuff a escort carrier doesn't. It's more of a small version of a larger carrier than a transport with a hangar bay like the rangers.

Originally posted by Starkey
The Intrepid had a hell of a crew, highly skilled pilots (Maverick, Maniac, Hawk, Panther, etc.), excellent fighters (Dragons, Bearcats) modified by a great mechanic. They had to beat all the odds to survive WC4. The same crew in a Ranger would probably get past Ella more easily. Comparing stats, the Rangers are bigger and better than the Durangos.

However, this has nothing to do with what I said. The intrepid by itself is able to destroy 3 confed capships. If you don't attack the confed capship and only take their escorts, the Intrepid will engage them and kick their ass.

Rangers can't face enemy capships on direct combat.

Originally posted by Filler
Remember Bengals are newer than Rangers too.

Are they? So what? Isn't the Durango is newer than all those ships? What does it prove?

Originally posted by Preacher
What is M6 fiction?...

Fiction for the mission 6 of UE.

 

[Starkey]

Re: Re: Re: The Durangos are way better than he Rangers

Originally posted by Delance
Ranger: a transport with a hangar bay

Precise definition.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Delance
Yeah yeah it's not a big fighter complement. I don't have the numbers, but it sure is less than a big carrier. But note that the Intrepid, I think, is a light carrier, which means it has lots of stuff a escort carrier doesn't. It's more of a small version of a larger carrier than a transport with a hangar bay like the rangers.

i believe that the ranger class carrier is classified in WC3 and the books as a light Carrier, not an escort carrier. a transport with a hanger is more like the Tarawa, which is an escort carrier

However, this has nothing to do with what I said. The intrepid by itself is able to destroy 3 confed capships. If you don't attack the confed capship and only take their escorts, the Intrepid will engage them and kick their ass.

Rangers can't face enemy capships on direct combat.

well, the reason for that is that the ranger class light carriers were designed specifically as light carriers. light carriers arn't designed to take capships on head to head. hell, carriers in general, with the excpetion of the vesuvius, arn't designed to go head ot head with capships. they use their fighters to take out any threat. the durangos started out as heavy destroyers, which are designed to go head to head with other capships, that were then modified by the Border Worlds to become carriers. that is why a durango can survive a capship battle that a ranger would be killed in. but in a carrier battle, the ranger would kill the durango.

 

[Quarto]

Re: Re: Re: The Durangos are way better than he Rangers

Originally posted by Delance
Yeah yeah it's not a big fighter complement. I don't have the numbers, but it sure is less than a big carrier. But note that the Intrepid, I think, is a light carrier, which means it has lots of stuff a escort carrier doesn't. It's more of a small version of a larger carrier than a transport with a hangar bay like the rangers.

The Intrepid is... a heavy destroyer with a hangar bay. The Ranger is a light carrier - indeed, it even looks like a smaller copy of the larger Concordia-class ships. Now, I've sorta made the assumption that the Intrepid nonetheless has a few more fighters onboard than a Ranger, but certainly not by much.

 

[TCSTigersClaw]

I dont think that Durangos have more ships than a Ranger........

 

[Eder]

Rangers have a fighter compliment of 40, don't they?
I doubt the Intrepid has less fighters than that... Hell, even the Tarawa had something like 40-50 fighters, and you couldn't even operate a squadron of Broadswords off the damn thing.

--Eder

 

[Delance]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Durangos are way better than he Rangers

The BWS Intrepid is a heavy destroyer that was converted into a light carrier. A light carrier that can do serious damage on its own. Those class names can be misleading...

And it's highly likely that the Intrepid had much more fighters than a Ranger. Force once, it was called up to conduct complex operations on systems like Circe or Speradon. And it even had extra room to accommodate new acquisitions like the Bearcats and the Dragons. The Inptreid as working bellow it's total capacity. Also, its fighters had to face very large fighter wings: From the TCS Lexington, the Ella Superbase AND it escorts, and of course the TCS Vesivius. The Vesivius was defeating the Intrepid, but the fighter wing of the Intrepid was still holding own. Yes, the Intrepid had ace pilots, but so did the Vesivius. They were involved in the black lance operations after all. Also, it's not only the Dragons flying, you can see Vindicators landing and taking off as Blair talks to Pliers.

 

[Napoleon]

delance you forget several issues.

The rangers at the time of WC3 were i believe over 80 years old, they were ancient relics of old technology.

I also do not believe that the durangos carried more fighters than the rangers, i imagined the durangos to carry somewhere around 30 fighters that were operable, probably several more in storage.

The durango is a converted heavy destroyer, it isnt a light carrier by design, it is jury rigged. The ranger is a miniature Concordia (Well actually the concordia is an upscaled ranger, the ranger came several years earlier).

A carrier's abilities in capship combat are very unimportant because if you allow enemy capships to get near your carrier you derserve to lose. What matters is the antifighter abilities and the fighters of the carrier itself.

 

[Raptor]

Capital ship combat ability seems to be much more important for carriers in WC than in real life. We've seen far too many cases of carriers slugging it out with other capital ships (virtually every game, in fact, as well as quite a few of the novels) to put it all down to incompetent captains or crew screw ups.

Best, Raptor

 

[WildWeasel]

Well, you're open to far more angles of attack in space than you are at sea.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Napoleon
I also do not believe that the durangos carried more fighters than the rangers, i imagined the durangos to carry somewhere around 30 fighters that were operable, probably several more in storage.

Why do you think so? This is very unlikely, for the reasons I stated. The Intrepid lead operations that required a significant number of figthers. And it also stand on its own against the fighter wing of a superbase + escorts and then a supercarrier, all alone.

The durango is a converted heavy destroyer, it isnt a light carrier by design, it is jury rigged. The ranger is a miniature Concordia (Well actually the concordia is an upscaled ranger, the ranger came several years earlier).

The Concordia is very strong on capship combat. It has incredbly powerful anti-capship weapons. It's the prime example of a carrier that can face other capships by itself.

A carrier's abilities in capship combat are very unimportant because if you allow enemy capships to get near your carrier you derserve to lose. What matters is the antifighter abilities and the fighters of the carrier itself.

On sea vessels, yes. On WC space vessels, this is nonsense. The Concordia did engage other ships head on. It does so on the very first missions of WC2. It is nearly unavoidable that sometime some capship will face your carrier. It's the mistake the fiction of UE talks about: having lots of escort carriers with the same fighters as a good strike carrier isn't the same thing.

While the ideal is to take out targets with the fighters, sometimes this isn't even an option. And if you carrier can take other capships, then it combine the firepower with the fighters, like the Intrepid on Ella.

 

[WildWeasel]

I hope you're not confusing the Concordia class from Wing Commander IV with the TCS Concordia from Wing Commander II.

 

[TCSTigersClaw]

Originally posted by WildWeasel
I hope you're not confusing the Concordia class from Wing Commander IV with the TCS Concordia from Wing Commander II.

The guys made it clear that they are talking about the Upscaled Ranger ---> Concordia Class (Wc4).

 

[TCSTigersClaw]

DELANCE: The Intrepid had no other choice,thats why it worked alone.Also,the Intrepid had almost 99% of their Fighters operational.That means that it could use them all in a big time mission.You cant compare it with the Victory (Ranger Class).We only see it in action during war time.Lots of damage,a lot of Fighters not operational etc.

In a similar situation with the Intrepid,the Ranger Class would do just fine.

 

[Raptor]

Actaully, the Intrepid was in a lot of big battles (the cruisers, the scrap with the Lexington, Ella, the Vesuvius), with all the attendent fighter losses, damage, and loss of crew. You can't really argue that it had some huge situation advantage over the Victory.

Best, Raptor