What were Confed Battlewagons armed with?

if you could get something to punch through the thing's shields I would rather target something of more tactical importance than some structural beams
 
I dunno. Structural beams tend to be important to, you know, the structure.
 
LeHah said:
I dunno. Structural beams tend to be important to, you know, the structure.
Click to expand...

If you're already through the shields, I'd personally avoid taking just ANY structural beam, unless it was the only one keeping the engines on the ship, or was similarly critical. By that point, you've got better targets - the engines, the bridge, guns, hangars (if any), shield generators...
 
Yes, because in war the enemy just sits around for a couple of minutes, sipping tea and eating bree while you choose what part of a ship to hit.
 
LeHah said:
Yes, because in war the enemy just sits around for a couple of minutes, sipping tea and eating bree while you choose what part of a ship to hit.
Click to expand...

Short form - if you're already through the shields, the engines or the bridge are probably bigger targets which will allow for a better payoff when hit than a simple structural beam, unless that beam was critical for maintaining the ship's integrity when it turns. At the very least, you could take down a shield emitter and then leave them open to less advanced weaponry, if you're talking about limited-use shield penetrating weapons like torps. If you're driving a big capship with capship-scale guns, then hitting anywhere would do some damage... but hitting the guns, engines, or bridge would provide a better return on investment, as it were.

If you're flying a fighter... you HAVE to go for a good target. Otherwise, you've wasted a torp and possibly your life for a non-critical hit, especially if the bulk of your torp's explosive capability was wasted on the support beam instead of on an engine which blows up really nicely.
 
Considering where the structural beams were... if they placed the powerplants in the engine section, severing that would disconnect firing control(likely on-bridge, since most of the guns were there), and probably eliminate the use of the main guns, as well as possibly life support, for either end. So, while targeting the engines would be a good thing, it wouldn't neccicarily destroy the ship, engines don't always go *boom* when they stop working... sever that main artery, and the forward section(bridge, etc) goes black, and the aft loses all viability(most of the plunkett's turrets were on the forward end, if I recall correctly). 1 well-placed big-boy torp would split that sucker in two, while it would take 3-4 to do it by the numbers... (one per engine, then one to the bridge)

short version- OH YEAH? YO MOMMA!
 
I'd imagine the primary reactors to be towards the front of the ship where the largest area is.

Besides, the Plunkett was one of a new era of ship design where every subsystem that couldn't be targetted was completely invulnerable to any and everything!
 
I don't think it's anywhere near that easy to say what would destroy a Plunkett -- size is no indicator of strength in a ship designed to operate in zero gravity... the so-called "weak" points may be solid durasteel beams, versus the "fat" parts are environment areas full of oxygen and munitions.
 
That's exactly what I thought...
The "puny" beams are probably very strong, whereas the engine exhausts are far more vulnerable. Not to mention that the beams seem to be plated with armor. All in all, I see no weakness here.

And the thing is really armed to the teeth, Dual Laser Turrets (22), Triple Heavy Particle Cannons (3), Triple Heavy Plasma Cannon (1)... Good luck shooting at it.
 
I actaully have kind of an aside question. Between all of us we have probably seen every scifi ship design there is. So i ask can anyone tell me why this design of connecting the "drive" section of a ship via a bar like structure to the rest of the ship is so popular. I can think of shipes with this neck like part in almost every scifi universe can someone tell me why designers always use it. Examples Earth cruisers from B5, romulan and klingon ships, nebulon B frigates from star wars, Discovery in 2001.
 
I personally think it's usually ugly and stupid. But in SOME of these movies/books etc. this concept makes some sense, in a technobabble way.
 
I suppose the engines and reactors are located in the aft part. So if anything nasty that has to do with radiaton, poisonous gas etc. happens there, it's easiear to seal it off, and if the whole part blows up it's more likely for the crew in the forward part to survive.
 
One of the original "realistic" methods for high speed travel through space was to detonate nuclear explosions to propell a ship forward - that was the idea behind the afore mentioned Discovery, IIRC. A lot of 'modern' futuristic science fiction ships have evolved from that initial concept, in design if not by method.
 
Discovery using bomb propulsion? I think I remember using overly large reactors that required distance, but not much about masses of bombs going off back there.
 
Battleships

COuldnt the Concordia be considered a Battleship? I always considered a dreadnought in the WC universe to be a Battleship w/ a full compliment of fighters to boot. Most carriers only had turreted Lasers, which I always saw as defensive weaponry, however the Confederation class had the PTC and 8 Anti matter guns for use against other cap ships. This thing was designed for a fight.
 
Chernikov said:
Discovery using bomb propulsion? I think I remember using overly large reactors that required distance, but not much about masses of bombs going off back there.
Click to expand...

There was a Project Orion that proposed using small nukes dropped out the back to detonate, and have the blast hit against a deflector plate at the back, against which the blast would push and drive the ship forward.

information
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I don't think it's anywhere near that easy to say what would destroy a Plunkett -- size is no indicator of strength in a ship designed to operate in zero gravity... the so-called "weak" points may be solid durasteel beams, versus the "fat" parts are environment areas full of oxygen and munitions.
Click to expand...

The "vulnerable" sections are probably just a few corridors wrapped in thee times as much armor as the "big" sections.
 
Dyret said:
The "vulnerable" sections are probably just a few corridors wrapped in thee times as much armor as the "big" sections.
Click to expand...

Actually, the vulnerable sections aren't probably going to see as much armor, if only because that increases ship's mass substantially - and in a cruiser or destroyer, mass means you're either going to need even bigger (and more expensive, plus more easily targeted and destroyed) engines to carry all that weight, or you give up armor or weapons. It's a lot less damaging to hit a solid durasteel beam, versus crew compartments or weapons storage spaces, even if there's some armor there.

I doubt that the ship design would be just 'a few corridors',if only because they need space to store crew, engines, food, torpedoes, missiles, life-support systems, extra repair parts....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top